[POLITICS] Trump Admits Tax Fraud

[Agema]

Yep, morality does exist in the system with the low tier paper pushers and fed employees. Not though with the big wigs at the nation's helm. How can we say we trust the voting process when people here complained about the "Electoral College"?. How can we justify morality when people fall for the repeat lies candidates use to get elected?. It is all rinse and repeat every four years.

Society can build on improving it. It's an horrendous task - huge and complex - but doable nonetheless. It requires action at almost every level: the individual, media, the political world. I think it's probably tiring for those who try, and requires a lot of challenging - of oneself, ones friends and family. I don't think it necessarily requires huge victories at the top, though. Sometimes, I just think it requires a lot of small victories at the bottom, and the influence can roll its way upwards.

Largely, I think it depends on political interest and activism: corruption and bullshit will thrive in apathy and ignorance. I fear this is in short supply.

Yep, laws need to be changed, still who is going to actually change them. No matter the party , many of those tax loopholes have existed since the 50's. Finding those loopholes and actually getting congress /senate approval to close them would be next to impossible. Sigh.

There's an interesting question about tax loopholes, though. Do they exist because politicians won't shut them, or because they can't shut them?

The answer to that has some very important ramifications for how we think about tax.

 

[stroopwafel]

This entire paragraph doesn't address what was written. You said the report "exonerated" him, which is factually untrue.

If Mueller found serious wrongdoings of Trump in the Russia probe no doubt constitutional lawyers would have found indictment permissible, a heavily divided congress or Trump appointed attorney general would have to argue against it. Yet none of these things occured, as the report didn't provide ample evidence Trump was involved. So it might not have legally ''exonerated'' him neither were their any arguments that would prove to the contrary.

...no, "structurally underperforming" does not mean the same thing as continuously declining profits. A company can be profitable and be structurally underperforming. You don't actually understand what these terms mean.

Sure, it can also imply reduced profits or failure to launch new acquisitions or whatever other metric you employ for ''structurally underperforming''. All semantics without a bottom line.

It's not "one example". There are over 60 lawsuits featuring unpaid employees and contractors, and 24 citations for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. This has been covered not only be political opponents such as the Wall Street Journal, but by allies like Fox, or more respected institutions like Reuters. Trump himself defended the practise of refusing to fully pay contractors during the Presidential debates.

Even if Trump racketed up debt with more debt there were still banks and investors 'stupid' enough to finance his endeavours. You could argue who is responsible with so many parties involved as suits filed against eg Bayrock and the Sapir Organization were countersued and even Trump International filed suits against Bayrock. Who was actually in control? Fact remains Trump build many iconic buildings and made a brand of his name, which is probably his biggest accomplishment.

It's funny how people one time say how he sucks as a business man(probably true) and then next time hold him fully accountable for all the wrongdoings when all his organization was was an empty shell with lots of debt. All this man ever said or did was to cultivate his brand, with investors even going so far to pay him money to have TRUMP on their buildings. Ofcourse he is going to defend poor practice of that empire. It's all smoke and mirrors. How does one build a business on ego alone? You don't. You find others to do the work for you and then pretend you are the winner.

It's a peculiar accomplishment, but still an accomplishment that I don't see many others replicate.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

This entire paragraph doesn't address what was written. You said the report "exonerated" him, which is factually untrue.

If Mueller found serious wrongdoings of Trump in the Russia probe no doubt constitutional lawyers would have found indictment permissible, a heavily divided congress or Trump appointed attorney general would have to argue against it. Yet none of these things occured, as the report didn't provide ample evidence Trump was involved. So it might not have legally ''exonerated'' him neither were their any arguments that would prove to the contrary.

What " constitutional lawyers?" DO you think there are lawyers just sitting around to defend the constitution? Do you understand how the US government works? Cases have to be brought before the supreme court for that. We just had 650 prosecutors say that Trump would be indicted if he were not President.
https://www.axios.com/trump-obstruction-of-justice-former-prosecutors-b5599d27-681f-4944-b04c-9743224f55e2.html

Trump is still fighting congressional subpoenas because he is still desperately trying to obstruct justice. Trump fired Comey because of the investigation. Trump fired McCabe because of the investigation. Trump fired his own appointed Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, because of the investigation. Trump expects the head of the FBI and Department of Justice to defend him, not the law. Trump is hiding behind "executive privilege", but the second he is out of office, he loses that and cases against him can move forward.

 

[stroopwafel]

What " constitutional lawyers?" DO you think there are lawyers just sitting around to defend the constitution? Do you understand how the US government works? Cases have to be brought before the supreme court for that. We just had 650 prosecutors say that Trump would be indicted if he were not President.
https://www.axios.com/trump-obstruction-of-justice-former-prosecutors-b5599d27-681f-4944-b04c-9743224f55e2.html

Trump is still fighting congressional subpoenas because he is still desperately trying to obstruct justice. Trump fired Comey because of the investigation. Trump fired McCabe because of the investigation. Trump fired his own appointed Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, because of the investigation. Trump expects the head of the FBI and Department of Justice to defend him, not the law. Trump is hiding behind "executive privilege", but the second he is out of office, he loses that and cases against him can move forward.

You're arguing about whether Trump cooperated with the investigation or not, and this depends on the interpretation of who you ask. Similarly if the investigation was politically motivated or not. With every step there seems to be 100 legal repercussions and a similar amound of refutations. So no, I don't think Trump will be prosecuted if he's out of office(if he's not re-elected in the first place by which the allegations also exceed the 5-year expiration date) similarly as Bush jr was never prosecuted despite a huge record of providing false evidence to initiate war, human rights violations, clandestine renditions and assassination programs. Trump is like an ignorant hillbilly in comparison.

You still also don't address what the Mueller report tried to find, namely if there were exchanges between Trump's campaign team and Russian sources that would undermine U.S. democracy. The report had no findings the campaign team actively cooperated with such attempts, let alone that Trump himself was even aware. The legal maneuvering that now takes place looks more like, we can't prove any allegations of treason so let's just pin any circumstantial allegations on him, like the process itself. You can't argue in good faith that this isn't more than a little politically motivated.

Also look at what happened. The U.S. and it's allies have been divided to an historic low unprecedented in the post-WW2 world order. If the objective was to weaken NATO well that certainly succeeded. Same for the U.S. itself, more and deeper divisions than ever with people losing faith in it's democratic institutions as antagonistic party politics reach boiling point. With even the educational elite arguing more about 'identity politics' and gender than America's place in the world. It's not hard to see how this is exactly what Vladimir Putin wanted. Nothing is necessarily true unless you think it is. Who needs armies and tanks when there is this kind of psychological warfare?

Also I'd be happy Trump got rid of Jeff Sessions. That bible thumper's ambition was to turn the U.S. into a theocracy.

 

[Saelune]

Not defending Trump, but

You're saying what he is doing is ok, because it is ok to be terrible.

Yes, we are talking about the morals of this. It is immoral. If everything Trump is doing is legal, then the law is immoral.

It is not based on the concept of morality what you or I think is right. It is based upon business seeing nothing earnestly wrong with what they are doing.The men and women at the helms of these corps are not people who actually care. Simply because it's very competitive, stressful world where pay checks can be in the hundreds of millions. A whole different mindset to exist in that world, if anything Trump succeeds in that.

Yep, laws need to be changed, still who is going to actually change them. No matter the party , many of those tax loopholes have existed since the 50's. Finding those loopholes and actually getting congress /senate approval to close them would be next to impossible. Sigh.

Law without morality is tyranny.

 

[generals3]

What asthonishes me the most about all this isn't really that Trump acted as many businessmen do and utilized the tax code in his advantage to the fullest extent but how he almost brags about it. Usually these are practices big executives prefer to "hide" from the public because they realize it would damage their image. Yet here we are with a president who presented himself as "man of the people" looking out for the forgotten Americans bragging about how he (ab)used the system to pay less(zero) taxes at the expense of those depending on those taxes.

 

[Silvanus]

If Mueller found serious wrongdoings of Trump in the Russia probe no doubt constitutional lawyers would have found indictment permissible, a heavily divided congress or Trump appointed attorney general would have to argue against it. Yet none of these things occured, as the report didn't provide ample evidence Trump was involved. So it might not have legally ''exonerated'' him neither were their any arguments that would prove to the contrary.

Did you think that was the purpose/purview of the report? Mueller isn't Attorney General. I get the impression you expected something which was always out of the purview of a report.

Sure, it can also imply reduced profits or failure to launch new acquisitions or whatever other metric you employ for ''structurally underperforming''. All semantics without a bottom line.

Semantics?! You stated that "structurally underperforming" meant a decline in profits as an argument against me. You're the one who made that (incorrect) distinction as a rebuttal in the first place.

So... if that distinction doesn't hold, neither does the rebuttal. Meaning that "structurally underperforming" companies (such as many of Trump's ventures) can continue to exist and to generate profit.

Even if Trump racketed up debt with more debt there were still banks and investors 'stupid' enough to finance his endeavours. You could argue who is responsible with so many parties involved as suits filed against eg Bayrock and the Sapir Organization were countersued and even Trump International filed suits against Bayrock. Who was actually in control? Fact remains Trump build many iconic buildings and made a brand of his name, which is probably his biggest accomplishment.

Yes, you could argue about who is responsible. In many large businesses, corporate malfeasance occurs on some levels without the top brass being aware. I'm sure some of what happened happened without his knowledge.

...Except with literally thousands of lawsuits and citations, it beggars belief that the top brass was consistently unaware. The level of legal attention and citation is far above average. Not to mention that Trump has personally expressed awareness (recently during the Presidential Debates), and has defended such behaviour.

It's funny how people one time say how he sucks as a business man(probably true) and then next time hold him fully accountable for all the wrongdoings when all his organization was was an empty shell with lots of debt. All this man ever said or did was to cultivate his brand, with investors even going so far to pay him money to have TRUMP on their buildings. Ofcourse he is going to defend poor practice of that empire. It's all smoke and mirrors. How does one build a business on ego alone? You don't. You find others to do the work for you and then pretend you are the winner.

It's a peculiar accomplishment, but still an accomplishment that I don't see many others replicate.

This is such a bizarre defence. "Of course he's going to defend poor practice!"

Uhrm, yes, I never expected anything else from him. Are we meant, therefore, to excuse abusive and manipulative behaviour? Are we not meant to hold businessmen/ candidates for office to a better standard of behaviour? Are we meant to just shrug and accept it?

Of fucking course not.

 

[Seanchaidh]

What asthonishes me the most about all this isn't really that Trump acted as many businessmen do and utilized the tax code in his advantage to the fullest extent but how he almost brags about it. Usually these are practices big executives prefer to "hide" from the public because they realize it would damage their image. Yet here we are with a president who presented himself as "man of the people" looking out for the forgotten Americans bragging about how he (ab)used the system to pay less(zero) taxes at the expense of those depending on those taxes.

It's not at their expense, though, is it? That's just not how the money supply works; it is in the Eurozone, where countries don't have their own sovereign currency, but the United States is incapable of being forced into default; it defaults if it says it won't pay (debt ceiling), not because it is capable of running out of money. To a certain extent, the people know more than the politicians when it comes to fiscal policy; politicians left and right claim that there's some kind of problem with the national debt, but the reality is that the United States could have both lower taxes and more services if the appropriate legislation was passed, and the people tend to agree. It should have higher taxes on the rich, though, just to make it less easy to buy the political system.

 

[Silvanus]

It should have higher taxes on the rich, though, just to make it less easy to buy the political system.

Surely also to shift the burden of cost onto those who are more capable of shouldering it.

Sure, legislation to raise (or abolish) the debt ceiling would solve the problem at a stroke, but in lieu of that...

 

[stroopwafel]

This is such a bizarre defence. "Of course he's going to defend poor practice!"

Uhrm, yes, I never expected anything else from him. Are we meant, therefore, to excuse abusive and manipulative behaviour? Are we not meant to hold businessmen/ candidates for office to a better standard of behaviour? Are we meant to just shrug and accept it?

Of fucking course not.

Not bizarre if you figure he wasn't necessarily the one pulling the strings, but only cultivating the brand. In that context he wouldn't be dismissive of his company's practices if that was the only thing that provided value for his investors. Like I said, he built his empire mostly on his name alone.

It's not at their expense, though, is it? That's just not how the money supply works; it is in the Eurozone, where countries don't have their own sovereign currency,

Right, in theory there is this 'stability pact' in the eurozone that should regulate government spending to not exceed the debt limit but in reality it mostly comes down to western european taxpayers having to pay the debt of southern european countries. It's a huge source of discontent and besides the immigration issues probably also contributed to brexit.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1126078423816921092]


If Trump tried to influence law with bribes: thats scummy, if he broke the law: thats scummy, but if he found legal ways to get his tax as low as possible or even claim losses for a year and he did it legally, that is really the governments fault for not having a better system if it was wrong.

And scummy.

+1 Just because something has not been made illegal yet does not mean it is okay to do. Things are not harmful because they are illegal, instead it is things become illegal over time because they are harmful. Regardless of legality status, the actions are still harmful to society and yes, scummy to participate in.

See I don't know if you guys are actually saying this or not. But claiming depreciation tax cuts and tax cuts for making a net loss one year because you invested heavily into things like new equipment or whatever spending that year are not scummy to me.

If anything it rewards spending and keeps money circulating, which is good since I think economically one of the worst thing you can have is a rich person/entity hoarding their money and not spending it.

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1126078423816921092]


If Trump tried to influence law with bribes: thats scummy, if he broke the law: thats scummy, but if he found legal ways to get his tax as low as possible or even claim losses for a year and he did it legally, that is really the governments fault for not having a better system if it was wrong.

And scummy.

+1 Just because something has not been made illegal yet does not mean it is okay to do. Things are not harmful because they are illegal, instead it is things become illegal over time because they are harmful. Regardless of legality status, the actions are still harmful to society and yes, scummy to participate in.

See I don't know if you guys are actually saying this or not. But claiming depreciation tax cuts and tax cuts for making a net loss one year because you invested heavily into things like new equipment or whatever spending that year are not scummy to me.

If anything it rewards spending and keeps money circulating, which is good since I think economically one of the worst thing you can have is a rich person/entity hoarding their money and not spending it.

Unfortunately, when Trump refers to the whole affair as "sport" then it becomes fairly obvious that he really is just trying to hoard wealth and the expenses are more fictional losses cooked up on a spreadsheet rather than real investments of funds.

After all, I have heard more than one accountant from the entertainment industry talk about how, if you portray the numbers in the right way, you can claim that the movie Return of the Jedi has not returned a profit on the original investment put into its production. That's why it comes across as more scummy than honest investments.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1126078423816921092]


If Trump tried to influence law with bribes: thats scummy, if he broke the law: thats scummy, but if he found legal ways to get his tax as low as possible or even claim losses for a year and he did it legally, that is really the governments fault for not having a better system if it was wrong.

And scummy.

+1 Just because something has not been made illegal yet does not mean it is okay to do. Things are not harmful because they are illegal, instead it is things become illegal over time because they are harmful. Regardless of legality status, the actions are still harmful to society and yes, scummy to participate in.

See I don't know if you guys are actually saying this or not. But claiming depreciation tax cuts and tax cuts for making a net loss one year because you invested heavily into things like new equipment or whatever spending that year are not scummy to me.

If anything it rewards spending and keeps money circulating, which is good since I think economically one of the worst thing you can have is a rich person/entity hoarding their money and not spending it.

That isn't what Trump does. If you have listened to him over his lifetime, he didn't "invest in equipment" and such, he never actually paid the vendors and kept the equipment. He always gamed the system to make everyone else pay for his losses while it did not impact him in any real way. He always pushed losses off on vendors and taxpayers while literally buying himself diamond and gold encrusted doors while making everyone else pay for his bad management of his businesses.

He would put down a down payment to vendors and then refuse to pay the rest once they delivered the products and services and threaten and intimidate them into giving up and taking the loss. Trump literally stole from people and wrote it off at the same time.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056966-POLITICS-Trump-Admits-Tax-Fraud#24302848

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3938844/Inside-President-elect-s-100-million-penthouse-Donald-Trump-s-gold-rimmed-candy-bowls-toy-personalized-Mercedes-10-year-old-son-coloring-pencils-wife-painted-ceilings-depicting-Greek-Gods.html

TBH, Trump should be forced to pay everyone he stole money from ( including taxpayers) with the contents of his properties. No one who has Gold and diamond encrusted doors should be able to get away with not paying vendors and writing off their taxes. Hell he even paid off his lawsuits with his fraudulent charity. You should not be able to steal from people and write it off at the same time. He has been able to live lavishly by conning others out of what they had actually earned. The man should be in prison for fraud.

 

[Agema]

See I don't know if you guys are actually saying this or not. But claiming depreciation tax cuts and tax cuts for making a net loss one year because you invested heavily into things like new equipment or whatever spending that year are not scummy to me.

If that's what it's doing - promoting R&D, improved productivity, etc. then potentially okay.

However, it seems to me a lot of it - Trump's business being a potential example - ends up as creative accountancy. At this point there's a disjunct between beneficial intent and result: ultimately, just a bunch of people creaming money off the government. Pay less tax, claim more subsidy. (And they say the problem with socialism is running out of other people's money...)

I would be interested in what the total societal / economic benefit really is. Because this sort of thing seems to me to have a huge risk of being a kind of exploit often with the likes of you and me who lack battalions of tax lawyers paying for it.