Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   A peasant's guide to Trump's Tax returns by a Tax attorney. TL/DR: Yes some of what his did is very shady, but what's REALLY crooked is the incredible extent to which rich people and corporations have set up the tax code to their own advantage   (forbes.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Tax, Taxation in the United States, Taxation, President Trump's tax returns, Tax refund, tax return, Former IRS Commissioner Koskinen, New York Times  
•       •       •

1336 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2020 at 11:25 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



89 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-28 12:29:43 PM  

Mikey1969: Between the writing off veterans, the downplaying the Coronavirus, and this, Donnie has had a horrible 6 weeks or so, and I think it's eroding his base nicely.


On what information do you base such optimism?
 
2020-09-28 12:30:49 PM  

GoldSpider: Mikey1969: Between the writing off veterans, the downplaying the Coronavirus, and this, Donnie has had a horrible 6 weeks or so, and I think it's eroding his base nicely.

On what information do you base such optimism?


I haven't received a pro-Trump forwarded email from my nutjob relatives for a month now.
 
2020-09-28 12:34:44 PM  
This is the way things have been designed to function since the days of the Robber Barons, and of the likes of J.P. Morgan, Carnegy, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc. establishing a plutocracy here in the US.

We've had to pay in blood every time we've forced that plutocracy to give something up for the working class, and if it wasn't for the boom times during WWII and the post-war glut of opportunity giving the working man an edge, we would have never seen a reprieve from the bloody clashes.

Unfortunately for us, the plutocracy used that time to push through laws militarizing the police, handily criminalizing anyone that threatened their profits, and convincing us to accept authority and not to fight back, but to believe that our protests and our votes and our voices actually counted for something even as they corralled us into a smaller and smaller corner.
 
2020-09-28 12:35:14 PM  
If the IRS was properly funded, Trump would have been in prison for the last 40 years.
 
2020-09-28 12:37:40 PM  

thealgorerhythm: Bullshiat.

Paying your kids consulting fees for the company when they're already employees is straight-up ghost employment and a felony.

Declaring properties of the corporation as your your domicile and deducting their expenses means you're homeless. So either he's been voting illegally for years, or he owes some homestead taxes somewhere.


Homeless have the right to vote as well. So STFU.

/Not a trump supporter
//Trump isn't homeless trump is a tax cheat
///There had to be a lawsuit in my state to ensure homeless can vote so don't spread that BS
 
2020-09-28 12:40:48 PM  

Loki009: The Perineum Falcon: enry: Magorn: Marcus Aurelius: Blame the system.

Missing the point: He and a lot of people like him ARE the system.   Even if he'd followed the letter of the law (he clearly did not and broke the law)   his taxes would have been obscenely low for his income and that has to do with a system he and others like he designed for themselves.   Amazon, a company with a market cap of $1.58 TRILLION should not be paying zero in corporate taxes either.  Take Trump down and certainly lock him up, but don't indulge in high-fives all around and string up a "mission Accomplished" banner, there's a lot more work to be done after that.

Point of order: you're right, but don't focus on their market cap.  That's just looking at what people think Amazon is worth.  Amazon doesn't have that money sitting in the bank and they collected a tiny.portion of it.

Focus on profit or even revenue. Focus on the state and local income taxes they now collect that they didn't before (assuming you're on the other side and think they already 'pay' taxes), but market cap is a craptastic way to determine what taxes a company should pay.

Perhaps a 1% federal SALES tax. . .

Yes. Because a sales tax will right this and not just largely be a tax on the people who are already living paycheck to paycheck. That sales tax will do wonders to get the billions being horded in safe investments and overseas account back flowing through our financial system.


VAT (value added Tax) puts the burden on the producer not the consumer so tends to be less regressive, though it likely leads to higher prices for consumers
 
2020-09-28 12:41:23 PM  

Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."


I'm not a tax specialist. But it sounded like the IRS required deposits from him that got rolled over. Let's say you rent a car for $40 for a days use and they require a $500 deposit for damage. You didn't pay $540 for the car.
 
2020-09-28 12:41:55 PM  

Surrender your boo-tah: Magorn: Marcus Aurelius: Blame the system.

Missing the point: He and a lot of people like him ARE the system.   Even if he'd followed the letter of the law (he clearly did not and broke the law)   his taxes would have been obscenely low for his income and that has to do with a system he and others like he designed for themselves.   Amazon, a company with a market cap of $1.58 TRILLION should not be paying zero in corporate taxes either.  Take Trump down and certainly lock him up, but don't indulge in high-fives all around and string up a "mission Accomplished" banner, there's a lot more work to be done after that.

I disagree, corporate taxes should be zero. Capital gains taxes on the other hand...


I disagree with you both. Corporations should be taxed, and tax write-offs for corporations should be replaced with things like the following:

- Write off a percentage based on the total number of employees you hired.
- Write off a greater percentage based on the total number of employees you've had for more than 5 years.
- Write off a percentage based on raises given to workers at the lowest end of your pay scale.
- Write off a percentage of the costs for opening facilities in the US.
- Write off a greater percentage of the costs for opening facilities in the US if they were opened in low-income areas.
- Write off a percentage of funds invested in your local community.
- Write off a percentage of costs to provide education, day care services, and so on to employees.
- Write off a percentage based on number of workers promoted to fill positions vs. hiring external candidates.
- Write off a percentage of the costs to replace polluting infrastructure/equipment/systems with green technologies.

etc. etc.

If they want to write off as much as they can and lower their tax bill, they can do so by doing things that directly impact and improve the economic prospects of the people of the US.
 
2020-09-28 12:45:43 PM  

Loki009: thealgorerhythm: Bullshiat.

Paying your kids consulting fees for the company when they're already employees is straight-up ghost employment and a felony.

Declaring properties of the corporation as your your domicile and deducting their expenses means you're homeless. So either he's been voting illegally for years, or he owes some homestead taxes somewhere.

Homeless have the right to vote as well. So STFU.

/Not a trump supporter
//Trump isn't homeless trump is a tax cheat
///There had to be a lawsuit in my state to ensure homeless can vote so don't spread that BS


I'm less upset that Trump cheated on his taxes -- I generally expect pretty much everyone to cheat on their taxes to at least some small degree -- than I am that the tax code is such that he can cheat the system to the point where he only paid $750 in taxes.

The rest of the 90% of the people in the US, no matter how creative their bookkeeping is, couldn't get anywhere near that low of a tax bill.
 
2020-09-28 1:00:19 PM  
The Times suggests that Eric Trump has characterized the Seven Springs property as a "home base" in a Forbes article. Do you know what they are talking about?

To be honest, I didn't. But I found the article for you. It's here.


TRANSLATION:

I know exactly what they mean, but Forbes makes me pretend I am ignorant of basic tax law as this is something all average white Republicans can understand

You can't deduct expenses for your own home and Eric screwed up by referring to Seven Springs as a home.
 
2020-09-28 1:03:53 PM  

thealgorerhythm: Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."

It appears what's going on here is that you mistakenly feel a lone Twitter account with the handle "boobs and hysteria" is a credible source of critique on the New York Times while literally a planet of journalists and tax experts are now checking up on them.


No, I didn't feel that way.
I was asking a question. I was asking what anyone else thought of what that person tweeted.
 
2020-09-28 1:04:06 PM  
His supporters believe that not paying taxes is probably the single most patriotic act an American can perform.  One more thing that won't move the needle a single mm.
 
2020-09-28 1:07:56 PM  

thealgorerhythm: Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."

It appears what's going on here is that you mistakenly feel a lone Twitter account with the handle "boobs and hysteria" is a credible source of critique on the New York Times while literally a planet of journalists and tax experts are now checking up on them.


LO farking L
 
2020-09-28 1:10:37 PM  

Loki009: Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."

I'm not a tax specialist. But it sounded like the IRS required deposits from him that got rolled over. Let's say you rent a car for $40 for a days use and they require a $500 deposit for damage. You didn't pay $540 for the car.


And, you dont get to tell everyone you bought a brand new car for $40 because you're an incredible negotiator.
 
2020-09-28 1:21:35 PM  

runwiz: With the focus on Trump, this is the major story that we are missing.  And it's not by accident.  The media should be shouting from the highest rooftops how this is just an example of how the tax code is rigged in favor of the wealthy and corporate America.  But that would be too dangerous. Could result in real change (NOT).


It's rigged for the wealthy because the middle class families have been rewarded with a dwindling tax burden over the years themselves.  With the EITC, child credit, and halving of the tax rate for married people, the middle class family isn't paying a whole lot in federal taxes anymore either.  Median family income in the USA is about $65k.   A married couple with two kids making 65k will pay a whopping $500 in income taxes.   Up the income to $100k and they are still only paying $5k (an effect rate of 5%).  Oh the horror.    If you are single however you are paying $10k in tax on that $65k salary and $15k on that 100k.   Is that fair?
 
2020-09-28 1:37:25 PM  

A Cave Geek: I keep telling people:  I WISH I could file my taxes the same way these corporations do.  You know, the ones that whine about a 30+% tax rate?  I wish I could file my taxes like they do.  Corporations don't pay taxes on 'revenue'...

That's what most people don't get about corporate taxes.  They don't pay taxes on 'revenue'...only on 'profit'.  They get to deduct EVERY cost of doing business.  Rent, office supplies, chairs, food, advertising, ANYTHING related to the cost of doing business is tax free.

I would HAPPILY pay the full corporate tax rate if I could deduct all my 'expenses' before paying taxes.


Company cars, company jets, corporate retreats, entertainment for business associates. Everything.
 
2020-09-28 1:37:29 PM  
With all the money they save in taxes, the wealth will trickle down any day now!

I'm certain of it THIS time!
 
2020-09-28 1:49:33 PM  

dark brew: Avigdore: If only there was someone running for office who has been a part of writing those tax laws for years who I could vote against in the coming election.

Is that the same guy who is currently running on raising taxes for anyone making over 400k?  How does that compare to the current tax cheat in office?


Funny how Biden has chosen $400k as his line in the sand, considering that the Presidential salary is $400k...
 
2020-09-28 1:52:13 PM  

Pharmdawg: A Cave Geek: I keep telling people:  I WISH I could file my taxes the same way these corporations do.  You know, the ones that whine about a 30+% tax rate?  I wish I could file my taxes like they do.  Corporations don't pay taxes on 'revenue'...

That's what most people don't get about corporate taxes.  They don't pay taxes on 'revenue'...only on 'profit'.  They get to deduct EVERY cost of doing business.  Rent, office supplies, chairs, food, advertising, ANYTHING related to the cost of doing business is tax free.

I would HAPPILY pay the full corporate tax rate if I could deduct all my 'expenses' before paying taxes.

Company cars, company jets, corporate retreats, entertainment for business associates. Everything.


Personal use of a vehicle is taxed to the individual.
Personal use of an aircraft by the individual or their family members is taxed to the individual.
Entertainment was made non-deductible in the 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Retreats are deductible.
 
2020-09-28 1:56:31 PM  

Kit Fister: Surrender your boo-tah: Magorn: Marcus Aurelius: Blame the system.

Missing the point: He and a lot of people like him ARE the system.   Even if he'd followed the letter of the law (he clearly did not and broke the law)   his taxes would have been obscenely low for his income and that has to do with a system he and others like he designed for themselves.   Amazon, a company with a market cap of $1.58 TRILLION should not be paying zero in corporate taxes either.  Take Trump down and certainly lock him up, but don't indulge in high-fives all around and string up a "mission Accomplished" banner, there's a lot more work to be done after that.

I disagree, corporate taxes should be zero. Capital gains taxes on the other hand...

I disagree with you both. Corporations should be taxed, and tax write-offs for corporations should be replaced with things like the following:

- Write off a percentage based on the total number of employees you hired.
- Write off a greater percentage based on the total number of employees you've had for more than 5 years.
- Write off a percentage based on raises given to workers at the lowest end of your pay scale.
- Write off a percentage of the costs for opening facilities in the US.
- Write off a greater percentage of the costs for opening facilities in the US if they were opened in low-income areas.
- Write off a percentage of funds invested in your local community.
- Write off a percentage of costs to provide education, day care services, and so on to employees.
- Write off a percentage based on number of workers promoted to fill positions vs. hiring external candidates.
- Write off a percentage of the costs to replace polluting infrastructure/equipment/systems with green technologies.

etc. etc.

If they want to write off as much as they can and lower their tax bill, they can do so by doing things that directly impact and improve the economic prospects of the people of the US.


Let's say that your proposed tax code goes into effect and taxes on the evil corporations increase.

Is it safe to assume that you're OK with price increases for your goods and services that you purchase from the evil corporations so that they can pay their taxes?
 
2020-09-28 2:00:17 PM  

Neeek: If the IRS was properly funded, Trump would have been in prison for the last 40 years.


Not just Trump, pretty much every major economic disruption except COVID and the political instability caused by nutjobs like the current republican party could have been avoided if we'd gone after white collar crime like we do drug war or just being poor.  We're pretty much a failed state whose elite have crimed it to death and are now trying to strip the last flesh from the bones.
 
2020-09-28 2:03:18 PM  

Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."


While I thought Boobs and Hysteria was a noted scholar on tax law and accounting, it is pretty obvious she does not know what is going on.

In 2016 and 2017 Line 56 provided total tax liability. That was $750. It is possible Trump provided expected payments on top of that which were either subtracted against future liabilities or refunded (there is no way for me to know). They were not paid in those years.
 
2020-09-28 2:13:42 PM  

vikingfan73: Let's say that your proposed tax code goes into effect and taxes on the evil corporations increase.

Is it safe to assume that you're OK with price increases for your goods and services that you purchase from the evil corporations so that they can pay their taxes?


You make a number of assumptions here, including:

1. My flippant reply does not cover the details that would need to be there, such as a mandatory increased minimum wage set to go up with cost of living increases and so on.
2. You assume immediate imposition, and not a phased imposition to give time for adjustments.
3. That the combination of increased wages and tax incentives designed to bring more jobs and higher wages to the US would not, in fact, result in a larger consumer base able to afford the goods being produced by said companies.

If I were to actually sit down and sketch out how this would work, firstly it would involve economists and tax experts so that it was feasible and free of loopholes and gotchas. Secondly, it would be built around myriad other protections and changes, including the three points mentioned above. Thirdly, and most importantly, it would also involve establishing greater partnerships with other nations, especially Canada, Mexico, and so on, to broaden the scope of markets and also efforts to retool our overall economy away from one being entirely driven by consumption of disposable goods and towards something that was more sustainable overall.

In short, nice try at a gotcha, but I'm not biting.
 
2020-09-28 2:15:30 PM  

Magorn: Marcus Aurelius: Blame the system.

Missing the point: He and a lot of people like him ARE the system.   Even if he'd followed the letter of the law (he clearly did not and broke the law)   his taxes would have been obscenely low for his income and that has to do with a system he and others like he designed for themselves.   Amazon, a company with a market cap of $1.58 TRILLION should not be paying zero in corporate taxes either.  Take Trump down and certainly lock him up, but don't indulge in high-fives all around and string up a "mission Accomplished" banner, there's a lot more work to be done after that.


The golden rule :

If you have the gold, you make the rules
 
2020-09-28 2:30:30 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."

While I thought Boobs and Hysteria was a noted scholar on tax law and accounting, it is pretty obvious she does not know what is going on.

In 2016 and 2017 Line 56 provided total tax liability. That was $750. It is possible Trump provided expected payments on top of that which were either subtracted against future liabilities or refunded (there is no way for me to know). They were not paid in those years.


I don't follow much Twitter so I have no idea who that person is. Unfortunately, I know some people who will sight this as absolving trump of any and all possible wrongdoing on anything and everything past, present, and future. (I'm no accountant or tax attorney but I know they aren't, either.)

Also, thanks to Loki900 and Gyrfalcon for seeing that I was indeed asking a question and trying to answer helpfully.
 
2020-09-28 2:49:58 PM  

Mrs. Snipes: You're the jerk... jerk: Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."

While I thought Boobs and Hysteria was a noted scholar on tax law and accounting, it is pretty obvious she does not know what is going on.

In 2016 and 2017 Line 56 provided total tax liability. That was $750. It is possible Trump provided expected payments on top of that which were either subtracted against future liabilities or refunded (there is no way for me to know). They were not paid in those years.

I don't follow much Twitter so I have no idea who that person is. Unfortunately, I know some people who will sight this as absolving trump of any and all possible wrongdoing on anything and everything past, present, and future. (I'm no accountant or tax attorney but I know they aren't, either.)

Also, thanks to Loki900 and Gyrfalcon for seeing that I was indeed asking a question and trying to answer helpfully.


Sorry. I am used only to snark on here.

Bottom line, she is wrong on this. Very wrong. But at the same time continues to insists she is right which is very frustrating. She is not an expert in the field or even a qualified amateur.
 
2020-09-28 2:52:46 PM  

Loki009: thealgorerhythm: Bullshiat.

Paying your kids consulting fees for the company when they're already employees is straight-up ghost employment and a felony.

Declaring properties of the corporation as your your domicile and deducting their expenses means you're homeless. So either he's been voting illegally for years, or he owes some homestead taxes somewhere.

Homeless have the right to vote as well. So STFU.

/Not a trump supporter
//Trump isn't homeless trump is a tax cheat
///There had to be a lawsuit in my state to ensure homeless can vote so don't spread that BS


So they don't receive mail at their golf clubs?

That's my point.
 
2020-09-28 2:58:42 PM  

A Cave Geek: I keep telling people:  I WISH I could file my taxes the same way these corporations do.  You know, the ones that whine about a 30+% tax rate?  I wish I could file my taxes like they do.  Corporations don't pay taxes on 'revenue'...

That's what most people don't get about corporate taxes.  They don't pay taxes on 'revenue'...only on 'profit'.  They get to deduct EVERY cost of doing business.  Rent, office supplies, chairs, food, advertising, ANYTHING related to the cost of doing business is tax free.

I would HAPPILY pay the full corporate tax rate if I could deduct all my 'expenses' before paying taxes.


This. One of the things that people (everybody, this shiat should really be mandatory, as long as I'm endorsing shiat that is never gonna happen) need to learn about is the tax system. The way it's explained is like the Schoolhouse Rocks version of how a bill becomes a law. Remember how above board and simple that shiat seemed when you were a kid, then you became an adult and heard about shiat like lobbyists and riders and line-item veto? It's like that.

The tax system has always benefited rich white people over the rest of us. Always.
 
2020-09-28 2:58:57 PM  

You're the jerk... jerk: Mrs. Snipes: You're the jerk... jerk: Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."

While I thought Boobs and Hysteria was a noted scholar on tax law and accounting, it is pretty obvious she does not know what is going on.

In 2016 and 2017 Line 56 provided total tax liability. That was $750. It is possible Trump provided expected payments on top of that which were either subtracted against future liabilities or refunded (there is no way for me to know). They were not paid in those years.

I don't follow much Twitter so I have no idea who that person is. Unfortunately, I know some people who will sight this as absolving trump of any and all possible wrongdoing on anything and everything past, present, and future. (I'm no accountant or tax attorney but I know they aren't, either.)

Also, thanks to Loki900 and Gyrfalcon for seeing that I was indeed asking a question and trying to answer helpfully.

Sorry. I am used only to snark on here.

Bottom line, she is wrong on this. Very wrong. But at the same time continues to insists she is right which is very frustrating. She is not an expert in the field or even a qualified amateur.


No worries at all, I appreciated your help, too.
 
2020-09-28 3:14:27 PM  

Mrs. Snipes: You're the jerk... jerk: Mrs. Snipes: You're the jerk... jerk: Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."

While I thought Boobs and Hysteria was a noted scholar on tax law and accounting, it is pretty obvious she does not know what is going on.

In 2016 and 2017 Line 56 provided total tax liability. That was $750. It is possible Trump provided expected payments on top of that which were either subtracted against future liabilities or refunded (there is no way for me to know). They were not paid in those years.

I don't follow much Twitter so I have no idea who that person is. Unfortunately, I know some people who will sight this as absolving trump of any and all possible wrongdoing on anything and everything past, present, and future. (I'm no accountant or tax attorney but I know they aren't, either.)

Also, thanks to Loki900 and Gyrfalcon for seeing that I was indeed asking a question and trying to answer helpfully.

Sorry. I am used only to snark on here.

Bottom line, she is wrong on this. Very wrong. But at the same time continues to insists she is right which is very frustrating. She is not an expert in the field or even a qualified amateur.

No worries at all, I appreciated your help, too.


Shouldn't you ask your husband Wesley? I'd've figured after his stint for tax issues, he'd know a lot about the law...
 
2020-09-28 3:34:27 PM  

Kit Fister: Mrs. Snipes: You're the jerk... jerk: Mrs. Snipes: You're the jerk... jerk: Mrs. Snipes: Can somebody tell me what's going on here:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22The%20​%24750%22&src=trend_click&vertical=tre​nds

It appears this person is calling BS, that he DID pay his taxes, $1 Mil and 4.2 Mil for 2016 and 2017, respectively, and everyone's freaking out over nothing.

"...every single story saying he paid $750 is a lie."

While I thought Boobs and Hysteria was a noted scholar on tax law and accounting, it is pretty obvious she does not know what is going on.

In 2016 and 2017 Line 56 provided total tax liability. That was $750. It is possible Trump provided expected payments on top of that which were either subtracted against future liabilities or refunded (there is no way for me to know). They were not paid in those years.

I don't follow much Twitter so I have no idea who that person is. Unfortunately, I know some people who will sight this as absolving trump of any and all possible wrongdoing on anything and everything past, present, and future. (I'm no accountant or tax attorney but I know they aren't, either.)

Also, thanks to Loki900 and Gyrfalcon for seeing that I was indeed asking a question and trying to answer helpfully.

Sorry. I am used only to snark on here.

Bottom line, she is wrong on this. Very wrong. But at the same time continues to insists she is right which is very frustrating. She is not an expert in the field or even a qualified amateur.

No worries at all, I appreciated your help, too.

Shouldn't you ask your husband Wesley? I'd've figured after his stint for tax issues, he'd know a lot about the law...


I apologize, that came off as rude when I intended it as snark only.
 
2020-09-28 4:26:43 PM  
Nah, that was funny.
 
2020-09-28 9:03:17 PM  

vikingfan73: Pharmdawg: A Cave Geek: I keep telling people:  I WISH I could file my taxes the same way these corporations do.  You know, the ones that whine about a 30+% tax rate?  I wish I could file my taxes like they do.  Corporations don't pay taxes on 'revenue'...

That's what most people don't get about corporate taxes.  They don't pay taxes on 'revenue'...only on 'profit'.  They get to deduct EVERY cost of doing business.  Rent, office supplies, chairs, food, advertising, ANYTHING related to the cost of doing business is tax free.

I would HAPPILY pay the full corporate tax rate if I could deduct all my 'expenses' before paying taxes.

Company cars, company jets, corporate retreats, entertainment for business associates. Everything.

Personal use of a vehicle is taxed to the individual.
Personal use of an aircraft by the individual or their family members is taxed to the individual.
Entertainment was made non-deductible in the 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Retreats are deductible.


Supposed to be taxed to the individual. If you have some ready excuse for why what you're doing relates to the business, then you can deduct it.
 
2020-09-28 9:52:23 PM  

Kit Fister: vikingfan73: Let's say that your proposed tax code goes into effect and taxes on the evil corporations increase.

Is it safe to assume that you're OK with price increases for your goods and services that you purchase from the evil corporations so that they can pay their taxes?

You make a number of assumptions here, including:

1. My flippant reply does not cover the details that would need to be there, such as a mandatory increased minimum wage set to go up with cost of living increases and so on.
2. You assume immediate imposition, and not a phased imposition to give time for adjustments.
3. That the combination of increased wages and tax incentives designed to bring more jobs and higher wages to the US would not, in fact, result in a larger consumer base able to afford the goods being produced by said companies.

If I were to actually sit down and sketch out how this would work, firstly it would involve economists and tax experts so that it was feasible and free of loopholes and gotchas. Secondly, it would be built around myriad other protections and changes, including the three points mentioned above. Thirdly, and most importantly, it would also involve establishing greater partnerships with other nations, especially Canada, Mexico, and so on, to broaden the scope of markets and also efforts to retool our overall economy away from one being entirely driven by consumption of disposable goods and towards something that was more sustainable overall.

In short, nice try at a gotcha, but I'm not biting.


Raise the minimum wage, and the people's standard of living will marginally increase for a period of time until businesses increase their prices to absorb those cost increases.

I see how you want to index minimum wage annually to a cost of living increase.  Which then increases the cost of goods, which then increases the minimum wage, which increases the cost of goods, etc.

What you have in the end is people working at McDonalds during the day and Wal Mart at night for $75/hour that are complaining that they can't afford their $1,500/week grocery bill, $2,000/ month car payment, and their $3,000/month efficiency apartment.  And corporations are still making money, and the government is still collecting tax, partly so that  it can dole out $15,000/month to those that are unable to work just so that they can afford  to house and feed their kids.

And what do you have on a global scale?  A significant devaluation of the US Dollar due to our prices for international trade being so incredibly high. It's not like China is going to raise wages alongside us - how in the hell are we going to sell them a $400,000 minivan?
 
2020-09-28 10:25:44 PM  

vikingfan73: Raise the minimum wage, and the people's standard of living will marginally increase for a period of time until businesses increase their prices to absorb those cost increases.

I see how you want to index minimum wage annually to a cost of living increase. Which then increases the cost of goods, which then increases the minimum wage, which increases the cost of goods, etc.


This is actually not what happens.

Businesses don't increase the cost of goods just because you have more money. The price point of products is set at what the market will bear and what the business owner calculates will move full inventory, in which there is a psychological factor just as much (maybe even more so) than an economic one.

If people feel they are being ripped off then they will not buy the product, not matter how much they can afford it.

Labor accounts for about 30% of MSRP so increased labor costs have very little, if any, effect on the final list price of a product.
 
2020-09-28 10:45:11 PM  

Ishkur: vikingfan73: Raise the minimum wage, and the people's standard of living will marginally increase for a period of time until businesses increase their prices to absorb those cost increases.

I see how you want to index minimum wage annually to a cost of living increase. Which then increases the cost of goods, which then increases the minimum wage, which increases the cost of goods, etc.

This is actually not what happens.

Businesses don't increase the cost of goods just because you have more money. The price point of products is set at what the market will bear and what the business owner calculates will move full inventory, in which there is a psychological factor just as much (maybe even more so) than an economic one.

If people feel they are being ripped off then they will not buy the product, not matter how much they can afford it.

Labor accounts for about 30% of MSRP so increased labor costs have very little, if any, effect on the final list price of a product.


You're correct in saying that labor approximates 30% on average of a business' revenue.

You seem to be forgetting that the business also needs to buy raw materials to make a product, utilities, machinery, supplies, phone, internet, insurance, et cetera. Each of these items carries an inherent wage burden.

You might also note that FICA, work comp, and unemployment insurance are calculated as a percentage of payroll. As the payroll increases, those costs increase too.  And those costs are also borne by the suppliers to the business.

All of those cost increases go into the product.  The business needs to create enough gross margin to cover its fixed costs so that it can make a profit and continue. Therefore, it needs to increase its prices.

Let's say that the manufacturer's costs increase 10% as these adjustments occur. It will likely attempt to increase its prices to recover. Let's say that they raise them a corresponding 10%. Retailers may need to increase even higher than that to cover their increased labor, and utility costs - and those increases are passed on to you.

Yes, I understand the concept of "what the market will bear". But increases in mandated wage affect every aspect of a business, and those costs are passed through to the consumer. The money has to come from somewhere, and the business does need to earn a profit to survive and continue to employ people.
 
2020-09-29 12:21:08 AM  

vikingfan73: You seem to be forgetting


I'm not forgetting anything. All those things are accounted for in "labor costs", which means more than just salaries. Distribution, marketing, shipping, taxes, supplies, utilities and rent are other costs.

A lot of those costs are fixed, however. Labor is not. It is very flexible, which is why when a business looks to save money and cut costs, the first thing it looks at is labor: Salaries, pensions, benefits.

Very rarely is the reason for doing this the price point of the product.
 
2020-09-29 7:23:49 AM  

vikingfan73: Raise the minimum wage, and the people's standard of living will marginally increase for a period of time until businesses increase their prices to absorb those cost increases.


Which hasn't happened in any of the places that have thus far increased their minimum wages.

vikingfan73: I see how you want to index minimum wage annually to a cost of living increase.  Which then increases the cost of goods, which then increases the minimum wage, which increases the cost of goods, etc.


We have no evidence to support this, especially given that wages have remained stagnant despite a steadily rising cost of living.

vikingfan73: What you have in the end is people working at McDonalds during the day and Wal Mart at night for $75/hour that are complaining that they can't afford their $1,500/week grocery bill, $2,000/ month car payment, and their $3,000/month efficiency apartment.  And corporations are still making money, and the government is still collecting tax, partly so that  it can dole out $15,000/month to those that are unable to work just so that they can afford  to house and feed their kids.


That's purely speculation and fearmongering on your part. Again, there's no evidence to support this as an outcome.

vikingfan73: And what do you have on a global scale?  A significant devaluation of the US Dollar due to our prices for international trade being so incredibly high. It's not like China is going to raise wages alongside us - how in the hell are we going to sell them a $400,000 minivan?


Yet again, no evidence to support this given that the US dollar remains strong despite steadily rising cost of living and cost of goods, despite the stagnant wages and use of veritable slave labor in super cheap markets.

All you're doing is fearmongering at this point, trying to scare people into believing that somehow ensuring fair pay for workers would spell doom and disaster, despite a lack of evidence to support any such things.
 
2020-09-29 10:09:10 AM  

Ishkur: vikingfan73: You seem to be forgetting

I'm not forgetting anything. All those things are accounted for in "labor costs", which means more than just salaries. Distribution, marketing, shipping, taxes, supplies, utilities and rent are other costs.

A lot of those costs are fixed, however. Labor is not. It is very flexible, which is why when a business looks to save money and cut costs, the first thing it looks at is labor: Salaries, pensions, benefits.

Very rarely is the reason for doing this the price point of the product.


Yup.  If the Theorem is that increasing payroll will increase the cost of goods, then there are two logical corollaries.
1. Increasing the cost of goods leads to increased payroll.
and
2. Decreasing payroll will decrease the cost of goods.

Neither of those things are true, nor have they ever been true as far as history tells us.

We live in a demand driven economy.  So it works as follows:
1. You have exactly as many employees as you can afford up to the point where you are meeting market demand at your optimized price point.
2. Demand changes.
2a. Demand goes down
3a. You reduce the price point
and/or
4a. You reduce payroll as you are now meeting a lower demand

2b. Demand goes up
3b. You increase the price point
and/or
4b. You increase payroll to meet a higher demand

The size of your payroll and the cost of your product are the connected knobs you can turn AFTER demand changes.

In a vacuum, it's easier to reduce payroll.  However, that's a tragedy of the commons.  If all companies start exclusively reducing payroll in response to reduced demand, then all companies in all sectors experience lower demand, leading to a feedback loop.

Paradoxically, the very principles that drive economic expansion in a capitalist system are actually the disease that will ultimately kill it.
 
Displayed 39 of 89 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.