New York Times has Trump’s tax data...

[cow451]

Comrades! Presidential Trump is greatest businessman in history of business. "Greatest Loser" gets to pay no taxes to corrupt ISSR! Super smart guy making you small guys cover "losses". Makes me laugh on way to laundromat.

 

[DaveISBA]

They don't debunk their own claim. The money was refunded in the form of a credit.

Most of Trump's tax payments for 2016 and 2017 were "rolled forward to cover potential taxes in (future years)." Therefore those payments must have been (kept by the IRS)! This must be true because during the fact check edition of the debate when Trump said he paid not $750 but millions in taxes for those years the fact check window never appeared! Even the AP post debate written fact check says nothing about his statement of paying millions being untrue, both debunking the he only gave $750 claim!
The credits you're talking about were given for tax liability only for 2016 and 2017 not for the payments rolled over by the IRS for potential future tax situations.
Also according to the NYT "he had more than enough credits to owe no taxes at all" Apparently he just wanted to give the IRS $750 to say he paid something!

 

[iluvatar5150]

Most of Trump's tax payments for 2016 and 2017 were "rolled forward to cover potential taxes in (future years)." Therefore those payments must have been (kept by the IRS)! This must be true because during the fact check edition of the debate when Trump said he paid not $750 but millions in taxes for those years the fact check window never appeared! Even the AP post debate written fact check says nothing about his statement of paying millions being untrue, both debunking the he only gave $750 claim!
The credits you're talking about were given for tax liability only for 2016 and 2017 not for the payments rolled over by the IRS for potential future tax situations.
Also according to the NYT "he had more than enough credits to owe no taxes at all" Apparently he just wanted to give the IRS $750 to say he paid something!

I don't think you understood what I meant. "Rolled forward to cover potential taxes in (future years)" and "refunded in the form of a credit" are the same thing.

If you buy something at a store and return it without a receipt, they often won't give you your money back. Instead, they'll refund you in the form of store credit. IOW, your payment for the first purchase will be rolled forward to cover potential purchases in the future.

 

[camille70]

That's what the NYT claimed in their article. Then way down in this extremely long article they (debunk) their own claim: "he [Trump] made the required payment to the I.R.S. for income taxes he might owe — $1 million for 2016 and $4.2 million for 2017. But virtually all of that liability was washed away when he eventually filed, and most of the payments were rolled forward to cover potential taxes in future years."

Also in the NYT article they explain why he paid no taxes in those years: "He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made."
I guess his detractors aren't smart enough to figure out that you don't pay income tax if you don't make any income!!!

No he's not a tax dodger suggesting he refuses to pay any taxes! But he certainly avoids paying the full amount as do I and I would bet you do too! Anyone who says they don't try to pay less in taxes is stupid!
Trump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance

The question is whether the losses reported and the deductions made were legit. If reporting is correct, he reported losses to the gov't and devalued assets while inflating assets when requesting loans. He paid his daughter as both an employee and a contractor (she can't be both) then listed the contractor fees as a business expense for a tax deduction.

If the losses are accurate he is a sorry business man and no way should his supporters desire him to run the country like one.

 

[Kentonio]

The idea that a country should be run like a business is always wildly naive. There’s a concept in business that any successful business person understands very well. That concept is called the sunk cost fallacy. After we’ve put a lot of money/resources into something, our natural tendency is to keep adding more to push it across the line because after all, we’ve invested so much that it would be crazy to just give up surely! Except that is in fact wrong. If you’ve spent a million and it hasn’t worked out then often it’s better to simply cut your losses there and then, than to add a few hundred thousand more and end up failing anyway. Knowing when to accept a loss and cut something loose is a hugely important asset for business leadership.

Except in politics that tendency can instead be wildly destructive. If you have a program that serves millions of people and it’s not working, then yes it might financially make a lot more sense to scrap the whole thing and approach the issue in a different manner, but by abandoning one approach without a replacement already in place you potentially throw millions into chaos and hurt. This is notably what you see when Trump/Republicans talk about healthcare. They want to destroy Obamacare and have been trying to do so for years. And they claim they will replace it, but there is no understanding or care for what might happen in the interim. There is also no real care or consideration for proving concepts before introduction. Ideologically something sounds good, so why not introduce it! Even if by it’s failure it results in destitution and pain for millions.

Businesspeople make good advisers for politicians. They can produce ideas and systems that could revolutionize a nation. But putting a businessperson in charge of a nation and asking them to run it like a business is foolish in the extreme.

 

[cow451]

The idea that a country should be run like a business is always wildly naive. There’s a concept in business that any successful business person understands very well. That concept is called the sunk cost fallacy. After we’ve put a lot of money/resources into something, our natural tendency is to keep adding more to push it across the line because after all, we’ve invested so much that it would be crazy to just give up surely! Except that is in fact wrong. If you’ve spent a million and it hasn’t worked out then often it’s better to simply cut your losses there and then, than to add a few hundred thousand more and end up failing anyway. Knowing when to accept a loss and cut something loose is a hugely important asset for business leadership.

Except in politics that tendency can instead be wildly destructive. If you have a program that serves millions of people and it’s not working, then yes it might financially make a lot more sense to scrap the whole thing and approach the issue in a different manner, but by abandoning one approach without a replacement already in place you potentially throw millions into chaos and hurt. This is notably what you see when Trump/Republicans talk about healthcare. They want to destroy Obamacare and have been trying to do so for years. And they claim they will replace it, but there is no understanding or care for what might happen in the interim. There is also no real care or consideration for proving concepts before introduction. Ideologically something sounds good, so why not introduce it! Even if by it’s failure it results in destitution and pain for millions.

Businesspeople make good advisers for politicians. They can produce ideas and systems that could revolutionize a nation. But putting a businessperson in charge of a nation and asking them to run it like a business is foolish in the extreme.

It seems the President has been running the country like he ran his businesses.... into the ground.

 

[MIDutch]

It seems the President has been running the country like he ran his businesses.... into the ground.

Irrelevant if he can somehow make a profit off of it.

 

[cow451]

Irrelevant if he can somehow make a profit off of it.

Maybe he can sell the White House China next year to help cover his debts...