Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[BobTheCoward]

It can include things like depreciation, which is not really an actual loss. In fact even when the market value of real estate goes up, real estate developers can still write off theoretical paper losses by depreciation.

So here is my question.

I spend money on a movie ticket and I get the satisfaction of seeing a movie.

Someone puts money in a business and gets the satisfaction of keeping their business afloat that much longer.

Seems like we are both spending money for pleasure.

 

[CapelDodger]

So here is my question.

I spend money on a movie ticket and I get the satisfaction of seeing a movie.

Someone puts money in a business and gets the satisfaction of keeping their business afloat that much longer.

Seems like we are both spending money for pleasure.

If there's a question in there you left off the "?".

I put money in a business expecting a return on it. I do not get this return. This gives me no pleasure. Is anybody surprised?

 

[CapelDodger]

Right, and that's why I'm not actually all that worried about this, as far as actual voter count. As much as people are discussing this as some type of brand new event, the only thing actually new is that the candidate is openly embracing it - which is just like all of the other racist crap Trump has been spewing over the past few years. A "Trump brigade" out harassing voters in Philly would

1) need to be dragged off by police, if only for their own protection

This reminds me of an event in the later 70's, when the fascist skinhead movement was on. A bunch of skinheads, about 100, decided to go to Southall, London, for some Paki-bashing, and there were indeed many Pakistanis in Southall. The largest Sikh community outside Pakistan, in fact. Yes, Sikh. They keep swords at home, it's a bloke thing with Sikhs. The skinheads ended up penned into a notorious pub in Hayes and had to be rescued by police. How we laughed (I was living round there at the time).

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Cool story!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well nothing about them on big name news sites, so I need to call BS on em.

Are you serious or is this a joke?

Mother Jones: "It's like modern-day slavery."

AOL.com: took on the MJ story.

ISF thread: Former Models for Donald Trump's Agency Say They Violated Immigration Rules....

I guess the MSN already had too much on their plates about Trump to go the way-back machine over this one.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If there's a question in there you left off the "?".

I put money in a business expecting a return on it. I do not get this return. This gives me no pleasure. Is anybody surprised?

I expected a return on my money going to see suicide squad. It gave me no pleasure. Why should one be a write off and the other not?

 

[marplots]

I expected a return on my money going to see suicide squad. It gave me no pleasure. Why should one be a write off and the other not?

Lobbyists.

 

[NoahFence]

Are you serious or is this a joke?

Mother Jones: "It's like modern-day slavery."

AOL.com: took on the MJ story.

ISF thread: Former Models for Donald Trump's Agency Say They Violated Immigration Rules....

I guess the MSN already had too much on their plates about Trump to go the way-back machine over this one.

If this could land him in prison sometime needs to follow up on this. DOJ? Someone....

 

[Bob001]

....
If you lost $1 million in 2015, then made $1 million in 2016, is it not fair for you to pay no tax for that 2-year period where you basically broke even? That's the logic of carrying losses forward, and that's not so much a loophole as an attempt at a fair system.
...

I understand the logic, but how long a period should be included? Suppose in the third year you make $2 million, and in the fourth and fifth years you lose $1 million each? Are you still breaking even? Do you ever pay tax? When do you close the books?

There used to be something called "income averaging," where if your income jumped suddenly (sell a valuable asset, sign a sports contract, win a lottery etc.) you could treat the money as if you received over several years. But that ended long ago. Now you generally pay tax on money when you get it. Maybe there should be a limit on when and how much you can claim losses too.

 

[phiwum]

I understand the logic, but how long a period should be included? Suppose in the third year you make $2 million, and in the fourth and fifth years you lose $1 million each? Are you still breaking even? Do you ever pay tax? When do you close the books?

There used to be something called "income averaging," where if your income jumped suddenly (sell a valuable asset, sign a sports contract, win a lottery etc.) you could treat the money as if you received over several years. But that ended long ago. Maybe there should be a limit on when and how much you can claim losses too.

There is a time limit on loss carryovers. Hence the reference to 18 years in the news stories.

 

[Meadmaker]

I expected a return on my money going to see suicide squad. It gave me no pleasure. Why should one be a write off and the other not?

The reason is that in the case of money invested, you deduct it off of revenue, and the net amount is what you actually made, and have to pay taxes on.

In other words, I buy a candy bar for $1.00, and I sell it to you for $1.50. I can "deduct" the $1.00 investment against the $1.50 revenue, and I pay taxes on 50 cents, because that's really the amount of money I made.

The money I pay for a movie ticket isn't being spend in an effort to make money.


The core principle in the tax code is really pretty simple. If you make money, you pay taxes. If you had to spend money in order to make the money, you get to subtract the money you had to spend, because you really didn't make all the money that came in as revenue. You had to spend some money to generate the revenue.

It gets complicated because people cheat, and the IRS is constantly trying to invent new regulations to disqualify the most recent very clever way of cheating, and congresscritters are constantly adding in new ways to game the system as a favor to their constituents, by adding deductions and rules that make no sense, but which benefit someone who might vote for them or contribute to their campaign.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The reason is that in the case of money invested, you deduct it off of revenue, and the net amount is what you actually made, and have to pay taxes on.

In other words, I buy a candy bar for $1.00, and I sell it to you for $1.50. I can "deduct" the $1.00 investment against the $1.50 revenue, and I pay taxes on 50 cents, because that's really the amount of money I made.

The money I pay for a movie ticket isn't being spend in an effort to make money.


The core principle in the tax code is really pretty simple. If you make money, you pay taxes. If you had to spend money in order to make the money, you get to subtract the money you had to spend, because you really didn't make all the money that came in as revenue. You had to spend some money to generate the revenue.

It gets complicated because people cheat, and the IRS is constantly trying to invent new regulations to disqualify the most recent very clever way of cheating, and congresscritters are constantly adding in new ways to game the system as a favor to their constituents, by adding deductions and rules that make no sense, but which benefit someone who might vote for them or contribute to their campaign.

So what is going on in Trump's case? My first thought would be it was some corporation paying a salary, stock options, or divideds. But what you describe sounds more like a sole proprietor.

 

[Bob001]

There is a time limit on loss carryovers. Hence the reference to 18 years in the news stories.

Sure, I get it. I'm suggesting that 18 years is way too long. And the 18 years refers only to the time you get to lay off that one initial loss. Presumably if you have additional profits and losses during that time, a new 18-year period for them starts every year. Generally speaking, you owe tax on income when you receive it. Why shouldn't you be required to claim your losses the same way. And if your losses in any one year are bigger than your income, well, tough.

 

[Babbylonian]

Sure, I get it. I'm suggesting that 18 years is way too long. And the 18 years refers only to the time you get to lay off that one initial loss. Presumably if you have additional profits and losses during that time, a new 18-year period for them starts every year. Generally speaking, you owe tax on income when you receive it. Why shouldn't you be required to claim your losses the same way. And if your losses in any one year are bigger than your income, well, tough.

See, I think the ability to lay off the loss over a period of years in tax deductions is reasonable to some extent, but that extent stops well short of providing those deductions to those who remain wealthy even after a huge loss. Making it easier for people to bounce back without becoming homeless, taking money from their 401k or kids' college funds, etc. is a reasonable goal. Providing monstrous tax breaks to people with multiple expensive homes, boats, jets, and millions or more in other assets is Crazytown...and it's what we get when money corrupts the political system beyond what anyone should find acceptable.

 

[Meadmaker]

So what is going on in Trump's case? My first thought would be it was some corporation paying a salary, stock options, or divideds. But what you describe sounds more like a sole proprietor.

I haven't seen the returns, and from what I can tell it doesn't appear that the whole returns are available anyway, but it's got to be a sole proprietorship, although it could be a kind of indirect sort of one. You can create companies whose purpose is to invest in other companies, and use that to change a capital loss into a personal loss. All of that is legal, to a point.

But when all is said and done, sooner or later if you end up with spending money, the kind that you can spend on whatever you bloody well feel like, like movie tickets, that's income and you have to pay taxes. That guy is buying a lot of movie tickets and other things that sure look like personal expenditures. He should be paying taxes on that money.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If this could land him in prison sometime needs to follow up on this. DOJ? Someone....

Apparently the modeling agencies are about as liable for mistreatment of exploited foreigners as any other employer. Workers have few resources to sue for falsely offered, never paid wages. It's a classic power imbalance. It's a civil offense, not a criminal offense.

As for the misuse of charities to hide income, Trump was fined $2500 and I won't be surprised if some of the attention to his and his son's charities isn't going to attract the IRS. Penalties, fees, not sure if it amounts to a criminal prosecution though it certainly should.

 

[SezMe]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/

From that link:

Donald Trump's campaign announced Saturday evening that the candidate would soon deliver a nine-sentence critique of comments Hillary Clinton made months ago about many of the millennials supporting her primary rival, Bernie Sanders.

Who says The Cheeto is not a details guy? Nine sentences. Not eight. Not ten. Nine pithy, direct, killer sentences.

Oh, wait. He went off the rails again. Can you imagine a State of the Union address from this chucklehead?

 

[SezMe]

That Trump is embracing positive hatred and Clinton negative hatred is not a surprise. It's also gender oriented and likely to get the best results for both.

Enlighten me as to what those terms mean.

 

[SezMe]

Trump probably thinks he's a genius because he can understand what "real interest rate" means. As a concept it's at his limit.

And I'm unwilling to give him credit for even that understanding. I'll bet it goes like this: (AC=Accountant)

DT: Hey, I've got a great project. Tremendous. The people will love it.
AC: Let me look at the finances.....This thing stinks.
DT: It'll be great. I'm going for it.
..... A couple of years later
DT: It's a great project.
AC: You're losing your ass.
DT: Well, you fix that. Work it out. Lemme know what you figure out.
AC: OK, if you stiff all the subs, screw all your fellow investors, let the taxpayers cover the losses and declare bankruptcy, you can avoid taxes for 18 years.
DT: AC, you're the greatest. Tremendous.
..... A couple of years later
DT: Hey, I've got a great project. Tremendous. The people will love it.

 

[SezMe]

If you lost $1 million in 2015, then made $1 million in 2016, is it not fair for you to pay no tax for that 2-year period where you basically broke even? That's the logic of carrying losses forward, and that's not so much a loophole as an attempt at a fair system.

Not necessarily. While losing $1 million you also had to under pay employees and contractors. Everyone from the bank to the office supply store probably suffered.

So you should be able to write off some of it, but you should also have to pay a stiff penalty for not being a good businessman. The penalty will discourage reckless risk decisions.