Trump's tax returns

[Suddenly]

None of that matters. No evidence means rejection.

NY times description of the documents is evidence. The reporters are effectively witnesses.

Not admissible in court, but reality isn't governed by formal rules of evidence.

 

[Giordano]

Nits are important to pick when trying to defend Trump or they will reveal just how lice infested he is. I do recommend wearing gloves: they have been easily transferred to his colleagues.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is it like to be that selectively honest?

Literally in the SENTENCE RIGHT AFTER THE ONE YOU POSTED it says

"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."

What did you think was gonna happen? None of use would check?

And nice of you to finally join the discussion of your God-king's latest sin when you think you've found something to nitpick.

You're going to try to lecture me about selective honesty?

First off, a lot of those claims were explicitly about what he paid, not what his liability was. Those claims are wrong, he paid $4.2 million. You didn't specify whether you were talking about liability or payment, which is itself "selectively honest", as you put it, but your selectiveness goes deeper. Even zero liability is quite common for businesses in years where they have a net loss. When tax liability varies greatly from year to year because of variations in income, cherry picking one year as if it was representative is the epitome of "selective honesty". So you've got no grounds on which to criticize me on that score.

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither Trump himself nor his reps have offered that explanation.

The NYT offers that explanation. If you're going to rely on the NYT's reporting, you have to read all of it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

NY times description of the documents is evidence. The reporters are effectively witnesses.

Not admissible in court, but reality isn't governed by formal rules of evidence.

They are the people making the claim.

How would your method work for physics papers? The data section is merely an assertion by the researcher that they saw the data behind their conclusions?

 

[Giordano]

None of that matters. No evidence means rejection.

Despite the long history of how crucial this has been to reveal key facts by journalists. Does this also apply to Trump when he not only fails to provide evidence but says things that contract...

Oops, ha, ha, you got me! How silly of me! Never mind...

 

[BobTheCoward]

Despite the long history of how crucial this has been to reveal key facts by journalists. Does this also apply to Trump when he not only fails to provide evidence but says things that contract...

Oops, ha, ha, you got me! How silly of me! Never mind...

It applies to everything!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Of course Trump could discredit the N.Y. Times totally by releasing his taxes at any time. Which despite lying otherwise he can legally do despite being under audit.

Anybody else notice when Trump makes up his first response he has a specific way of talking?

 

[Stacyhs]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

It boils down to credibility. In this case, we have the NYT with its long history of excellent investigative journalism. It has won 130 Pulitzer prizes. On the other hand, we have Donald Trump who holds the record for number of lies told by any president: 20,000+ in less than 4 years.

We also have the fact that the NYT would be subject to a defamation suit should they be publishing false information about Trump without the evidence to back it up and have a team of excellent lawyers who would have vetted all information. Gee.....let me see whom I would believe...the NYT or Trump....hmmm.....

 

[Suddenly]

They are the people making the claim.

How would your method work for physics papers? The data section is merely an assertion by the researcher that they saw the data behind their conclusions?

I guess that would be up to the physicists what standards they have. But yes, a researcher claiming to see something is evidence, just that it might not meet customary standards for a formal scientific paper.

Some people want to conflate the idea of "no evidence" with "no conclusive proof."

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Proof is for whiskey. I'll settle for some evidence" - Someone on this board (possibly quoting someone else) one time.

 

[lomiller]

Wide-scale tax evasion by the wealthy seems like an issue that could really drum up popular support that could lead to a political mandate, but I guess I'm just dreaming of a different Democratic Party that actually believed in such things.

You are dreaming about a different electorate. In the real world 50% of the US electorate would view such tax evasion as a virtue.

 

[varwoche]

Tomorrow night I hope Biden says something along the lines of...

Are you the biggest loser in the history of business, or a tax cheat? The American people deserve to know.

The $70,000 you deducted for your haircuts is more than most Americans make in two years working full time.

 

[Giordano]

As a scientist I can’t resist adding one last point. A scientific paper absolutely carries the assumption that the data reported is not made up. Very, very rarely it is. But respectable scientists, like respectable journalists, view making up data as deeply morally abhorrent. The ultimate confirmation is when others confirm the same data.

Bye Bob for now.

 

[Ziggurat]

It boils down to credibility. In this case, we have the NYT with its long history of excellent investigative journalism. It has won 130 Pulitzer prizes.

Including one for Walter Duranty.

We also have the fact that the NYT would be subject to a defamation suit should they be publishing false information about Trump without the evidence to back it up and have a team of excellent lawyers who would have vetted all information.

Well, no. The lawyers should check that what they print matches the information they have. The lawyers do not have to confirm the information they have is correct, let alone complete. It's very, very hard for a public figure like Trump to win a defamation suit in the US, even when the information in question is provably wrong.

That being said, I have no problem with provisionally accepting the NYT's story as being accurate, but likely not complete. Not seeing much scandal here, though.

 

[BobTheCoward]

As a scientist I can’t resist adding one last point. A scientific paper absolutely carries the assumption that the data reported is not made up. Very, very rarely it is. But respectable scientists, like respectable journalists, view making up data as deeply morally abhorrent. The ultimate confirmation is when others confirm the same data.

Bye Bob for now.

When they put out their data for peer review, I will be willing to accept their claim.

 

[Giordano]

Sorry, duplication.

 

[Bob001]

The NYT offers that explanation. If you're going to rely on the NYT's reporting, you have to read all of it.

So do you.

Each time, he requested an extension to file his 1040; and each time, he 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.
To cancel out the tax bills, Mr. Trump made use of $9.7 million in business investment credits, at least some of which related to his renovation of the Old Post Office hotel, which qualified for a historic-preservation tax break. Although he had more than enough credits to owe no taxes at all, his accountants appear to have carved out an allowance for a small tax liability for both 2016 and 2017.

When they got to line 56, the one for income taxes due, the amount was the same each year: $750.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The NYT offers that explanation. If you're going to rely on the NYT's reporting, you have to read all of it.

I did. Did you notice the millions he got from Duterte, Modi and Erdogan?

And while much of that money was from his golf properties in Scotland and Ireland, some came from licensing deals in countries with authoritarian-leaning leaders or thorny geopolitics — for example, $3 million from the Philippines, $2.3 million from India and $1 million from Turkey.

Here's more on that corruption from a Vanity Fair report: “ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN AMERICAN HISTORY”: HOW EVERYONE FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO FEDERAL CONTRACTORS IS QUIETLY LINING TRUMP’S POCKETS

I posted it earlier.

or additional evidence that the president is violating the American constitution, all you need to do is walk onto the 20th floor of Trump Tower. The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which is majority-owned by the Chinese government, has an office there, in a deal that has been reported on periodically. Of all the foreign government payments that spark allegations that Trump is flouting the emoluments clause, none involve more money than this one.

According to a 2012 debt prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Chinese bank paid $1.9 million of rent a year, as part of a lease that was set to run out on October 31, 2019. The expiration date landed in the middle of Trump’s first term in office. Which apparently means that the president’s two eldest sons, Eric and Don Jr., who took over day-to-day management of the president’s business when their father ascended to the presidency, were in a position to negotiate with the Chinese over how much money they would pay President Trump—while President Trump simultaneously negotiated with China as part of his massive trade war.

Want to bribe the POTUS? Lease an expensive office in a Trump Tower, no need to occupy the office. Trump might only get 30% so you have to pay out accordingly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So do you.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html

See Zigg? Two people found the dishonesty and cherry picking in your argument without even breaking a sweat within a few minutes.