Patterico's Pontifications

9/26/2016

Hillary: Maybe Trump Isn’t That Rich After All

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:18 pm

This is a great point, and it hits Trump where he lives — but, in typical Hillary fashion, she fails to press the point effectively. The real fun starts at 1:47:

CLINTON: So you’ve got to ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be. Third, we don’t know all of his business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody’s ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax.

TRUMP: That makes me smart.

Nothing hurts Trump like suggesting he’s not rich. She should have pressed that point much harder. She could have pointed to Mark Cuban in the front row, and reminded the crowd that Cuban said not all that long ago that Trump really isn’t that rich:

If she really wanted to see Trump lose it, she should have harped on that point.

But instead, she dumped on Trump for not paying a lot in taxes, which allowed him to wriggle off the hook by aligning himself with the vast majority of Americans who, like Trump, hate paying their hard-earned money to the federal government.

A promising line of attack ruined by poor delivery. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the Hillary Clinton campaign in a nutshell.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

70 Responses to “Hillary: Maybe Trump Isn’t That Rich After All”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (bcf524)

  2. Poor delivery. Hillary couldn’t deliver a Big Mac to the front counter of a McDonalds.

    Skeptical Voter (1d5c8b)

  3. Nobody cares about his tax returns.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  4. Mr. Trump employs people

    the pig just pays them off

    i don’t know how to explain it Mr. P, but it’s different

    it just is

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. hah mark cuban lol

    greasy pork sandwich

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. Hillary’s strengths are greed and ambition. She’s reasonably bright and articulate but nothing exceptional. Unlike her husband.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. her husband has tender herpes sores

    let us pray

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  8. u know, say what you want Mr. Ess Jester

    but i show the eff up do i not

    what say u

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. Trump claimed you can learn more about someone’s finances from the financial disclosure form than from the tax returns.

    Trump said he might disclose it, against the advice of his lawyers, if Hillary releseed the emais, which she has said she deleted – he knows she can’t, even if she still has them, because that would mean she and all her people were lying to Congress and the FBI.

    But in so doing he gave a reason for not revealing his tax returns – his lawyers advised against it.

    Which is probably the truth.

    Hillary gave a list of possible reasons Trump might not be releasing his tax returns – none of which sound like what a lawyer (presumably here a tax lawyer) might say.

    Conspicuously absent: Trump might be stretching the law. And maybe the auditors have overlooked some things. And his tax lawyers want to lock in the IRS.

    One issue I can think of, is when is it that an unpaid loan might become income?

    You see, Trump borrowed, and then deducted depreciation on the full value. But then suddenly, some years later, he never has to pay the full value.

    She didn’t even suggest he took some questionable dedcutions. That’s interesting. Very interesting. She’s making Trump out to be completely honest here, although not so honest in business. There must be a reason. Fear that Trump might bring up some things involving her?

    They were also arguing about how much money he owed. Trump said it wasn’t $640 million but in any case that was a small fraction of the value of his buildings and the loans weren’t on the buildings.

    Since she made an issue of whom he owed money to, he said he might be willing to disclose what banks he owed money to.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  10. The pig accuses Trump of not really bringing home the bacon. And her Billy doesn’t give her any pork.

    Paul (75c17a)

  11. I think you misunderstand how a lot of rich people allocate their resources. My experience is that rich people are like everyone else, except they tend to spend a little less than they take in, whereas a lot of American spend as much or more. But they still spend a lot.
    Trump subsidizes the lifestyles of his wife, himself, the ex wives, the children etc.

    Look at it this way. Lets say Billionaire “B” makes a ton of money. But she has multiple homes that need staffing, jets that need pilots and ground crew, yachts that need the same, plus husband, ex-husbands, children, entourages, accountants, lawyers etc. My experience is that even Billionaires spend a large portion of their income. The also tend to have people at work squirrelling 20% away.
    Also some billionaires have a big part of their money stuck in very illiquid investments like, in Trumps example, commercial real estate.

    Trump claimed he made 635 Million last year (if I recall correctly), but Cuban wants hims to pony up 1/3 of that for ads.
    Well, it isn’t any easier for a billionaire to spend 1/3 of their income (income, not liquidating an asset) than it is for you or me.
    Cuban is being dishonest, unless he can write his favorite charity a check for 200M right now he should shut up

    steveg (5508fb)

  12. mark cuban lol

    that’s the pig’s shillelagh

    stew a pot o rabbit sweetmeat

    tasty!

    i’d rather go out though

    i love tv chefs

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  13. red herring about what the IRS allows re: releasing info.
    Holy Crap. That is like saying that the DA is ok with you speaking without an attorney

    Trump has his own reasons for not giving information while under audit, but really no one in their right mind should ever trust the IRS and should remember that the Miranda warning that “anything you say, can and will be used against you” goes double for the IRS

    steveg (5508fb)

  14. i like him

    her, not so much

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. Mr. Feet, you are and remain an ass.

    DRJ had it right. Angry graffiti on the wall.

    Seriously, dude: if Patterico filtered just a few words, you couldn’t post at all.

    But I can see you are still stinging about how I often I remind folks of the fact you don’t vote, but you sure do run your mouth.

    Voting is more fundamental, and that’s not just an opinion. All you can do in response is more vulgar baby talk.

    So if you hate you some HRC, you know what to do. It just takes work, and you are much more interested dropping your little turdlets on Patterico’s dime.

    Posting on the internet—particularly the way you do, as a silly troll—doesn’t compare to voting.

    I think you know it.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  16. By the way, to someone who follows economics, I and surprised that you fell for the red herring of “you must have cash if you are rich” ploy.
    Trump in particular is in a class of rich (commercial real estate) that at times generates a lot of cash, and at other times the only income is from renegotiating loans etc.

    Mark Cuban got his money selling an over valued company during the internet bubble. He suddenly had billions in cash, and zero liabilities. It is easy to sit there and then talk trash about others. Cuban is a one-off billionaire, all cash. He’s like Zuckerberg. Sheesh. I’d rather talk about how hard it is to get money from Daddy and grow it into a larger empire than waste time on one off internet billionaires.

    I haven’t run any numbers, but I’d guess Billionaire Herb Simon at times is in the same boat as Trump. Lots of rent money, but lots of money spent. The assets that make him a billionaire are not liquid and even for him a $200M check might be a stretch unless he borrows it… and no one in their right mind borrows $200M to run for President.

    steveg (5508fb)

  17. VDH makes as good a case as any I’ve seen on why the current power/culture/ education structure must be brought low. In my interpretation, an excellent reason to do all I possibly can to remove contemporary Democrats from any office they hold.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440382/white-working-class-deplorables-clingers-elites-obama-hillary-clinton

    Colonel Haiku (d0a528)

  18. I don’t think anyone cares exactly how many billions Trump has. I mean, if he has three billion instead of four billion, so what? Unless maybe you’re Trump of course. Seems kinda weird to me for others to make an issue of it.

    LBascom (c230be)

  19. hf is silly but hardly a troll.

    gp (0c542c)

  20. david spade doesn’t like anyone simon, now lets address an educational system that makes everyone spacer, I stand corrected, earth not aurora, was the hermetically sealed world,

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. The reason she did not press the attack is that issues of wealth and charity and foundations and such are not really something she wants to get into a war over. Stones & glass houses.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. Trump, like Romney before him, doesn’t want 100,000 lawyers and their staffs pouring through his tax returns, hunting for dirt. Because no matter how squeaky-clean he is or isn’t, that complex a return will have flaws. Errors, sharp practice, double counting, whatever. Why have 100,000 audits when you only are required to have one?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. I don’t think hf is a troll. A troll says things that are too consequential to be ignored. HF just pleasures himself.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. Even a return without flaws can be screwed into one by a good partisan hack of a tax attorney

    steveg (5508fb)

  25. I am a cpa with lots of clients in real estate. $600m in real estate would seem to be a reasonable guestimate of debt. Based on the limited information available of his holdings, the 600m would be pretty normal – with and overall loan to value of 50% to 80%, in other words, the 600m doesnt seem out of line.

    joe (93323e)

  26. #22 –

    Because no matter how squeaky-clean he is or isn’t, that complex a return will have flaws. Errors, sharp practice, double counting,

    As a cpa with a lot of wealthy clients, you want to think you can nail the client’s taxable income down to the penny, The reality, given the vast complexity of the return is there will be errors, oversights, duplications of income and expenses. Hopefully, these errors are caught in the review process before filing. yet errors will occur. Additionally you will have members of the MSM who lack any comprehension of tax policy who will make grossly unsubstantiated claims.

    joe (93323e)

  27. I don’t think anyone cares exactly how many billions Trump has. I mean, if he has three billion instead of four billion, so what? Unless maybe you’re Trump of course. Seems kinda weird to me for others to make an issue of it.

    LBascom

    What if he has zero billion?

    And remember all those times Trump said that if Obama isn’t hiding something he should show his birth certificate? Like years after most of us dropped the issue as stupid, Trump was still saying that. How come Trump doesn’t meet his own standards?

    Probably because he has something to hide.

    We all know Trump lies about his success level and has generally been unsuccessful with the vast wealth he was born with. That’s why Trump is the first face you think of when you hear the word ‘bankruptcy’.

    What’s important is that Trump said he would release his tax return if Hillary released the emails. In other words, Trump has been lying when he said he couldn’t release the return. He can but he won’t. He doesn’t think the American people deserve to know.

    Let’s see if Trump wins in November.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  28. Dustin, natural born citizen is a constitutional requirement for president, tax returns not so much.

    Funny how they are so important to you, but Hillary blatantly violating the law with her private server and traitorous handling of classified information won’t stop you from voting for her.

    LBascom (c230be)

  29. Looking at how thin-skinned and defensive Trump is, how easily distracted he gets and how he has to respond to every little criticism, if Hillary were smart she’d just end every one of her responses with a little dig about Trump’s hair or hands, how ugly his kids are, how much his mother enjoyed the company of sailors….any sort of personal attack and Trump would be off chasing it like a cat after a laser pointer.

    Jerryskids (16a4d5)

  30. Jerryskids,

    Hillary could goad Trump, but it doesn’t look like she needs to. The ‘presidential’ one is the one who is above the fray, and Hillary can just coast along as Trump chants ‘wrong wrong wrong’ and overreacts the whole time. She won’t make more than a couple of digs at him, partly because she herself is a very poor public speaker and doesn’t need to risk it. If she does as little as possible she still wins.

    Dustin, natural born citizen is a constitutional requirement for president, tax returns not so much.

    Funny how they are so important to you, but Hillary blatantly violating the law with her private server and traitorous handling of classified information won’t stop you from voting for her.

    LBascom

    Our presidential candidates should go beyond the minimal constitutional requirements. We are better than that.

    Hillary is a terrible candidate. I’ve been criticizing her here for years before you ever darkened the doorstep of this blog. Unfortunately a vote for Hillary is the sacrifice demanded to stop Trump. Some republicans cannot pay that high a price, but I will. I understand those who say they think Hillary is more dangerous or they are willing to risk Trump not being a fascist mentally unstable nutcase. But Trump’s fans are altogether too much like that Omarosa goofball. Some of you would cheer Trump even if he used his power in assault on liberty and freedom.

    As Trump fans are fond of saying, it’s a binary choice. If the GOP wanted my vote they really dropped the ball this year.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  31. Colonel Haiku, Thanks for the link to the VDH article @ 17. Every time I say that I’m defamed as a racist. Apparently one can be pro anything but white in America today. Good thing it wasn’t that way in 1776 or there would be no America.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  32. If you are voting for Hillary Dustin, there is no way “the GOP” would have gotten your vote. If you are willing to vote for a lying grifter supported by the American Communist Party “the GOP” could have run Jesus Christ Himself and you would have never voted for Him. Stop lying Hillary lover.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  33. 21. Kevin M (25bbee) — 9/26/2016 @ 10:09 pm:

    The reason she did not press the attack is that issues of wealth and charity and foundations and such are not really something she wants to get into a war over. Stones & glass houses.

    That’s the reason the possible reasons she supplied for Trump not releasing his tax returns are not, basically, invidious. Nothing to do with questionable deductions, not counting something as income, etc. Or even really, bad business associations.

    27. Dustin (ba94b2) — 9/26/2016 @ 11:00 pm

    What’s important is that Trump said he would release his tax return if Hillary released the emails.

    Something he knows, at this stage, she absolutely cannot do. She and her aides have committed themselves to the notion they were destroyed, and cannot suddenly discover them without, at a minimum, raising a lot of questions.

    Of course they actually did leave themselves an out. There’s one laptop that was lost in the mail or was supposed to be mailed, and there’s a USB drive that disappeared and is possibly now where the Rose Law Firm billing records were for a decade.

    In other words, Trump has been lying when he said he couldn’t release the return. He can but he won’t.

    He never said he couldn’t release them. He just never explained what was the connection between being under audit and not releasing the tax returns.

    The only thing you could say is that the tax return isn’t final. But so what?

    But now yesterday he said it was under the advice of his attorneys. None of the reasons Hillary Clinton supplied sound like something that would concern a tax attorney.

    He doesn’t think the American people deserve to know.

    I don’t think he thinks in those terms.

    He argues that they wouldn’t learn much.

    But Trump could say one simple thing: He has said his income for the last year or so was disclosed to the FEC. He could disclose what was the total amount of checks, and/or withholding, he sent to the IRS in that same time period, based on that income.

    That wouldn’t answer every quewstion somebody would have about his business affars that might be gleaned from a tax return, but it would answer the question about what was his effective tax rate, at least pre-audit.

    Let’s see if Trump wins in November.

    Let’s see if Hillary Clinton can lose without him winning.

    Sammy Finkelman (3915d0)

  34. Cheering for Hillary. Nice.

    Dummies who vote for Democrats think rich people have huge stores of cash.

    Mike K (dc2d28)

  35. Some either just don’t get it, or their minds have been twisted into not caring, Dr. K.

    Colonel Haiku (d0a528)

  36. I feel it safe to say at this point that any candidate Dustin would vote for is a candidate that one should run from.

    Colonel Haiku (d0a528)

  37. Obamaneycare price rises announced by end of Oct. may be preceded by further exits from the marketplace, particularly in selected counties and states.

    http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/obamacares-death-spiral-has-begun/

    DNF (ffe548)

  38. #nevertrump is replete with those lacking the balls to live where their vote would count, e.g., Provo UT, or Oxford MS, or Columbia SC.

    DNF (ffe548)

  39. Not to mention Minnesota?

    nk (dbc370)

  40. Minnesota went for Herbert Hoover in 1928, Eisenhower in ’52 and ’56, and Nixon in 1972. And abi, abi, abi, that’s all folks.

    nk (dbc370)

  41. “I feel it safe to say at this point that any candidate Dustin would vote for is a candidate that one should run from.”

    – Colonel Haiku

    Yeah, we all know what high standards you have for political candidates.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  42. Sammy, with all due respect, you have a tendency to assert as fact things you’re merely guessing or things that aren’t true.

    [Trump] never said he couldn’t release them. He just never explained what was the connection between being under audit and not releasing the tax returns.

    No, Sammy, Trump repeatedly said he cannot release his taxes.

    “I will absolutely give my return but I’m being audited now for two or three [years’ worth] now so I can’t”

    -http://www.poli—tico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/donald-trump-i-cant-release-my-tax-return-because-of-audits-219830
    (link to politico was broken on purpose)

    This was a major point of discussion in the primary. Trump claimed he can’t help it, he’s being audited so he can’t release the tax returns, and Romney saying Trump’s claims are false and therefore hide ‘bombshells’.

    DNF, guilty as charged. I am not moving to a swing state just to make my vote more relevant. A matter of priorities.

    I feel it safe to say at this point that any candidate Dustin would vote for is a candidate that one should run from.

    Colonel Haiku

    Your flailing at me this morning seems a little more knee-jerk than usual. Recall that we both voted for Romney vs Obama and we both voted for Cruz in the primary. I can’t recall you saying, but I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and I would bet money you did as well if you were old enough in 2000. In fact, the reason we argue so much is precisely because we are so similar on politics except I’m anti-partisan lately and you are strictly-partisan.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  43. 40. And the race is all even in Minnesotastan. My county Democratic, my District Republican. With the local jihadis don’t expect Hill to carry my county.

    DNF (ffe548)

  44. 42. Nonetheless, your vote this election will be redundantly of no consequence, how very apropos.

    DNF (ffe548)

  45. Up early today but situation volatile:

    https://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/the-coming-market-dump-starts-next-week/

    I’m out of indexed funds just now.

    DNF (ffe548)

  46. This statement in the debate was interesting:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/transcript-debate.html?_r=0

    Now, in all fairness to Secretary Clinton — yes, is that OK? Good. I want you to be very happy. It’s very important to me.

    But in all fairness to Secretary Clinton, when she started talking about this, it was really very recently…

    It was important that she be satisfied with the name he called her.

    So she wouldn’t…what?

    He didn’t call her “Crooked Hillary” or anything, and never mentioned the Clinton Foundation. And (in return?) she was careful to not assign too bad motives as the explanations for his non-release of his tax returns.

    These were the (rather innocuous) possible reasons she gave: (none of them real bombshells)

    CLINTON: …So you’ve got to ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons.

    First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is.

    Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be.

    Third, we don’t know all of his business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks.

    Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody’s ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax.

    TRUMP: That makes me smart.

    CLINTON: So if he’s paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health. And I think probably he’s not all that enthusiastic about having the rest of our country see what the real reasons are, because it must be something really important, even terrible, that he’s trying to hide.

    And the financial disclosure statements, they don’t give you the tax rate. They don’t give you all the details that tax returns would. And it just seems to me that this is something that the American people deserve to see. And I have no reason to believe that he’s ever going to release his tax returns, because there’s something he’s hiding.

    And we’ll guess. We’ll keep guessing at what it might be that he’s hiding. But I think the question is, were he ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to? Well, he owes you the answers to that, and he should provide them.

    None of these things would explain an audit, or why it was prolonged.

    She makes no guesses as to that.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  47. By the way he didn’t pay any federal income taxes only 2 years out of 5, and that’s because he reported a loss. Big losses in 1978 and 1979.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/24/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-
    claim-about-donald-trump-paying-no/

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  48. Losses possibly caused by depreciation on the full value of property where he borrowed a huge percentage of its cost to pay for it.

    That will eventually turn a capital gain – but what if there no gain? What if he never pays back the loan??

    Or just simply never outright sells, and at most exchanges real estate, ited by his children?

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  49. @27 Dustin

    Being a billionaire isn’t a Constitutional requirement for being president.

    Pinandpuller (a5ae9c)

  50. @ steveg, who wrote (#11):

    Well, it isn’t any easier for a billionaire to spend 1/3 of their income (income, not liquidating an asset) than it is for you or me.

    That’s silly and false. Your concept of “easier” must be completely elastic for that to be true. You’re presuming, in fact, absolute irrationality on the part of the billionaire, for that’s what it would be if he has indeed so committed every bit of his incoming revenue stream to meet current expenses, as must a father supporting a wife and two kids on $35k/year.

    If Trump were a man of principle, he might say, “My wealth should be irrelevant, and unless the American people in their collective wisdom are willing to use their First Amendment rights, as reconfirmed by Citizens United, to support me and other Republican candidates through their donations and political speech, then I’m not worthy of the office.”

    But that’s also ridiculous to imagine coming from Trump, and indeed, he’s taken exactly the opposite path by pretending, falsely but loudly, throughout the primaries that he was “self-financing” his campaign so as to be immune from special interest strings.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  51. @ Kevin M, who wrote:

    Trump, like Romney before him, doesn’t want 100,000 lawyers and their staffs pouring through his tax returns, hunting for dirt. Because no matter how squeaky-clean he is or isn’t, that complex a return will have flaws. Errors, sharp practice, double counting, whatever. Why have 100,000 audits when you only are required to have one?

    This is a straw man argument. I assure you that the high-wealth audit group that the IRS assigns to audits like Trump’s don’t need to “crowd-source” their enforcement efforts. The only people Trump needs to worry about for purposes of his audit are the people at the IRS who already have his damned tax returns. I assure you they don’t need, want, or accept help from the general public.

    If your theory had any real-world validity or logic, then surely at least one of the many political candidates for President, VP, U.S. Senator, U.S. Congress, etc., who’ve all routinely released their tax returns for scrutiny by the voting public over the last three decades ought to have resulted in the IRS either initiating or expanding an audit. After all, the overwhelming majority of those candidates face opponents, each one of whom — and each one of whose supporters — is similarly motivated to fly-spec and find mistakes or challengeable deductions or whatever.

    So point to one candidate who’s been audited because he released his taxes in a political campaign, or whose audit was materially worsened and whose taxes therefore went up.

    If you can’t, then admit that this is just bullsh*t posturing, the sorriest possible excuse Trump could ever have. As he says, he’s almost always under audit, and he contends that as long as any year is under audit, he can’t release any year’s tax returns! Therefore, Donald Trump will likely never release them, by his own admission.

    The actual bottom line, of course, is the one that Lester Holt tried, briefly and ineffectually, to make, which is that if you choose to come to the American voting public asking its trust for four years to occupy the office of POTUS, their need to confirm your compliance with the nation’s tax laws vastly outweighs your personal privacy rights, including not only your right to not be embarrassed by, say, sheltering offshore income or claiming dodgy tax loses, or by showing less current income than you’ve publicly claimed, or less by way of charitable contributions, or whatever. The “whatever” category also includes the entirely hypothetical and spectacularly improbable risk of complicating one’s audit posture with the IRS.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  52. Pfft.

    “That’s it, baby! When you got it, flaunt it! Flaunt it!” Max Bialystock [Zero Mostel] ‘The Producers’, 1968

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP3QDczTxXg

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  53. “The actual bottom line, of course, is the one that Lester Holt tried, briefly and ineffectually, to make, which is that if you choose to come to the American voting public asking its trust for four years to occupy the office of POTUS, their need to confirm your compliance with the nation’s tax laws vastly outweighs your personal privacy rights, including not only your right to not be embarrassed by, say, sheltering offshore income or claiming dodgy tax loses, or by showing less current income than you’ve publicly claimed, or less by way of charitable contributions, or whatever. The “whatever” category also includes the entirely hypothetical and spectacularly improbable risk of complicating one’s audit posture with the IRS.”

    Has Trump been charged with tax evasion, under-reporting, or anything else. No? Well then…

    Colonel Haiku (d0a528)

  54. It’s long been established by nevertrumpers that the Donald is guilty until proven innocent. And that even means what he is going to do in the future.

    LBascom (c230be)

  55. @27. That’s why Trump is the first face you think of when you hear the word ‘bankruptcy’.

    No, not really, Dustin. Not if you actually think.

    Just to name a few:

    Walt Disney.
    Henry Ford.
    Milton Hershey.
    H,J. Heinz.
    P.T. Barnum.
    George McGovern.
    John Connally.
    Joe Lewis.
    Jose Canseco.
    Willie Nelson.
    Kim Bassinger.
    Larry King.
    Mike Tyson.
    Rembrandt.
    Mark Twain.
    Oscar Wilde.
    Mickey Rooney.
    Debbie Reynolds.
    Burt Reynolds.
    J.C. Penney.
    Johnny Unitas.
    Dorothy Hamill.
    Bjorn Borg.
    Sherman Hemsley.
    Gary Busey.
    Nicholas Cage.

    And, of course, Presidents of the United States:
    Thomas Jefferson.
    U.S. Grant.
    William McKinley
    and Abraham Lincoln– twice.

    Not to mention:
    Texaco.
    Enron.
    Washington Mutual.
    Chrysler.
    General Motors.
    Lehman Bros.,
    PG&E.
    Worldcom.
    CIT Group.
    PanAm Airlines.
    United Airlines.
    Delta Airlines…

    …and many, many more. Ahhhh, capitalism…. that sweet smell of ‘success.’

    “GM. Mark Of Excellence!” General Motors corporate tag line, 1960s-70s.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  56. Mark Twain and Harry S Truman did not use the bankruptcy process and paid off their debts, I think.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  57. 51. Beldar (fa637a) — 9/27/2016 @ 2:10 pm

    So point to one candidate who’s been audited because he released his taxes in a political campaign, or whose audit was materially worsened and whose taxes therefore went up.

    Richard Nixon, except that happened during the impeachment period.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  58. http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/11/pf/taxes/nixon-trump-tax-returns/

    Turns out Richard Nixon publicly released his tax returns while they were under audit in 1973, at the height of the Watergate investigation.

    But Watergate wasn’t the reason, according to tax historian Joe Thorndike.

    In the summer and fall of that year, “Nixon was engulfed by a controversy over his personal taxes. An outsize charitable donation was the proximate cause, but the scandal expanded to include numerous issues with the returns Nixon had filed between 1968 and 1972,” Thorndike noted in a soon-to-be-published paper.

    Interestingly it was that very tax controversy — not Watergate — that gave rise to one of Nixon’s most famous quotes, Thorndike found. “People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook,” Nixon told reporters in November 1973. “Well, I am not a crook.”

    He even went so far as to invite the Joint Committee on Taxation to also examine his returns. It did, and found Nixon owed another $476,431 — or about $2.5 million in today’s dollars. The IRS came to a similar conclusion.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  59. it had to do with the deductability of presidential papers which had been changed sometime after the election,

    narciso (d1f714)

  60. No one should ever release their tax information to the public. Period. It’s bad enough an immoral law requires me to reveal my income to government authorities why would I release them to 330 million people any one of which could do me financial harm? That’s just nuts.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  61. exactly besides its the foundation and the counterparties like guistra’s fernwood, which is where she does her business,

    narciso (d1f714)

  62. 55- Nice!

    If memory serves, Reagan resisted releasing his taxes, then only released one year’s.

    It’s actually a relatively new practice, dating back to 1952 when Nixion successfully shamed his opponent into releasing theirs…then didn’t even release his own.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/presidential-candidates-have-long-history-of-releasing-tax-returns/

    So there you have it, brought to you, along with the EPA, by tricky Dicky.

    Personally I think it BS, against American principles and human dignity. May as well make them mount a camera in their bedroom to prove they aren’t banging underage hookers.

    LBascom (c230be)

  63. Pardon my ignorance narciso, but are you referring to Guistra the Canadian billionaire and Hillary contributor in pay to play?.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  64. yes, the one who arranged the shanghaing of the uranium stores into rusatom hands,

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. 60. narciso (d1f714) — 9/27/2016 @ 3:27 pm

    it had to do with the deductability of presidential papers which had been changed sometime after the election,

    Vice-Presidential papers in his case.

    All the politciamns, including Hubert Humphrey, were doing things like that. Deducting the estimated value of personal papers, without ever having sold them. the way you could deduct an appreciated painting.

    The law was changed effective July 25, 1969, and the question was, was the gift completed before then. Or was maybe something backdated?

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  66. I didn’t know that Nixon got Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver to release several years of returns in 1952.

    I thought it all began with Nixxon and the watergate investigation. Democrats were ,looking for anything against Nixon/

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  67. The law was changed effective July 25, 1969, and the question was, was the gift completed before then. Or was maybe something backdated?

    What Congress did is it did as many times happens with tax laws, or used to at least. The law was made retroactive, to apply to events that occured before its passing. What usually happens when the closing of tax loophole is proposed, the effective date is made the date the amendment was seriopusly proposed in Congress

    In Nixon’s case, the IRS definitely did follow the lead of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, so his audit definitely was crowdsourced.

    The Chairman ofthe House ways and Means Committee, Wilbur Mills, used to have the belief that “a public official who files a tax return has to be holier-than-thou,” and as amater of fact, he himself, always took the standard deduction, even though he could have paid less by itemizing.

    This was the problem with his gift;

    After an extensive review of this donation – including numerous interviews with Nixon’s aides, lawyers, and accountants – JCIRT staff concluded that the president had not made a valid gift before the July 25, 1969 deadline. The committee identified numerous problems with the deed of gift – dated March 27, 1969, signed by presidential assistant Edward Morgan, and delivered to the Archives in April 1970. In fact, the deed had not been signed by all parties until April 10, 1970 and was not delivered to the National
    Archives until after that date. Since delivery of the deed was necessary to convey title, the gift had been made after July 25, 1969.

    In addition, Morgan did not appear to have authorization to sign the deed on the president’s
    behalf. The deed also imposed numerous restrictions on the gift, rendering it (in the committee’s
    judgment) a gift of future interest in tangible property, which would only be deductible once the
    restrictions had expired. 57

    Footnote 57:

    57 The report also concluded that a similar gift of papers made in 1968 imposed the same restrictions, making the charitable deduction in Nixon’s 1968 return also improper and barring the possibility of carrying over any portion of the deduction to future tax years.

    There was also the isseu of a capital gain had failed to report a capital gain on the sale of land originally included in his San Clemente estate. The committee rejected Nixon’s assertion that he had made no profit
    on the sale, suggesting that he had erroneously allocated costs and depreciation between various parcelsm, and had a capital gain of $117,836 – and on top of that he had a capital gain on the
    sale of his New York cooperative apartment. Nixon had claimed that deferral was justified, since he ha because while Nicxon claimed he had reinvested the gain in the purchase of a new principal residence (San Clemente), Nixon’s actual principal residence was not the San Clemente estate but the White House. Now this is a real question, as politcians always regard their voting address as the principle residence, and this would really punish anyoone elected president who exchanged houses while president, and maybe people in the military as well.

    Not allowing Nixon to claim an exemption from paying immedoate capital gains taxes on he saleof his principle residence is definitely an example of crowdsourcing an audit – only a real expert would have thought of it.

    Sammy Finkelman (fbd892)

  68. 67. Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver and raised (did more) Nixon on disclosure in 1952.

    Sammy Finkelman (fbd892)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3361 secs.