I had no idea so many Hispanic women wanted to be cops.

The Week - Analysis

Trump literally can't afford to lose the election

Peter Weber

One eye-catching takeaway from the deep look into Trump's strenuously shielded tax filings is that Trump loses a lot of money. Like, a lot. He loses millions at his prized foreign and U.S. golf properties, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and many of the roughly 500 entities that make up the Trump Organization.

[…]

But "the picture that perhaps emerges most starkly from the mountain of figures and tax schedules prepared by Mr. Trump's accountants is of a businessman-president in a tightening financial vise," deep in debt with the bill coming due, the Times reports. That raises the troubling question of whether Trump can literally afford to lose power on Nov. 3 — and what he might do to prevent an electoral defeat and financial ruin.

He's a billionaire, Raddy.

Well, $2.5 billion according to Forbes. And the returns show the opposite. It is in Trump's financial best interests to lose the election instead of winning.

Great, so we're offered a choice this year of an ego-maniacal quasi-billionaire anxious to avoid a rapidly-crumbling financial situation or a doddering fool with a power-mad running mate who has all but admitted the fool will be a figurehead while she, supported by left-wing revolutionaries, runs things.

Anybody else long for the days when the worst choice we were presented was between a naive peanut farmer and a guy who'd played too much football without a helmet?

========================================

Now that we've got the harrumphing about Trump out of the way, on to the bigger issue:

While we're contemplating the Times' publication of Trump's tax returns, let's take a moment to ask how the Times got them; and how complete they are. What are the long-term implications of a newspaper being able to acquire and publish a citizen's tax returns?

Tax returns are supposed to be private. Yet, here's the New York Times not only acquiring a citizen's tax returns, but splashing them across the front page for the world to see. Who gave them the tax returns?

We've already seen a politicized IRS, with Lois Lerner's office targeting and obstructing conservative groups. What are the implications of a politicized IRS going after citizens who don't toe the party's line?

Is this something we can lightly dismiss because the target was Trump? Or is this something that should greatly concern us in the long run?

What are the implications? Quite possibly civil war. With Lois Lerner the IRS didn't go after the big name TEA party groups. They went after the mom and pop groups. As long as they go after presidents and CEOs most people will still feel safe and won't care much. But if Lerner's tactics make a comeback and the IRS is viewed not as a dispassionate accounting group but instead as a political weapon that could be used indiscriminately then roughly half of the nation has to get rid of the IRS to protect themselves. Same with the FBI and CIA.

There are similar issues with the debt. Democrats have been confused by how right wing groups no longer care about debt. Big name politicians all the way down to random joes, no one cares anymore. The reason is quite simple. Unless you are willing to cut social security you can't balance the budget. Flat can't be done. I still see Democrats talking about how we should decide between cutting defense or social security. Which just shows they haven't a clue. We are overspending by 0.9 trillion. Defense is only 0.6 trillion. Slash it to zero and you still haven't balanced the budget. At the same time no one believes you can get elected if you are willing to cut SS. Hence both Biden and Trump trying to force the other guy to say they will cut payments recently. So no one who actually cared about the debt in the past does anymore. It is an impossible task so everyone has given up. Instead they are waiting for the first debt default and hoping positive changes can be made then.

Just guessing here as someone who has done a lot of tax returns. What was published was what had to be filled for Trump’s income in New York. It is probably only a small portion of what the various Trump businesses file and pay on a nation wide basis.

Also, it probably didn’t come from the IRS. It most likely came from someone who had access to New York State tax returns.
Different kind of leak.

You're an even bigger failure as a politician if you're letting your kids believe the lies that your party has been busy spouting.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1310786424346566657

I don't know what tests they give cops these days, but we could use a lot more Dirty Harrys.

Different kind of leak.

The AG's office.

Richard Dawkins has been cancelled.

Auditor of the Hist Bríd O’Donnell announced the cancellation in a statement on her Instagram page, saying that she had been “unaware of Richard Dawkins’ opinions on Islam and sexual assault until this evening”, adding that the society “will not be moving ahead with his address as we value our members comfort above all else”.

http://www.universitytimes.ie/2020/09/the-hist-will-not-be-moving-ahead-with-richard-dawkins-address/

It's almost like we're ignoring the fact that Trump donates his $400,000 salary every year and focusing instead on the negative appearances of successful tax reduction strategies - ohhh, now I get it.

Never mind. Carry on.

Sure her does. Generosity is his middle name. Even the hundreds if not thousands of vendors and partners he's stiffed over the years will admit that....

Rob Szczerba @RJSzczerba

Over the past 15 years, Trump paid more for sex than he did in taxes.

6:51 PM · Sep 27, 2020·Twitter Web App

58K Retweets
3.3K Quote Tweets
258.3K Likes

LOL - nobody of Trump's bent has 'Generosity' as a middle name. It's a tax and PR strategy. But it is $400,000 of donations and maybe a tax specialist could tell me how that affects his income tax liability, given his hyooge (his words) wealth.

Seriously, though, I don't read the NYT - has anyone seen these tax returns and compared them to the returns the IRS has on file?

Or are we all just trusting NYT journalists based on Because We Say So?

Asking for a friend.

At a moderate 2% dividend rate $2.5 billion generates $50 million/year. I expect Trump is closer to 1% but I don't really know. So lets just assume he is making $25 million sitting on his ass. $400k is pretty insignificant at that point.

As for the tax consequences for donating it? It is an itemized deduction so it depends on what his tax bracket is. At 37% it would save him $148k in taxes. But he has a lot of old losses. So mostly it is letting him hold onto those losses for longer. In a sense saving that $148k in taxes at a later date.

Now you know why no one tells you these things. The answer is it depends.