Forum Thread

Trumps tax returns

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 31 1 2 3 Next
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Rachel of MSNBC showed pages of Trump's tax return of 2005. Of course 2 pages don't tell much, however it showed he paid some taxes, about $38 million that year, which was about 23% of his income. The thing I like to add is that such rate in Europe should be at least 70%; 23% is paid there by someone earning about $30K. Thus which ever way you look at it, this country is an paradise for the "rich" related to taxes.

    But yeah those two pieces of paper do mean nothing if you don't have the "backup" data. There should be hundred's of pages about foreign investments, taxes paid there, liens, loans, interest paid, exchange rates, property taxes, legal fees, capital gains etc etc. Thus even when we ever get his tax returns; it will take a few trucks to transport those and a couple of month to figure out all the wheeling and dealing, if all of that was done the legal way.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Yes, we can make a few high level observations but without the truckloads of supplementary schedules we can only surmise of what might be in them. As Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, points out, "Mr. Trump derives his income from more than 500 business entities, each with its own income stream and tax filing. “It’s in those filings that you would see names and sources of income,” he said. “The tax return that we’re looking at, we’re not going to see that -- those are all summaries and rollups of what’s in the filing of individual entities.”

    I watched Rachel's show last night and kind of felt she made a bigger deal out of something that wasn't such a big surprise. David K. Johnston even suggested that Trump himself might be the source of the leaked two page summary. The form did have stamped on the bottom of the second page, "client copy".

    Is this another diversion?

  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I been listening to the various talking heads of the media and they all seem to agree in theory anyway that this was much ado about nothing, although one did mention the legality of releasing an individual's tax returns to the public, President Trump was a private citizen in 2005, the year of the released tax return. Also does MSNBC become an accomplice in furthering the crime by releasing the contents of tax return to the public knowing full well that it may be illegal?
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Its very odd that the two pages reveal practically nothing. If we think about it for a moment, whoever leaked it surely had access to more pages and\or the entire tax return, so why leak only two pages that says nothing?

    The way we'll know with a high degree of certainty if Trump leaked his own tax returns (to fuck with racheal Maddow, which is really super duper cool behavior on behalf of the President of the USA), is if more pages are leaked with the real important details. If there are no more leaks, we know the source. If important pages are leaked, then Trump has an extremely serious leak coming from someone who he trust 110% percent, but I think we all know this is dirty politics behavior on behalf of the president of USA. Its like this is a reality TV show for him, and once per week, there needs to be some unexpected twist to make sure the audience keeps tuning in to see what in the hell he's going to do next. Can't wait for week 13, when he'll launch a nuclear warhead for no reason other than he wants to tick off Chris Mathews.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt got it right; it is probably "placed" by Trump himself as "diversion" tactics for all his problems at this moment.

    1) Health care disaster

    2) Obama wiretap

    3) Muslim ban

    4) His ratings

    5) Linsey Graham demand

    6) N.Korea

    7) Middle East

    8) His tax returns

    9) Snoop Dog clip ( he got shot)

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Diversion tactics is exactly right. Actual returns have information such as the sources of income. He doesn't think we're worthy of any information. He's playing us and laughing about how F'ing easy it is to do. Magically the other return that was "sent" to the magazine showed mass loses relieving his responsibility to pay. He is amazed how little info he can give and how he can pick and choose what he gives. We and the rest sit and accept it all.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: I watched Rachel's show last night and kind of felt she made a bigger deal out of something that wasn't such a big surprise. David K. Johnston even suggested that Trump himself might be the source of the leaked two page summary. The form did have stamped on the bottom of the second page, "client copy".

    Is this another diversion?

    I didn't watch the show last night, but everything I've read sounds like this was entirely over hyped and very well may have been orchestrated by Trump or someone close to him. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he did considering he is desperate to have the media talk about anything other than the Russian scandal.

    Two pages of a tax return from well over a decade ago shows us absolutely nothing. I have to admit that I thought Rachel Maddow wouldn't have let herself get sucked into something like this because many die hard liberals follow her every word and this might wind up causing her more harm than good.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Also does MSNBC become an accomplice in furthering the crime by releasing the contents of tax return to the public knowing full well that it may be illegal?

    No.

    We have this awesome thing called the 1st Amendment that protects the press from authoritarian demagogues.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I agree she was guilty of wanting to be the most important news person. For 45, 90, 120 "minutes" she was. Her and MSNBC wanted the same.

    I agree the Trump likelihood is undeniable. He toys with reality and has the planet paying attention to him now. Other than $ how could it get better. I hope for that which he wants to avoid to haunt him sooner than later. Details fact checked as well as possible.

  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: Also does MSNBC become an accomplice in furthering the crime by releasing the contents of tax return to the public knowing full well that it may be illegal?

    No.

    We have this awesome thing called the 1st Amendment that protects the press from authoritarian demagogues.

    I was under the impression that you couldn't release a private citizen's tax return without their permission as there is too much additional personal information available for someone with mischief in mind, if they are allowed under the First Amendment why not release all of of President Trump's tax information,instead of waiting for his permission.
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    IMHO, if the tax returns were a smoking gun, they would have been sent one of the major investigating reporting organizations such the Washington Post or NY times.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: I was under the impression that you couldn't release a private citizen's tax return without their permission as there is too much additional personal information available for someone with mischief in mind, if they are allowed under the First Amendment why not release all of of President Trump's tax information,instead of waiting for his permission.

    Donald is no longer a private citizen.

    If someone decides to leak Donald's full tax returns to a media outlet then that media outlet has every legal right to report on them.

    I encourage you to read up on Constitutional law.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote: IMHO, if the tax returns were a smoking gun, they would have been sent one of the major investigating reporting organizations such the Washington Post or NY times.

    I agree.

    That's why I have a feeling that Maddow allowed herself to be hoodwinked.

  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    wwjd Wrote: IMHO, if the tax returns were a smoking gun, they would have been sent one of the major investigating reporting organizations such the Washington Post or NY times.

    I agree.

    That's why I have a feeling that Maddow allowed herself to be hoodwinked.

    I don't know jared, it's seems a little bit shaky to assume that the media has the right or as you say a legal right to release someones tax returns when they were a private citizen without their permission, but is it also safe to assume that that right does not extend to a public official, such as the President or for that matter any elected or appointed official.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    wwjd Wrote: IMHO, if the tax returns were a smoking gun, they would have been sent one of the major investigating reporting organizations such the Washington Post or NY times.

    I agree.

    That's why I have a feeling that Maddow allowed herself to be hoodwinked.

    I don't know jared, it's seems a little bit shaky to assume that the media has the right or as you say a legal right to release someones tax returns when they were a private citizen without their permission, but is it also safe to assume that that right does not extend to a public official, such as the President or for that matter any elected or appointed official.
    That's why I encouraged you to read up on Constituonal law. Donald is no longer a private citizen and the protections afforded to private citizens no longer apply now that Donald is President.