Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts

February 15, 2018

25 Cents Gas Hike It Looks like everyone is Going to Pay for 'His' Tastes

 'You want a gas increase? I don't drive sure'. Total meltdown towards conservatives inititives. But wasn't the Democrats the party of taxes and spend, spend, ..another lie it was the lier. fooling some.

President Trump endorsed a 25-cent gas tax hike to pay for infrastructure at a White House meeting this morning with senior administration officials and members of Congress from both parties, according to two sources with direct knowledge. Trump also said he was open to other ways to pay for infrastructure, according to a source with direct knowledge. 
Reality check: Trump’s gas tax idea appears dead on arrival. Republicans aren’t about to hike taxes for the Trump voters driving their pickup trucks to work every day. It’s a regressive tax and in Republicans’ minds would undo some of working and middle-class tax cuts they just passed.
Paul Ryan in 2015:
"Ever since 2008, the trust fund has spent more than it took in. And the reason is simple: People have been using less gas. They’re driving more fuel-efficient cars. You get a lot more miles to the gallon than you used to. And so gas just doesn’t track use as well as it used to. And we can’t just chase fuel efficiency with higher taxes." 
The gas tax is currently 18.4 cents a gallon for gas and 24.4 cents for diesel. It was last raised in 1993.
Per a White House official:
  • "As Sec. Chao mentioned yesterday, the President is focused on his 4 priorities: spurring $1.5 trillion of infrastructure investment, cutting down the burdensome permitting process from 10 years to 2, providing funding for rural infrastructure, and investing in workforce development. He has said everything is on the table in order to achieve those goals."
  • "The gas tax has its pros and cons, and that’s why the President is leading a thoughtful discussion on the right way to solve our nation’s infrastructure problems."
  • By Axios
  • Adamfoxie🦊 Celebrating 10 years of keeping an eye on the world for You brings you the important LGBT news others ignore. Does not repost from gay sites [except only when importat athlete comes out].Will post popular items with a different angle or to contribute to our readers🦊

February 7, 2018

Don"t Get Excited About Tax Pay Increases Coming Out of New Tax Law

 Just look again, see at what is not visible by a quick look

Egged on by the White House, corporate America has spent the past few weeks touting how it is sharing its big Trump tax cut with employees in the form of bonuses and pay increases — an apparent validation of the trickle-down approach to economics espoused by the president and his Republican allies.
But when we look at the numbers, we see the opposite: The nation’s workers are getting woefully little, at least relatively speaking. Peeking beyond the PR, our analysis finds that major corporations are planning to spend more than 30 times what they are putting in the wallets of employees on buying back their own stock — a practice solely meant to lift the fortunes of shareholders. Not that we’re surprised. Favoring stockholders over workers continues a decades-long trend that has contributed to wage stagnation, exacerbated income inequality and slowed economic growth across the country. 
To get a sense of how the pie is being divided, we collaborated with Emre Gome c of the Academic-Industry Research Network to tally the sums of commitments from the 44 companies in the S&P 500 stock index that, according to Americans for Tax Reform, are giving their employees a bonus or a raise because of the new law. When you add it all up, you get about $5.2 billion — $3.7 billion in one-time bonuses and an estimated $1.5 billion in annual wage increases. 
But that total pales in comparison with the $157.6 billion in stock buybacks announced by 34 S&P 500 companies since early December, when the tax bill passed the Senate. Companies typically purchase their own shares in a bid to bump up the price — a move that tends to please Wall Street and swells the compensation of chief executives, who are paid largely in stock.
Admittedly, our calculations aren’t perfect. Not every company has spelled out how many employees will see wages rise or by exactly how much. In such cases, we’ve assumed that the increase is at the most generous end of the spectrum and will affect the most employees. In other words, if we’ve erred, we’ve erred on the side of inflating the amount being given to workers.
To be clear, most of the companies that have said they’ll be distributing some of their tax savings to their employees have not also announced a new stock buyback. But a few have. For example, Bank of America will provide a $1,000 bonus to its 145,000 employees “in the spirit of shared success.” That will cost the company $145 million. In December, the bank also added $5 billion to its buyback plans, bringing its projected total to $17 billion by 2018. 
It is only fair to acknowledge that we haven’t counted other gains to employees and communities that some companies have reportedly pledged because of the tax law, including additional contributions to 401(k) plans and philanthropic donations. Apple said last month that it would have a $350 billion impact on the U.S. economy over the next five years as it creates 20,000 jobs, builds a corporate campus and makes other investments — though it appears that much of this activity would have happened without the new tax law.
Still, even if you take all this into account, there’s no way you’d match what is being channeled to stockholders. Not even close.
It wasn’t always like this. Forty years ago, big companies usually paid out about half their profits to stockholders. The other half was reinvested in research and development, worker training, higher employee compensation and so on. Figures compiled by researchers at the Academic-Industry Research Network show, however, that 94 percent of profits over the past decade have gone to benefit shareholders directly through buybacks and dividends. 
What changed? Beginning in the mid-1970s, a movement to “maximize shareholder value” above all other considerations gained currency. And in 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule that allows executives to massively buy back the company’s stock without fear of being charged with manipulating the share price — even though that is precisely what they are doing.
Soon, top corporate executives were being paid more and more in stock — making it in their personal interest to drive their company’s share price upward in the short term. In this environment, corporations have come to view workers as an avoidable expense, not as an asset to invest in.
Some will argue that almost everyone benefits when stock prices climb. This is false. Research shows that the top 10 percent of wealthy U.S. households control 84 percent of the value of all shares.
Don’t get us wrong. We applaud those companies that are making sure their employees get a piece of the Trump pie. But context is crucial. In the scheme of things, the American worker is still being handed crumbs.
Wshington Post
Rick Wartzman, director of the KH Moon Center for a Functioning Society at the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University, is author of “The End of Loyalty: The Rise and Fall of Good Jobs in America.” William Lazonick is an economics professor at UMass Lowell and president of the Academic-Industry Research Network.

adamfoxie🦊 Celebrating 10 years of keeping an eye on the world for You brings you the important LGBT news others ignore. Does not repost from gay sites [except only when importat athlete comes out].Will post popular items with a different angle or to contribute to our readers🦊

February 5, 2018

Paul Ryan Tweets The Benefit of $1.50 An Hr from New Tax Law Then "Deletes"

 So much more money for those that have a lot! Others $1.50 an hr. More Enjoy Md'sSTILL

 Speaker Paul D. Ryan faced a backlash on Saturday after he pointed to a secretary’s $1.50 weekly increase in take-home pay as a sign of the Republican tax plan’s success.

“A secretary at a public high school in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, said she was pleasantly surprised her pay went up $1.50 a week ... she said [that] will more than cover her Costco membership for the year,” Mr. Ryan posted on Twitter, sharing an Associated Press report about paycheck increases under the $1.5 trillion tax overhaul.

Mr. Ryan deleted the Twitter post in hours, however, after lawmakers and social media users criticized him for appearing out of touch.
“That tweet about the $1.50 a week is not a PR mistake,” Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, wrote on Twitter. “It is really what they think.”
Randy Bryce, a Democrat waging a long-shot bid to unseat Mr. Ryan, quickly used the tweet in a fund-raising effort. 
Poll Finds Upturn in Sentiment on Tax Overhaul and Economy JAN. 16, 2018
What’s in the Final Republican Tax Bill DEC. 15, 2017
With Tax Overhaul, Trump Fulfills a Campaign Promise and Flexes Republican Muscle DEC. 20, 2017 
“Moments ago, @PRyan deleted this tweet after we told him just how out of touch he was,” Mr. Bryce wrote, soliciting $1.50 donations. “Show Paul Ryan what you think of his tax bill.”

According to an analysis of the bill by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “in general, higher income households receive larger average tax cuts as a percentage of after-tax income.” Middle-income taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $930 this year, and those in the top 1 percent would receive an average cut of $51,000.

Critics also pointed to the $500,000 in campaign donations that the conservative billionaire Koch family gave to Mr. Ryan shortly after the House passed a version of the tax overhaul in November.

Last month, Mr. Ryan was one of several Republicans who denounced Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, for dismissing the bonuses some companies had offered their employees as “crumbs.” 

“I’m sad and surprised she said that,” Mr. Ryan said on C-Span. “To somebody working at Walmart at the starting wage, who just went from $9 an hour to $11 an hour — I don’t think that’s crumbs. To a person working paycheck to paycheck, just got a $1,000 bonus — that’s not crumbs.”

Several retailers and large companies have offered bonuses — which they have said is part of their savings from the tax law — to workers, but several of them come with strings attached or vary based on tenure and how many hours employees work.

Economists from across the political spectrum have said that it is too early to tell what kind of impact the tax bill will have on the economy and wages.


December 23, 2017

4 Exquisite Reasons Why This Trump/Ryan/GOP Tax Cut is Immoral

 Paul Ryan on Trump: 'Exquisite Presidential leadership'

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said of America, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.” By this moral standard, the Republican Party has grossly failed our country with the passage of their tax bill. By providing a giant tax cut for the rich and corporations (and making those permanent) and giving modest tax cuts for individuals (and making those temporary), by ballooning the deficit by $1.5 trillion, and by repealing the Obamacare mandate, it takes from those who need it most – everyday Americans, the poor, the sick, the disabled – to give to those who have more than enough. In short, it’s a sort of reverse-Robin Hood.

With language like “deductions” and “loopholes,” it’s easy to gloss over the debate over taxes. However, tax policy affects every single American, so it’s important to know the good, the bad, and the ugly. Unfortunately, this tax bill is mostly ugly.

It's a Big Tax Cut for the Rich and Corporations

In the bill just passed by Congress, the tax rate for top earners drops from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. This cut is actually bigger than what was in the individual House and Senate bills, and it goes back on a promise that President Trump and his administration made that any cuts made to taxes wouldn’t benefit top earners, particularly the president himself. It turns out, that was a huge, blatant lie. And while the top bracket previously started at $470,000 for married couples, now it starts at $600,000, with those still quite wealthy people making between $470,000 and $600,000 being taxed at an even lower rate of 35 percent. The plan also doubles the threshold for the estate tax – meaning that the super rich can pass down up to $22 million per married couple to their heirs, tax-free. How nice.

The biggest benefit in the bill, however, goes to corporations. It’s the biggest cut in our nation’s history, dropping the rate from 35 percent to a mere 21 percent. The GOP argument here is that cutting the corporate rate significantly puts more money in the pockets of businesses to reinvest, grow their businesses, provide wage increases, and create jobs. But economists aren’t sure that’s entirely true, given that corporate after-tax profits are currently at a historic high. This means corporations already have the cash to spend on reinvestment and higher wages – they’re just choosing not to. So, the link between cutting the corporate tax rate and increasing jobs and wages is dubious, with many economists saying it’s not likely at all.

It's a Small, Temporary Tax Cut for Everyday Americans

While the bill provides massive tax breaks for the uber-rich and corporations, it’s only modest in providing tax relief for middle-income and poor families. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the average break would be about $1,600 in 2018, but the biggest break, calculated as a share of after-income tax, would go to those families making between $308,000 and $733,000. Those in the middle class would see a tax break of about $900, and lower incomes would see even less of a break. In short, everyone would get a small temporary break, but the biggest tax relief would go to those who make more. As the TPC says, “For middle-income people, an extra $900 would pay for about seven months of gas. By contrast, those in the top one percent could pick up a nice Mercedes C Class Coupe with their $50,000+ average tax cut.” And the catch with the individual tax breaks is they all expire in 2025, and the average tax cut would drop to only $160 at that time. But because many very rich individuals get a lot of their wealth through things like business ownership and investments, the GOP plan continues to benefit them even as their individual tax cuts expire.

It Repeals the Obamacare Mandate

Tucked into the GOP tax bill is a repeal of the Obamacare mandate – or the part of the law that says every individual needs to buy health insurance or face a tax penalty. It’s unclear exactly what the effect would be dollar-wise on insurance plans, but it’s the wide consensus of health-care-policy experts and insurance executives that it will force health-care premiums to soar through the roof and force the market to become unstable. Vox reports that the mandate is the thing that “holds down premiums by nudging healthy people with low cost into the market.” With only sick people in the market, it increases the costs of insurance for everyone. Remember that $900 average tax cut middle-income Americans would get? Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio told the New York Times that the mandate repeal in the tax bill is a bad deal because many people would pay more in increased premiums than they would save in tax cuts. 

Not only would the mandate repeal increase premiums, it would dramatically increase the number of people who are uninsured. The Congressional Budget Office currently estimates that 13 million people would lose health insurance coverage from the mandate repeal.

It Blows Up the Deficit and Will Crush the Poor, Disabled, and the Elderly
Essentially, taxes are payments made to the federal government by the people so that the government can pay its bills. By creating massive tax cuts, there is less cash flowing into the federal government, creating debt – or what politicians call “the deficit.” The Joint Committee on Taxation, a committee made up of members of both houses of Congress, estimates that the tax bill will rack up just under $1.5 trillion in debt over the next ten years. How is the government going to pay their debt? That’s the big question: $1.5 trillion is a ton of money.

If House Speaker Paul Ryan’s recent statements are any indication, the GOP will be targeting “federal healthcare and anti-poverty programs, citing the need to reduce America’s deficit,” according to the Washington Post. This likely means massive cuts to Medicare (the federal health-care program for the elderly), Medicaid (the federal health-care program for the poor), and Social Security (an income program for the retired and disabled, that every American worker pays for, from the time they get their first job until they retire). The Speaker said earlier this month, “We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit ... Frankly, it's the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements — because that's really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”

Just so we’re clear, by passing this tax bill, the Republican party has stated that they are willing to give massive tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion, then pay for that debt by taking money from the poor, the sick, the disabled, and the elderly – all at a time when income inequality is already devastating. Even if Republicans decide not to move forward on entitlement cuts in 2018, we’ll still have a $1.5 trillion debt that will ultimately be saddled onto the backs of millennials and the generations beyond.

The hypocrisy is stunning. For years, the Republican Party has positioned itself as the party of morals, of family values, willing to police the morality of everything from women’s reproductive health to marriage. And yet this same party is unable to see the immorality of their economic policy.

It’s my hope that every generation will come closer to FDR’s standard of progress. But, if this immoral tax bill is any indication of where we are as a country, we’re headed in the opposite direction of progress.

Nish Weiseth is the co-host of the podcast "Impolite Company." Follow her on Twitter.

December 18, 2017

Trump's Tax Bill Proves Trump's Xmas Gifts are For His Family and Friends


Once upon a time, there was a group of conservative intellectuals who were agnostic about Donald Trump. 
They were not "Never Trumpers," but they weren't Trump superfans either.
They thought Trumpism might offer something new for the GOP. Since Trump wasn't tied to the orthodoxies of either party he could, theoretically, offer a more populist path toward the future for Republicans.
Conservative writer Henry Olsen, at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, looked to the tax plan to reflect this new vision, but it wasn't there.
For now, Olsen said, "Trumpian populism remains a tantalizing promise for people who are interested in it."
Olsen expected the tax plan to include some of Trump's populist campaign promises — that the rich would pay more, the forgotten working class would pay less, and special interest loopholes like the carried-interest provision for hedge-fund managers would be gone.
But the tax bill ended up instead being traditionally Republican in its focus on cutting taxes for the well-to-do but barely touching the working class and not helping the middle class to a significant degree.
"That's not what Trump promised," Olsen said. "And it's not what Trump's voters thought they were getting."
Whatever happened to Ivanka Trump's child care tax credit?
One of the biggest disappointments for conservatives who believed that Trump could have offered a new, more reform-minded populist economics was the failure of the expanded child care tax credit offered by Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Marco Rubio.
It was an actual populist idea, geared to the working class, because it was refundable against payroll taxes. But not only did Republican leaders oppose it, they made sure it failed by requiring it to get 60 votes, unlike other amendments.
Not populist, but very conservative
The tax bill might not be the kind of populist piece of legislation Trump promised during the campaign, but it does have a lot in it to make conservatives happy. Obamacare is unraveled; there are more tax breaks for people who home-school their kids or send them to religious schools; and there are tax hikes for graduate students, university endowments and voters in high-tax states. In other words — Democrats.
Maybe economic policy isn't the point of Trumpism at all
Supporters wait for President Trump to speak during a rally at the Pensacola Bay Center Friday in Pensacola, Fla.
Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
Maybe the most important thing Trump offers his supporters isn't economic policy or any policy at all — it's his racially charged Twitter feed and the cultural grievances it directs at immigrants, Muslims and millionaire black athletes.
Sure, Trump's followers like the idea of having fewer tax brackets, said conservative Ben Domenech, publisher of, but, "What gets them riled up and active is the embrace of the culture-war issues — that Trump has shown himself perfectly happy to fight in a way that Republicans in a lot of other positions have been unwilling to traditionally." 
There have always been two parts to the Republican Party's message: conservative social issues for its white, blue-collar, evangelical base (think school prayer, abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration and crime) and a supply-side, trickle-down economic message for the rich and corporations. Trump has taken this two-pronged approach and put it on steroids.
His tax bill is much more tilted to the wealthy than the tax bills of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. And his white-identity politics is much more raw and more central to his persona.
It's as if the Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street and the wealthy get the policy, while Trump's blue-collar base gets the Twitter feed. 
What happens to this tension over time? 
In the long run, Olsen doesn't think this Trumpist combination of trickle-down economics and white-identity policies offers a viable path for the GOP.
He's not even sure it's sustainable for Trump. And he disagrees that the basis of Trump's appeal was racial.
"There is a lingering discontent in the country that is much more than racial resentment," Olsen said. "The working-class voters who voted for Obama and then for Trump were not motivated only by race."
Olsen said voters generally give their presidential choice a long leash. But if the person doesn't deliver on what they really want in the end, voters will turn against him. And then, the culture wars on Twitter won't be enough. 
But in the short term, this tax bill just might be the kind of win Trump and his party need.
To the extent it has any impact at all, in the first year or two, it will probably be a positive one for most people. Their taxes will go down, and they'll be able to keep more of their own money.
That's because the tax bill is front-loaded; the goodies come first. The regressive, nonpopulist part of the bill, where taxes for the middle class actually go up — kicks in later, well after the next election cycle.

December 5, 2017

The Horrors of Trump's Tax Cut for The Rich Can Easily Be Reversed By The Next Dem.Administration

Of all the horrors Donald Trump has (and has yet to) inflict upon the republic, a huge tax cut for the rich was the most inevitable. But it is also the most easily reversible. Lifetime court appointments, carbon pollution, the degrading of democratic norms — all of these will prove difficult or impossible to undo and leave costs deep into the future. The Trump tax cuts will not.
Indeed, the passage of the Trump tax cuts will help lay the groundwork for their undoing by increasing the chances Democrats regain control of Congress. The moment Trump won his election last November, he immediately forfeited his most potent advantages: He no longer had the deeply unpopular Hillary Clinton as his opponent, and he lost the advantage of Democratic complacency (which tends to build up over time when their party holds the White House). An anti-Republican wave of some size was always inevitable. But Trump compounded the problem by surrendering another potent advantage: his brand as an economic populist loathed by the financial elite and planning to raise taxes on rich people like himself.
Probably nothing has done more to erode Trump’s public standing than the consistently plutocratic cast of his domestic policy. The tax cut is the second-most-unpopular major piece of legislation in recorded history, behind only Trump’s other major domestic initiative, the health-care-repeal bill:
Chart:: The Washington Post
Democrats have nothing to fear from making repeal of the Trump tax cuts for the rich a defining party plank. On the contrary, they have a great deal to gain. The bill is a cash grab by the wealthy, driven by the demands of the Republican donor base, and stuffed with targeted favors for insiders with lobbyists. Much more is sure to surface. The more they talk about it, the more Democrats can drive home the message that Trump’s economic populism was a fraud.
In the 2020 campaign, Democrats are inevitably going to propose new social spending. Reporters are inevitably going to ask them how they plan to pay for it. Republicans have given them an easy answer: Repeal the Trump tax cuts for the rich.
The architects of the Trump tax cuts have dreamed of reshaping the tax code in a permanent way. Permanence means more than the technical absence of an expiration date. It has stood for the party’s ambition to leverage the Trump administration and their control of government into something deeper. “Once in a generation or so, there is an opportunity to do something transformational — something that will have a truly lasting impact long after we are gone,” Paul Ryan declared earlier this year. “That moment is here and we are going to meet it. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to fix this nation’s tax code once and for all.”
Their “fix” is a cash grab. It is “permanent” only until Democrats regain control of the government. And thanks to the Trump tax cuts, that day will come sooner.

December 4, 2016

Deplorable’s Can’t Add that Trump’s 35%Tariffs will be Pay by Consumers

You will figure a business man would know that business always pass on cost to consumers. Did he forget? Or may be it just saying good to voters who can add up :”Deplorables’

President-elect Donald Trump threatened in a series of early-morning tweets Sunday to punish American companies that move plants and jobs to other countries.

The proposal — along with Trump’s negotiation to get appliance maker Carrier to keep 800 jobs from going to Mexico — suggests the incoming president will put unprecedented pressure on U.S. companies to keep jobs in the United States.

A look at what Trump is doing and how it might work out:


Trump said he’d impose a 35 percent tax, called a tariff, on companies that close U.S. factories, cut American jobs, then relocate abroad and try to sell their products back to the United States.

“Please be forewarned prior to making a very expensive mistake,” the president-elect tweeted.


Trump would likely need congressional approval to impose tariffs on a specific company or a group of companies, says Gary Hufbauer, an expert on trade law at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He suspects that courts would block any such move if the president tried to do it himself. The president has broad authority to impose tariffs on specific categories of imported goods, but not to single out specific companies that make them, Hufbauer says.


Higher prices, most likely. Tariffs are charged at the border, and most importers likely would try to pass along as much of the higher cost as possible.

Capital Economics estimates that tariffs of 45 percent Trump has threatened to impose on Chinese imports would raise the price of those products an average 10 percent. The Peterson Institute calculates that a 2009 tax on Chinese tires cost American consumers $1.1 billion in higher tire prices — equal to more than $900,000 for every job saved in the domestic tire industry.

Tariffs can cause collateral damage, too. When the George W. Bush administration slapped tariffs on steel imports in 2002, U.S. steel makers took advantage by raising their own prices. Companies that buy steel said the higher costs meant they had to cut thousands of jobs.


October 2, 2016

Only “Little People Pay Taxes”

There's no evidence at this point that Mr Trump did anything improper. Just because it's legal, however, doesn't mean this revelation isn't potentially damaging. First, Mr Trump has staked his campaign on being a savvy businessman, and posting a financial loss so large that his tax accountant's software couldn't process the number could undermine that claim. 
Then there's the fact that Mr Trump has, over the years, condemned prominent Americans,­ including Barack Obama and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, for not paying enough taxes. Now he looks like a hypocrite. 
Hotel impresario Leona Helmsley once famously said that "only little people pay taxes" - and she was excoriated for it. Americans know the wealthy have a multitude of ways to avoid taxes. Knowing is different from seeing the cold, hard evidence, however. At the very least, this latest revelation once again puts Mr Trump on his heels in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

Rudy Giuliani, a close adviser to Mr Trump, also said the Republican nominee was an “absolute genius" if he avoided federal income taxes.
"A lot of the people that are poor take advantage of loopholes and pay no taxes," the former New York mayor told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. 
"Those are loopholes also." 

Donald Trump debates with Hillary Clinton in New York, 26 SeptemberImage copyrightAFP
Image captionMrs Clinton raised the tax issue during the first debate

Mr Trump himself played down the report on Sunday. "I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes," he tweeted.
During the first presidential debate last Monday, Mrs Clinton attacked Mr Trump for not releasing his tax returns, as all previous White House candidates have done since Jimmy Carter in 1976.
The Democratic nominee suggested he was hiding "something terrible" and that he had perhaps not paid any federal income tax. He replied: "That makes me smart."
In its story, the New York Times said three pages of documents were anonymously sent last month to one of its reporters who had written about Mr Trump's finances. 
A former accountant for the property tycoon, Jack Mitnick, whose name appears as Mr Trump’s tax preparer of the filings, said the documents appeared to be authentic copies of portions of the 1995 returns, according to the newspaper. 
Mr Trump’s campaign did not directly address the authenticity of the excerpts, but the New York Times said a Trump lawyer had emailed the newspaper arguing that publication of the records was illegal.


US Tax breaks for millionaires that fail:

The U.S. tax code has long given entrepreneurs a break for taking risks and losing money.

But, in 1995, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump apparently took that idea to an entirely new level.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that Trump converted nearly a billion dollars in business losses — from failed ventures in casinos, real estate and a now-defunct regional airline — to win a free pass with the IRS with the potential to shield as much as 18 years of his personal income from taxes.

The newspaper said it anonymously received the first pages of Trump's 1995 state income tax filings in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The filings, confirmed as authentic by the accountant who prepared them, show a net loss of $915,729,293 in federal taxable income for the year. But like many of his personal, professional and political claims, the size of Trump's 1995 claim of net operating losses was off the charts.

A CNBC review of IRS tax return data found that in 1995 claims of net operating losses averaged about $98,000 per return. At $916 million, Trump’s net operating loss in 1995 was more than 9,000 times the average amount claimed that year.

The documents obtained by The New York Times, which included only bare summaries of a single year of Trump’s tax filings, shed little light on the candidate's financial holdings and business relationships.

But they sparked renewed political sparring over Trump's steadfast refusal to release a complete accounting of his tax filings. He is the first candidate since 1972 to withhold them.

The disclosure of Trump’s taxes also renewed widespread criticism of the tax code for favoring wealthy individuals at the expense of middle class households.
Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's camp was quick to seize on the issue Sunday.

  "We talk about the rigged system out there," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told NBC News on "Meet the Press." "Donald Trump embodies that."

But Trump countered that the massive tax break is evidence that his familiarity with the intricacies of the tax code make him best qualified to reform it.

Trump is hardly alone in claiming businesses losses to offset taxes owed on personal income. In 1995, according to IRS data, net operating losses showed up on 505,000 individual tax returns — for a total of $49.3 billion in losses for all taxpayers who claimed the loss.

But the IRS data also shows that Trump's claim is orders of magnitude larger than most business owners.

The average claim for individuals who had net operating losses was about $98,000. For those who ended up with adjusted gross income of $1 million or more, the average net operating loss was $615,000 — or about seven-one hundredths of 1 percent of Trump's claim.

To put that in perspective, if Trump’s 1995 tax loss claim extended the length of a football field, the average taxpayer's claim for that loss category measured less than an inch.

Trump maintained in last Monday's first presidential debate that failing to pay income taxes "makes me smart." On Sunday, Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani told "Meet the Press" that the Republican candidate was a "genius" if he avoided federal income taxes.

But Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden, blasted Trump for shifting his tax burden on households further down the income ladder with less disposable income.

"What does that make the rest of us, suckers?" he said Thursday on "The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon."

Trump Lost $916Mil and Thus Went Tax FREE for 18 Yrs


 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump faced another headache late Saturday: A New York Times story which said that, based on a tax document it obtained, Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income — a deduction so large it would have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for 18 years.

The Trump campaign said the Times "illegally obtained" a 20-year-old document and applied a misleading spin.

"Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required," the statement said. "That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions.” 

The Trump statement did not provide specifics. Trump himself, in a tweet Sunday morning, said "I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them."
On Sunday talk shows, Trump aides stressed that carrying forward income losses on tax returns would be legal.

“Oh, for gosh sakes," New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on Fox News Sunday. "No apologies for complying with the law."

Another Trump surrogate, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, said Trump's return shows he is a "genius" at being a good businessman.

“He would have been a fool not to take advantage” of the tax laws, Giuliani said on ABC's This Week.

Trump's refusal to release his tax returns — as every presidential nominee has since the 1970s — has been a constant source of criticism from Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and her allies.

The New York businessman says he doesn't want to release his returns because they are under audit.

In its story, the Times said it hired tax experts who reported that "rules that are especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period."

The Times added: "Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years."

The tax story surfaced as Trump delivered a speech in Pennsylvania that included scathing attacks on Clinton, on items ranging from her public record to her physical and mental health to the state of her marriage to former president Bill Clinton.

"This was a poor attempt to bamboozle people out of paying attention to the smoking gun report on his tax returns," tweeted Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon.

In its statement, the Clinton campaign said it appears that Trump got to avoid paying federal taxes at times when "millions of working families" paid up.

“He calls that 'smart," the campaign said "Now that the gig is up, why doesn't he go ahead and release his returns to show us all how 'smart' he really is?"


Featured Posts

Second Day at Home {Adamfoxie}

I will rather post important stories not being published the way they should or post information in a new format that will h...