This time next year, President Trump moves back into the Whitehouse...

[Dodgy69]

Reckon Donald Duck could be in the Whitehouse and American life would just keep rolling on.

[Mussels]

I'm assuming someione paid her for this.

[Yambo]

Presumably, Trump has enough money to pay his lawyers?

[Mr. Dazzle]

Presumably, Trump has enough money to pay his lawyers?

Well...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... alling-out

yes I know its an old article

[wheelnut]

Presumably, Trump has enough money to pay his lawyers?

That’s what his fundraising events are for. He’d rather other people pay for his lawyers.

[Mr Moofo]

Presumably, Trump has enough money to pay his lawyers?

Well...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... alling-out

yes I know its an old article

Well, if it is in the Guardian, it must be true

[Mr. Dazzle]

Trump always seeks - and typically gets - a load of 'campaign' donations when he had legal problems anyway

[ZRX61]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... KM2zaH9dZa

The documents confirmed that Mr Trump paid no federal taxes in 2020 and only $750 (£622) in 2016 and 2017. He paid close to $1m in 2018, however. A long legal battle led to the release of the records, and Mr Trump criticised the disclosure, warning that it will deepen the US political divide.

And some years he paid $Millions, but those never get cited. The reason his taxes were so low some years is because they carried over losses from previous years. That rule applies to every business.

[Horse]

In 2019, The New York Times obtained partial information from transcripts of Trump's IRS Form 1040s (the main personal federal tax form) from 1985 to 1994,[51] revealing that during that time Trump lost $1.17 billion—the most of almost any individual U.S. taxpayer[51][103]—evidently to avoid tax liability in eight of those years.[166][167] Trump has acknowledged tax advantages inherent to the real-estate business, such as large write-offs from using depreciation of property to generate losses and reduce tax liabilities, which according to the Times "cannot account for the hundreds of millions of dollars in losses."[103][167][168]

On September 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report on more than two decades of Trump's tax-return data, including information from 2017 and 2018 (his first two years in office), having obtained the data earlier that month.[51] The documents contradict many of Trump's public claims to have a flourishing and prosperous business empire,[51] showing that as a result of reporting losses in many years and receiving a $72.9 million tax refund, Trump paid no net federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years of the past two decades. After the refund, Trump had an average tax bill of $1.4 million per year over the 18 years.[51][169] In 2016, Trump paid only $750 in federal income tax, and in 2017, he paid another $750 in federal income tax.[51] This was much less than other recent presidents paid while in office. His immediate two predecessors, Obama and George W. Bush, routinely paid $100,000 annually in federal income tax, and sometimes far more.[169] In 2017, Trump's pre-credit tax liability was $7,435,857. All but $750 of this amount was negated by carried-over tax credits, of which he had $22.7 million at the time. It is unclear why Trump chose not to completely cancel out his federal income tax liability.[170] The data does not reveal Trump's net worth.[51] Tax-return data largely lack specifics allowing for financial connections to be identified, and the data does not reveal any previously unknown connections to Russia.[51]

In the 18 years examined by the Times, Trump engaged in tax avoidance to a far greater extent than most affluent Americans (the top 0.001% of tax filers). Due to this avoidance, Trump paid "about $400 million less in combined federal income taxes than a very wealthy person who paid the average for that group each year."[169] While in many years Trump ended with little or no tax liability, there is no evidence he ever failed to file a return or pay his expected tax burden by the annual filing deadline (including extensions), even if such payments were later refunded when the returns were completed.[51] Over two decades, Trump's golf courses and other businesses regularly lost significant amounts of money, which is one way Trump was able to reduce his tax liability.[169] For example, in 2018 Trump reported $47.4 million in losses,[51] and since 2000, Trump reported total losses of $315.6 million from his golf courses alone.[51] While Trump had significant income in many years, including from The Apprentice, he placed millions of dollars into his businesses which recorded losses for the year.[51][171] Many of these businesses also claimed significant non-cash losses for depreciation of owned properties, but this cannot account for the entirety of the losses Trump claimed on his returns.[169] Trump Tower in New York is one of the few businesses Trump owns that turns an annual profit, but as of 2020 he still appeared to owe the $100 million mortgage which was set to come due in 2022.[169]

Beginning in 2011, the IRS was auditing Trump's $72.9 million tax refund covering multiple years of paid taxes; the audit was not resolved as of 2020.[51][169] If the IRS determines that the refund was improper, Trump would be required to repay more than $100 million,[51][169] which includes interest on the amount. Trump has also personally guaranteed $421 million in debt, most of which is due within four years. Trump previously expressed regret that he had personally guaranteed debt during the 1980s which brought him close to personal bankruptcy when his businesses faltered in the early 1990s.[51] The bulk of the debt came from Trump's struggling Doral golf resort ($125 million) and the Washington, D.C., Trump International Hotel ($160 million).[51] Trump also had failed to pay back $287 million in debt since 2010, according to the Times "far more money than previously known". Forgiven debt is supposed to be treated as income, but Trump used tax provisions to avoid or defer reporting it as such.[51]

The Times notes that multiple potential violations of tax rules are present in the refunds examined. This includes the payment of "consulting fees" to Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump while she was a top executive at the Trump Organization, which was used to reduce Trump's tax liability.[169] Overall, Trump's companies appeared to claim 20% of their income was used for "consulting fees" – which do not need to be explained further but can be written off as business expenses.[169] Trump also appears to have aggressively classified personal-lifestyle related expenses as business expenses in order to write them off and reduce his liability.[169] This includes at least $70,000 used for haircuts (some during the production of The Apprentice), as well as more than $100,000 to a makeup artist and hair stylist favored by Ivanka Trump.[169] In many years Trump also classified payments for his aircraft and its support as business expenses. Trump also classified Seven Springs, his estate in Bedford, New York, as an "investment property" in order to write off $2.2 million in property taxes, even though the family uses it as a personal retreat.[169]

Over the years examined, Trump reported receiving $73 million in revenue from outside the U.S., including some from licensing deals in countries with authoritarian rulers.[51] He was also paid more than $8.7 million by the multilevel marketing company ACN Inc., which was accused of defrauding vulnerable consumers.[171] Trump shot promotional videos for the company, which was accused of consumer fraud in a lawsuit filed in 2018.[172] The Times reported that Trump's financial condition at the time he announced his presidential candidacy in 2015 "lends some credence to the notion that his long-shot campaign was at least in part a gambit to reanimate the marketability of his name".[51]

Responses and analysis
Trump dismissed the Times report,[173] responding with a blend of denials and justifications.[174] He criticized what he called the "bad intent" of the report, but did not dispute the facts behind it.[175] He also contended that the tax authorities had mistreated him.[173]

[Mussels]

In the 18 years examined by the Times, Trump engaged in tax avoidance to a far greater extent than most affluent Americans

That's the worst the article has to say, it's like saying Trump is a more savvy shopper than most affluent Americans and pays people to find the cheapest price.

[Noggin]

Surely avoiding tax in that amounts is bad for people lower down the chain? so, yes, it's pretty bad!!

[Mussels]

Surely avoiding tax in that amounts is bad for people lower down the chain? so, yes, it's pretty bad!!

That's a very left wing redistributing the wealth argument and could be applied to anyone earning money, everyone will have a different opinion on who it should apply to.

[Count Steer]

Surely avoiding tax in that amounts is bad for people lower down the chain? so, yes, it's pretty bad!!

If the people 'at the top' set the example, expect the rest to follow. In Greece, tax avoidance (and evasion) is a national hobby because 'it's what the politicians do'.

I imagine too, if Keir Starmer was found to be playing the game a few Trumpists would have a lot to say.

I suspect the problem is in how the rules are set up so that 'losses' are pretty theoretical and when companies like Amazon can claim they pay all due taxes - in the appropriate jurisdictions. As long as there are loopholes and 'tax havens' people and companies will use them.

(I did contemplate declaring my house as a place of worship in order to get a discount on council tax* ).

* You can't, although the myth persists.

[Mr. Dazzle]

You do have to wonder how a man who "never makes any money" and therefore can avoid tax manages to fly around in a private jet though

So OK all his losses are 'on paper'. Which presumably means his wealth is equally 'on paper' Is he really the business genius? Deffo a fudging the numbers genius I'd say.

[Noggin]

Surely avoiding tax in that amounts is bad for people lower down the chain? so, yes, it's pretty bad!!

That's a very left wing redistributing the wealth argument and could be applied to anyone earning money, everyone will have a different opinion on who it should apply to.

Interesting, no one's ever suggested I'm left wing

I am fully aware that most people try and avoid some tax - seems to be a notional sport in most countries. But to do so to the extent that Trump does and then stand for president, well, the country will soon be out of money if everyone follows suit, no?

Surely avoiding tax in that amounts is bad for people lower down the chain? so, yes, it's pretty bad!!

If the people 'at the top' set the example, expect the rest to follow. In Greece, tax avoidance (and evasion) is a national hobby because 'it's what the politicians do'.

I imagine too, if Keir Starmer was found to be playing the game a few Trumpists would have a lot to say.

I suspect the problem is in how the rules are set up so that 'losses' are pretty theoretical and when companies like Amazon can claim they pay all due taxes - in the appropriate jurisdictions. As long as there are loopholes and 'tax havens' people and companies will use them.

(I did contemplate declaring my house as a place of worship in order to get a discount on council tax* ).

* You can't, although the myth persists.

That's kinda of my thoughts - if the people at the top pay zero tax, why should anyone else?

And as for companies like Amazon et al who avoid taxes with use of rubbish rules, that's bad tax management. I am very aware that trying to avoid tax is 'normal' - but to the extent that Trump, Amazon and other do, will that's just taking the piss, surely?

[Mussels]

Surely avoiding tax in that amounts is bad for people lower down the chain? so, yes, it's pretty bad!!

If the people 'at the top' set the example, expect the rest to follow. In Greece, tax avoidance (and evasion) is a national hobby because 'it's what the politicians do'.

I imagine too, if Keir Starmer was found to be playing the game a few Trumpists would have a lot to say.

I suspect the problem is in how the rules are set up so that 'losses' are pretty theoretical and when companies like Amazon can claim they pay all due taxes - in the appropriate jurisdictions. As long as there are loopholes and 'tax havens' people and companies will use them.

(I did contemplate declaring my house as a place of worship in order to get a discount on council tax* ).

* You can't, although the myth persists.

I have no doubt that Starmer avoids paying more tax then he needs to? I expect he pays more than the minimum into a pension scheme for starters.

Would you try to conflate his tax avoidance with evasion?

[irie]

Assuming Trump becomes next POTUS, logical thing for him to do could be to do a volte face and support Ukraine to the hilt to force Russia into a peace deal the terms of which could, for example, be to cede to Russia Eastern Ukraine territories currently occupied by Russia in return for Russia returning Crimea to Ukraine.

Why might he do this?

To set an example to Xi/China of how the USA could respond to a Chinese attempt to annexe Taiwan.

[ZRX61]

(I did contemplate declaring my house as a place of worship in order to get a discount on council tax* ).

* You can't, although the myth persists.

You can do that in the US under the parsonage clause to avoid property taxes, but you have to be an ordained minister... so I could legally do it.

[Taipan]

(I did contemplate declaring my house as a place of worship in order to get a discount on council tax* ).

* You can't, although the myth persists.

You can do that in the US under the parsonage clause to avoid property taxes, but you have to be an ordained minister... so I could legally do it.

Universal Life Church? I was ordained by them in 96'. I might check with Essex County Council to see if i can get a discount?

[Saga Lout]

Surely avoiding tax in that amounts is bad for people lower down the chain? so, yes, it's pretty bad!!

That's a very left wing redistributing the wealth argument and could be applied to anyone earning money, everyone will have a different opinion on who it should apply to.

Interesting, no one's ever suggested I'm left wing

I am fully aware that most people try and avoid some tax - seems to be a notional sport in most countries. But to do so to the extent that Trump does and then stand for president, well, the country will soon be out of money if everyone follows suit, no?

That probably depends on how you view the money you earn. Does it belong to you and you give some of it to the government to pay for things that only government can provide, or does it all belong to the government who generously allow you to keep some of it?
Whether you believe it's yours or the government's, do you think the government spends it more wisely than you could spend it yourself?
If you think the government spends your money wisely then go ahead, give them as much as they ask for. But if you think the government wastes your money, why would you not try to avoid as much taxation as possible?