I confess I have been really annoyed by Donald Trump’s tax evasion schemes. I know it’s legal to avoid paying federal taxes for 18 years. But it does seem right or ethical. Is it just working stiffs who pay for the military, highways, border protection, customs, parks, veterans’ care, and a million other things? How can he be. Genius if he lost nearly $1 billion on deals gone bad?
It turns out that other big corporations are hiding their profits overseas to avoid taxes. We could have world class schools in every neighborhood if these scofflaws paid their taxes.
Which candidate will revise the tax code? These companies should pay their paces or get out of Ameriva. Go libe where your tax shelter is. Stop pretending you are good citizens. You are frauds.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Hello Diane: FYI about tax codes, regulations, moral distaste, and the post-national wealthy: The link below is to a long-read article recently published in The Guardian about the “shady” world of wealth managers. It’s much bigger than the U.S. Below is a brief snip from that article, by Brooke Harrington: “How To Hide it: Inside the secret world of wealth managers. They know more about their clients than the clients’ own wives. They are loyal in the face of appalling behaviour. They are the brains behind the most ingenious tax avoidance schemes. And there are more of them than ever.”
“The Pritzker family is one of the wealthiest in the United States. Their assets, which amount to $15bn, are held in 60 companies and 2,500 trusts, using structures and strategies that Forbes magazine – normally a cheerleader for wealthy elites – describes with an unusual hint of moral distaste as ‘shadowy … constructed to discourage outside inquiry – and brilliantly exploitative of loopholes in the tax code.'”
“This complex asset-holding structure was created not by the Pritzker family itself but by its lawyers, accountants, tax specialists and investment advisers. In this respect, the Pritzkers are no different to tens of thousands of super-rich families and individuals worldwide, who use the services of wealth managers. These professionals not only shelter wealth from taxation but, in the words ofone academic paper, serve to “obscure concentrations of economic power”, using vehicles that make it difficult, if not impossible, to identify the true owners of wealth.”
“The work of wealth managers has been described by some leading practitioners as a defence against the depredations of “confiscatory states.” Much of these professionals’ day-to-day practice occurs in an ethical grey area – a realm of activity that is formally legal but socially illegitimate. This includes the use of trusts, offshore corporations and similar tools to help clients avoid paying tax, debts to creditors or alimony to ex-spouses. Following the financial crisis and news stories such as thePanama Papers, these tactics – many of which are also used by corporations to avoid taxation and regulation – are attracting increasing public attention and condemnation.”
“The profession – whose main representative body is the London-based Society for Trust and Estate Practitioners (Step) – has been singled out for blame in several countries by government agencies concerned with tax evasion, money laundering, and growing worldwide wealth inequality. In its 2006 Seoul declaration, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) made special mention of the roles played by ‘‘law and accounting firms, other tax advisers and financial institutions” in helping companies and individuals find ways round international laws. In 2003, the now-retired Democrat senator Carl Levin complained to a US Senate subcommittee about the asset-holding structures created by wealth managers to obscure their clients’ assets: “Most are so complex that they are Megos – ‘My Eyes Glaze Over’ type of schemes. Those who cook up these concoctions count on their complexity to escape scrutiny and public ire.”
“As world wealth has grown to record levels in recent years – to an estimated $241 trillion – inequality has also grown, with 0.7% of the global population owning 41% of the assets. Wealth managers are estimated to direct the flows of up to $21tn in private wealth, resulting in about $200bn in lost tax revenues globally each year. In effect, these professionals detach assets from the states that wish to tax and regulate them, creating a form of capital that is, like its owners, transnational and hypermobile. Doing so involves creating not just asset-holding and tax-avoidance structures but a new body of transnational institutions, which are expanding outside of any democratic process of checks and balances. In this way, the rise of the super-rich and the wealth management industry is creating an elite who are increasingly ungoverned and ungovernable.” More at:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/21/how-to-hide-it-inside-secret-world-of-wealth-managers?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Long+reads+base&utm_term=191835&subid=19479502&CMP=ema-1133
LikeLike
Hillary Clinton was a Senator, if you don’t like the tax code that favors the rich and corporations she must bear some of the blame.
Hillary herself has used various legal loopholes to avoid taxes, including the slush funds of the Clinton Family Foundation and the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which pays Chelsea an enormous salary for part-time work.
LikeLike
I usually am the first to hit Hillary. But please tell us what tax bill she voted for that created these loopholes . Tell us if she were a progressive what tax reform she could have gotten past the Republican majority
So. You propose what ? Voting for the raptors insteadof the hyenas
LikeLike
The loopholes have been there long before the Clintons
LikeLike
Joel,
In 2005, then-Sen. Clinton voted yes on extending the first round of Bush tax cuts, some of which were set to expire.
As Secretary of State Clinton took action to help tax dodgers. She negotiated the U.S.- Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, which worsened Panama’s status as a tax haven. She also helped UBS negotiate a settlement of their tax evasion lawsuit.
https://twitter.com/JeanetteJing/status/738716133793005569
https://twitter.com/JeanetteJing/status/696012031690874880
LikeLike
I mean this sincerely, but can you point to her tax documents or credible sources? I am not a big fan of Hillary, but suspicious of the rhetorical false equivalences in this campaign, as there are many.
LikeLike
Vale,
Here’s an article from The Nation (a liberal media outlet, not Fox News.) This seems pretty even-handed as it it critical of both Hillary and Donald.
https://www.thenation.com/article/when-it-comes-to-taxes-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-have-one-thing-in-common/
LikeLike
If you did some reading, you would learn that the Clinton Foundation does phenomenal work around the world. It is not a slush fund and there is no evidence that anyone got favors in return for donating
Stop the right wing lies from the Fox News echo chamber
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
I have read about the Clinton Foundation. Not on right-wing sites, but on liberal and centrist sites, like The Nation and Politico.
https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/293507-seven-ways-the-clinton-foundation-failed-to-meet-its-transparency-promises
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368?o=0
LikeLike
The Clinton Foundation does great work around the world.
LikeLike
“there is no evidence that anyone got favors in return for donating … Stop the right wing lies”
Huh. There’s plenty of evidence from left wing sources.
The Clinton Foundation is a lot like the Gates Foundation, except less generous.
LikeLike
And the Gates Foundation has no political favors to bestow… And cannot be blackmailed by foreign donors… And… And…
LikeLike
Gates wants power, not favors
LikeLike
To answer the question of the post: No, not if they want to continue living.
LikeLike
The next president will persist in maintaining the tax circus. Aren’t taxes for the little people? I am paying mine.
LikeLike
The 1% has been in control and will continue to get away with this. Bernie was my hope, but now I believe this will continue.
LikeLike
Van Jones stated it brilliantly in a rebuke of a Trump supporter insisting tax evasion was legal and brilliant. His reasoning is that we are seeing the wealthy evade taxes legally because they have decided it is legal. But that doesn’t make it moral or ethical. It would be like leaving your garage door open and someone “borrows” all your tools, but it is OK because the thief helped clean out the garage.
The Trump argument that, since it is legal, he has a right to evade paying taxes demonstrates his total immersion into sociopathy. It also reinforces Trump has no internal checks to his behavior and he is completely motivated by outside influences. This is a campaign built on double-speak, apophasis, hypocrisy, and lies.
Of a practical note is the fact Trump’s tax plan does not eliminate this massive loophole for the wealthy. The average American does not get to carry forward personal losses like losing a job, getting foreclosed, or any number of other setbacks. Robert Reich suggested that the nearly billion dollar loss needs closer examination as it is possible to claim overstated depreciation even if the assets are making money and that claiming losses with bank loans is questionable, when it is someone else taking the loss.
LikeLike
When Mexicans cross the border, they are criminals because they break the law to get here. I would argue that if Mexicans are living in the southwest, they are really at home since we seized this land from Mexico in the Mexican American War, known as the war of US aggression in Mexico. I had to mention this when people start splitting hairs over legal versus illegal actions.
By the way Trump also wants to eliminate the inheritance tax, a move that will expand the deficit. Let’s face it; Trump is out for Trump.
LikeLike
“The Trump argument that, since it is legal, he has a right to evade paying taxes”
Well, it’s not legal to “evade” taxes. There’s a massive difference between paying as little as you have to pay and tax evasion. Trump’s tax returns may make him a jerk, and it may make us want to slap him sillier. They make him an insufferable hypocrite to the extent he’s complained about the “47% who don’t pay federal taxes” (legally, btw). But Trump absolutely has a right to do whatever the tax code permits to lower his taxes. You can’t have a tax code that relies on the generosity of taxpayers. The IRS isn’t a national tip jar. Tax laws are (correctly) based on the assumption that people will act in their own self-interest at all times, at least when it comes to paying taxes.
If Trump has done something not permitted by the tax code, that changes everything. But if not, complaining about Trump’s taxes is like complaining about malaria. It’s a terrible thing and it’s a problem that should be solved. But you can’t eradicate malaria by moral-shaming mosquitos or protozoa (I googled that). Heck, if I were a single-cell organism, I’d do the same thing.
By the same token, saying that Trump is “brilliant” for paying so little in taxes is a great example of how little the words people say actually mean. Trump is a very rich person, and very rich people have expensive accountants and lawyers, and expensive accountants and lawyers feel compelled to demonstrate why the client should pay them so much. So the accountants and tax lawyers (some of whom may actually be “brilliant” — top tax lawyers are really, really smart) tell Trump that he should take his massive losses and carry them forward to reduce future taxes. Trump responds by saying, “Ok.” That’s a perfectly sensible answer, but it’s not “brilliant.”
LikeLike
Once again, you are kicking against something based on incomplete knowledge. These companies DO pay taxes wherever they are located, and helping school systems etc.
What amazed me was that the Netherlands is considered a tax haven for American companies. It is one of the highest taxed countries in the world, so for a company to consider it a tax haven, something must be wrong.
Companies pay 25% tax on their earnings after all the accounting is done. In the US, however, that is close to 39%. So for the good of my company and my share holders, I need to go where I pay the least amount in taxes.
The stock/share holders will still pay their taxes wherever they live, but as chairman or owner, I have done my fiduciary duty.
Trump’s “plan,” (Notice the “”!!!) is to lower company taxes to 14%. I would think he hopes to bring companies “home” by doing that. And if that works, he has brought an enormous amount of money back into the country, no matter how you look at it (whether or not you like/dislike/hate/love that man).
I have suggested that since I heard Holland was considered a “tax haven.”
As far as using the available, approved law etc. is concerned, which COULD HAVE allowed him a long term write off for his losses, again, any good owner/chairman will do that. It’s not illegal, it’s not even unethical. YOU have the same right, were you in the same circumstances. I dislike the WP’s statement that this was a loophole created for rich real estate developers. Wrong: It was developed for real estate developers, end of story.
Were someone in Trump’s position and NOT make use of that option, fiduciary duties would NOT have been fulfilled.It IS legal. It IS ethical, whether or not I personally like it or not.
I see the educational world abuse copyrights left and right. That is both illegal AND unethical. But I see few, if any teachers complain about that one! And that one DOES impact the daily cost of education immediately!
LikeLike
Rudy,
Trump was able to avoid paying taxes because he lost nearly $1 billion as his buzsinesses collapsed. The banks propped him up, along with the rest of us. Someone who hasn’t paid the cost of our government services for nearly 20 years is not a smart business man. He is a failed one, with no social responsibility to pay for the services he uses. Legal graft.
LikeLike
Was what he did illegal? No. Was what he did unethical? No.
Those are the metrics I need to go by, not whether I like it or not. I find it unethical, for example, that the Clintons used to “rent out” the Lincoln room to big donors. It was not THEIR house, it is the People’s house. But that is my opinion.
Trump is doing what the LAW allows, and follows the law the way it is written. He did not write the law, he did not create the loopholes.
Are there other things that I find unethical in Trump? You bet! This tax thing, however, is not one of them.
His comments on women, immigrants etc. I have major issues with. In an opinion I wrote months ago, before the primaries, I compared his speech and actions to Hitler and the Brown Shirts. I have compared his rebel rousing speeches with Nazi leaders.
So, it’s not that I am a defender of Trump. Far from it. But this tax thing is NOT where I would focus my attention. And whether or not he does make his tax records public, I could not care less. Nor, by the way, do I care about Clinton’s records.
One of the interesting things there though, was the fact that the majority of their “charitable donations” went to their own foundation… Really? There was no better, no more worthy cause than their own pockets?? Now there is an ethical conundrum for you!
LikeLike
Rudy,
What Trump did with his taxes is to prove he is a very incompetent businessman. How did he lose $1 billion?
Evading his taxes is legal but it is NOT ethical. An ethical citizen recognizes his responsibility to contribute to the common good. Trump praises veterans but won’t pay for their care. He promises a military build up, but not on his dime. He drives on highways, he surely collects social security. He mooches off all of us, who pay our tax bills. That is unethical.
LikeLike
Rudy,
There have been no scandals associated with the Clinton Foundation. Of course, the Clintons give money to their foundation. Trump gives nothing to his and uses Other People’s Money to take credit or gifts and to commission a self portrait .
LikeLike
I defend Trump in that what he did was not illegal, but it was clearly unethical. I would never vote for him if I could vote in this country.
But at the same time, it’s not fully useful to focus on Trump’s lack of fair share tax payments because there are THOUSANDS of other very rich Americans who do exactly the same thing. Trump is but part and parcel of a whole institutionalized dysfunction that has made “perverse” the new normal.
No wonder your schools, roads, bridges, hospitals, universities, and healthcare system are underfunded. No wonder you have increasing gaping swaths of poverty.
I suppose it gets magnified when a presidential candidate tax evades, but one wrong does not make a wrong; many wrongs need to be righted. Let’s not put the focus just on Trump. How many tax shelters do the Clintons have?
Let’s just get right to the point here: Donald Trump is an honest man for the most part, and he means what he says and says what he means, and what you see is pretty much what you’ll get . . . Trump is crude, dumb, vulgar, and -ist every which way for every word that ends in “ist” . . . Which is why he is so spectacularly inappropriate to be President of the United States. His values and narcissism are pure, acute poison, and anyone considering voting for him is showing his/her ignorance.
Hillary, on the other hand, is a dishonest woman and what you see is never predictable as to what you’ll get. She is poised to lie, cheat, scheme, triangulate, and self-opportunize at every chance she gets. She is educated, polished, well spoken, refined, and utterly disconnected and disinterested in labor and fiscal equity.
But in a crisis, you have to choose between being throwing into a vat of gasoline unlit and a vat of gasoline that has been ignited. You’ll drown likely in either vat, but one might have some clear advantages over the other.
Do you know what I mean?
LikeLike
Norwegian Filmmaker,
I disagree with your nasty characterization of Hillary. You are simply repeating the lies of the Trump campaign and the right wing attack machine that has hated her for 25 years. She is smart, experienced, principled, and compassionate.
LikeLike
Diane, they almost don’t come more leftist than me. I have only a leftist modest in my comments and abhor the American right for the most part.
Hillary is all those things that you say, but she is also disingenuous and inconsistent with labor and fiscal equity. I would posit that the United States does not need balance or a diversity of right and left wing mindsets; it need to have most of its gestalt acutely shifted to the left with wealth redistributed in large and purposeful ways. That includes, as you have stated, fair taxation to pay for social contracts and public infrastructure.
But in all fairness to you and others, I have to realize that as a foreigner, my European version of “labor and fiscal equity” and “leftist” is dramatically different from that of Americans’ and Hillary’s. And perhaps even yours. I should not judge without disclosing that. We are all a product of our culture and environment, and no one is immune to that.
And without using harsh words like “nasty” or otherwise, I will disclose that I have in other posts always said that voting for Hillary is strategically the better path to take compared to voting for Trump. I don’t’ expect you to remember every comment of every reader, and I meant no disrespect in your virtual living room. I’m on your side, but more importantly, I am on the side of keeping education PUBLIC and never privatized, voucherized, and charterized. I think school choice is a horrible idea, as well as standardized testing and using tests to evaluate teachers. I defend public education and out of my own selfishness, if it can happen here, what’s to say that it cant’ start to spread to Norway? Look at Sweden and it’s decline in education because of a similar American model. Sweden has a very dark underbelly in its education system.
Hillary is the one to vote for to slow down the sinking of the ship. And in that extra time, it is my hope that Americans with lose their apathy and get more involved in government, as Mr. Sanders has so often and rightfully stated. I would venture to say that you agree with that notion.
I did not mean to offend or anger you because you provide a critical and indispensable service to educating the public. I’ve read and benefited from two of your books. I can tell you right now that one of them has become the curriculum at Columbia TC, where students and professors use it to learn about the systems of American education.
LikeLike
NF, I think you might like the Frontline offering, “The Choice” if you haven’t already seen it. It is really a psychological sociological study of Trump and Clinton that explains a lot about both of them. The portrayal of Clinton, I think, explains why she takes a very cautious approach to some issues that we might see as requiring immediate correction. I Beyond that I appreciated your frank explanation of your position. Keep posting.
LikeLike
Corrections:
“I have only a leftist MINDSET in my comments and . . . “
LikeLike
I realize it’s a different issue, but Donnie’s having lost a billion dollars running a business where “the house always wins” gives the lie to his claims to being a great businessman, even after stiffing his vendors and contractors.
A great self-promoter, certainly, but great businessman? Far from it…
LikeLike
Never said he was smart. The argument has been all along about the legality and ethics of the rule and its use.
LikeLike
Because something is legal, does not mean it is ethical. We have had laws in this country that were considered immoral. But turn the Trump argument around. If a populist movement decides all companies must be owned by employees, anybody making over $500,000 must pay 100% income tax, and any company shipping jobs overseas should serve prison time – then passes equivalent laws, the Trump Doctrine says that this is now moral and acceptable.
And your teacher copyright law example is a bizarre false equivalence.
LikeLike
Rudy says: “It’s not illegal, it’s not even unethical. YOU have the same right, were you in the same circumstances.”
True, EXCEPT for thosenagging circumstances which allow “anyone” to hire professionals to protect their assets, and to make them more money than the professionals cost.
It’s trickle-up on steroids. And its UNETHICAL if you mean by that unfair, thoughtless of others, and generated from those who regularly use and depend on, the infrastructure and its institutions, including the laws, of not one but several states/cultures and who think they need not pay for the service. What kind of thinking is that? The world is their slave? I don’t call that ethical at all–far from it, though it’s kind-of-like hidden under the bells and whistles of wealth, and living under an oh-so-gated rock, away from those icky other people.
And about copyrights and teachers, here’s the false equivalence: I’ve written and published a book–I get 5% (sometimes 7) but only IF the sales reach an arbitrary number. Such a double irony–capitalists use ACCUSATORY language to talk about teachers who are soiled because they actually want to be paid for their work; and the publishing houses get all the sales-monies anyway. Writers in education are like the horses in Animal Farm–work themselves to death for a high principle (happily in many cases). And everyone gets paid except them. Again, let’s talk about ethical.
LikeLike
Wow, I guess that comparison DID hit close to home.
Your description of the tax issue is based on subjective emotions. And that’s fine – but I may or may not share those emotions. Would the law allow interpretation based on emotions, it would stop abortions over night. To me, those SHOULD be illegal, and I consider them unethical. But that is a personal opinion. And I will express that as such. The law of the land allows for the senseless killing of about 9000,000 unborn infants, human infants, a year. That is what gets my emotions cooking off.
To me, those SHOULD be illegal.
Trump’s use of the tax law is fully within the legal limits. He is not cutting it as close to the line as possible, no, it is fully legal and accepted by the courts. I’m sure that when you research George Koros you would find some tax tricks you might judge the same as you judge Trump’s.
Again, I am not a Trump “protector,” but this is not a make or break issue. Again, his actions and statements on a regular base about a number of issues bother me a whole lot more.
LikeLike
Trump is a fraud, a liar, a con man. And stupid in his egotism.
LikeLike
I would agree with that characterization. But that does not mean that everything he does or thinks is necessarily wrong. I would love to see more businesses come back to the us, and if that can be done by lowering some of their tax bill, it would be worth the cost.
LikeLike
Businesses go where costs are lowest
Americans won’t work for $1 a day
LikeLike
To Rudy, who says: “Your description of the tax issue is based on subjective emotions. And that’s fine – but I may or may not share those emotions.”
Huh? . . . Maybe you didn’t read what I said? The circumstances are that when you or me or Trump or anyone gets to a certain level of wealth, we can afford to hire wealth managers (see my earlier note with a clip from The Guardian about wealth managers) where their job is to manipulate our wealth so that not only do “we” not pay taxes, we can make money on the shuffle of funds–enough to pay those managers and more. And those of us who cannot afford such manipulation pay our taxes.
The idea of trickle-up is hardly new; and neither is it ever fair or ethical or just to use the entire infrastructure and even depend on it (as we all have/do/will, rich or poor) including the police and military, and pay nothing for that use; while those who make much less pay their fair share. The idea of trickle-up has become a cliche.
“Emotional”? I think you have your head stuck somewhere it shouldn’t be.
LikeLike
“And those of us who cannot afford such manipulation pay our taxes”
Do you prepare your own taxes or do you use someone like HR BLOCK?
I used an accountant the first three years after I moved here. The first year I did not make a lot of money (between August and December) and got a $ 3,500 tax refund. I thought I had died and gone to heaven!
The next year I used an accountant again, and got a $ 1400 tax return. I came closer to earth. The third year I owed $ 1300 – and I landed with a thud.
Since that time I could not afford an accountant, and have prepared my own returns.
All of us go by the rules. And if I can deduct something to my advantage, I do that.
The rule trump used is almost a CENTURY old. According to today’s numbers, 500,000 people/businesses make use of that rule.
Since I do not have access to their tax information I can’t tell you about amounts. Do you call all others who use that rule unethical, too??
Something tells me that Koros and Buffett use that rule when it suits them. Are they unethical?
What about ms pelosi? Would it be unethical for her? What about Warren? Clinton?
Or is it unethical because someone you do not like uses it??
LikeLike
Rudy,
Please remember that Trump got a big tax deduction for 18 years because he FAILED in business. He lost nearly $1 billion. He is a very bad businessman. A failure. And he feels no obligation to support our troops, our veterans, our highways, our parks, our children.
LikeLike
To Rudy–I’ve used Block and online services. . . . I don’t ask them to hide my money in offshore accounts or bury it dark rooms behind layers of corporate walls, nor do you, I am supposing. I can see you didn’t read that Guardian article where the process afforded the rich is explored. But that’s okay. I do take pride in government services that I know I have contributed to. I have skin in the game, so to speak, and so do you. So that when you or I go to work in the morning on nice roads with 911 at our fingertips, for instance, I know I am a part of the process and haven’t employed people to be sure I can take advantage of loopholes and even make money on other people’s ethical and political foundations. (Losers, by Trump standards?)
LikeLike
No one is talking about hiding money off-shore. We were discussing using tax regulations to our advantage. When you use HR Block, they make a number of suggestions for deductions. You would take those if you qualify. As a teacher, you get an automatic $ 250.00 deduction. Do you take that? Or do your principles get in the way of that, and you think immediately of the fact that it would reduce the amount of money that could be used for the military, education, roads etc.?
I deduct my premium payments, since I am allowed to do so. I deduct educational expenses, since I am allowed to do so. I do not, strangely enough, deduct my charitable contributions – because that just doesn’t feel right, my quirk.
Businesses use the deferment rule to their advantage. Big, small,…
We just happen to know about the size of Trump’s loss, because someone broke his confidentiality agreement, and handed off confidential papers to a reporter.
But you do not know who else, maybe even someone yuo might admire, uses the same structure.
LikeLike
I think lowering corporate taxes would be helpful to new businesses, but I think we should raise taxes on high salaries, bonuses and passive income. All these billionaires would not have so much money to attack us if they had to pay more, and the money would contribute to the common good, not billionaires’ pet projects.
LikeLike
Just a side-thought: Hilary’s tax plan limits at 250,000. You realize that all of the Senate and Congress are protected by that, right?
Vice President $233,000
Delegates to the House of Representatives $174,000
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico $174,000
President pro tempore of the Senate $193,400
Majority leader and minority leader of the Senate $193,400
Majority leader and minority leader of the House of Representatives $193,400
Speaker of the House of Representatives $223,500
Talk about buying some goodwill…
LikeLike
Nonsense, Rudy. $250,000 is a good tax limit.
Talk about Donald Trump’s tax plans: tax cuts for the 1% and for large corporations.
LikeLike
Rudy, stats show most elected representatives would barely feel tax effects on their salaries, which for ever half of them constitutes barely a fifth of their income:
“The median net worth of a member of Congress was $1,029,505 in 2013 — a 2.5 percent increase from 2012 — compared with an average American household’s median net worth of $56,355. Once again, the majority of members of Congress are millionaires — 271 of the 533 members currently in office, or 50.8 percent.Jan 12, 2015
One Member of Congress = 18 American Households”. (opensecrets.org)
And these are the folks we are looking to for implementing tax reform?
LikeLike
We were talking about how Clinton’s tax plan protects all members of congress – and as long as that is the case, sure, they are happy to support any tax plan – as long as it does not hurt them.
Even though I disagree with Joe Biden on ideological issues, I respect him more than many others. He is about the only member of congress who’s net worth has not increased during the years he has served.
As I mentioned before, of the ten richest people serving as senator or representative, EIGHT are democrats…
And something tells me they are not going to be too happy about getting higher tax bills. But then, they are rich, and can afford to “rent” the truly smart people like accountants and financial planners, who will then be able to protect their wealth for them.
LikeLike
Vale Math comments on Trump’s tax situation: “His reasoning is that we are seeing the wealthy evade taxes legally because they have decided it is legal.”
Yes–it seems many use the laws they want and that serve their wealth, but discard the ones they don’t. In that scenario, creating new laws won’t work. Regardless of the laws, the wealth managers’ job is to find a way around them. In the earlier article on wealth managers, which are outside of the U.S., the writer comments:
“The work of wealth managers has been described by some leading practitioners as a defence against the depredations of ‘confiscatory states.’ Much of these professionals’ day-to-day practice occurs in an ethical grey area – a realm of activity that is formally legal but socially illegitimate.” (my emphases) So apparently they see taxes and regulations as “confiscatory.” These people are law-immune–laws unto themselves.
It follows that their ideology about education, whatever that is, and thoughtless or not, is at least arbitrary and self-power centered (by definition) and, at worst, unhinged from democracy and the community of persons that it embodies and, thus, culturally destructive. The question is whether they know how intrinsically corrupt they are. But then, self-reflection has probably never been one of their strong suits.
LikeLike
I am not a mathematician, but I heartily recommend this book just published from a person who knows how algorithms of many kinds are being used and to ends few people grasp.
“Weapons of Math Destruction.” See this book review
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/review-weapons-of-math-destruction/
LikeLike
Also, for an informative video-interview with the author of “Weapons of Math Destruction,” see http://www.booktv.org, type in “Weapons” or the author’s name, and enjoy.
LikeLike
“Which candidate will revise the tax code?”
Bernie Sanders lol
LikeLike
From the Washington post:
“The rule that let Mr. Trump shelter almost $1 billion in income from taxation dates to 1918. It was enacted to prevent businesses from being penalized by the administrative convenience of calendar-year taxation: If a company loses $100,000 one year, and makes $100,000 the following year, the law allows the company to pay nothing in taxes, as it has only broken even.”
LikeLike
Rudy,
Trump’s tax dodge is legal–for the hundredth time–and unethical for someone who wants be president
LikeLike
Wow— unethical for someone who wants to be president.
Really? Is that the standard you set???
So you are judging him now on what he did almost 20 years ago. You really mean that?
If so, Clinton should never have been president!
LikeLike
I don’t judge Trump for what he did 20 years ago, although he has been remarkably contemptuous of working people and the public sector all his life. Why won’t he release his tax returns? He isn’t paying taxes right now! He is a liar and a con man right now.
LikeLike
Rudy,
How can you find anything virtuous about Donald Trump and taxes?
It’s like saying Dracula and Christ go together like peanut butter and jelly.
Give it up. You’ve been crossed over to the other (dark) side for years now, and you haven’t a chance, except if you want to be laughed at. Holland and Denmark would have you as their poster boy for everything they don’t want Holland and Denmark to become.
LikeLike
When did I say I found trump virtuous? Obviously you don’t read.
What I argue is that he is using tax rules to his advantage. He did not invent the rule. The rule was not invented for him. Anyone who qualifies can use the same rule. 500,000 do…
Interesting statement about poster boy…
LikeLike
Rudy,
Stop defending the lack of ethics of this buffoon
LikeLike
I do not find anything virtuous in Trump. But all this attention to his use of a 100 year old tax rule is, IMO, ridiculous! There are far worse things to consider when thinking about Trump.
Not quite sure how I crossed to the dark side. I do not like Trump. I am ashamed to admit I am a Republican in these days. But that does not mean I should vote for Clinton, either. I dislike just as much. I do not like people who take credit for things they did not do – and that is only one of the reasons
LikeLike
Perhaps if Trump had paid his share of taxes, that wall could have been built already. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike
TAGO, should, to borrow from Duane!
Also–love your name (I’ve been thinking the same, myself…as I’m sure have many other readers here).
Please continue to comment here–you’re obviously diabolically clever!
(And–let me just say–Some DAM Poet, we hope you’re well; please come back!!!)
LikeLike
Diane should be the old men sentence and Donal trump? Why alcapone he found guilty without paying taxes. I’m not saying that alcapone was a gangster. Alcapone vs trump vs madolf a person is innocent until proven guilty, alcapone was not founded guilty besides he was guilty for not paying taxes. I’m sorry my family is from Italy I was born in Cuba, and I’m in USA. Donald Trump should be in prison life sentence. Bernard Mados was sentenced 250 years ( same as life sentence) Donald trump has had 300 lawsuits against him, he owes money to poor people here in south beach where I comitted the worst mistake in Donald’s trump hotel by wasting $2000. I NEVER knew that guy would run for president, now I feel like an imbecile wasting all that money in this evil guy’s hotel. I was almost ready to buy 2 robes that said Donald trump on the left side, thank God I didn’t buy it. If i did I would of given a gift to my worst enemy. Trump should be in the Russian prison, or where he was born because he is not from the United States, he’s from Fillipenes why did that guy come to America? Bernard mado never intimated anyone to invest his money, dumb people do that. Why is Donald trump not in jail?! Alcapone for not paying taxes he was in jail and I’m 100% sure that alcapone wasn’t evil like that guy. He did his job, the same job that Donald Trump did, hiding. He used gangsters to intimidate their lawyers and make them back up, as a result the lawsuit is still where? The same place where mine is, nowhere because my lawyer was intimated by dangerous people. If somebody wants more information i will be more than happy to show them with facts.
LikeLike
Trump is Not smart, Not a genius, Not a good business man.
His tax preparer is the genius one who played with the numbers to get $0 taxes due.
His lawyers are smart for defending him in court from those law suits. They get to keep their job if he wins.
No one wins when doing business with Trump. He backs off paying on contracts, uses other peoples monies to ‘invest’, then pays himself before claiming bankruptcy.
Trump failed at running three casinos (all in the same city competing with each other), failed at owning an airlines, failed at owning a vodka company. All of his merchandise is made overseas. – Not one item is USA made – except his campaign hats which is assembled in the US. And I am to believe he will ‘make American Great’?
He does this all legally – but for a man who wants to be president it is unethical.
LikeLike
It’s unethical whether he wants to be president or not. Because something is legal does not make it ethical or moral. We have certainly had enough laws in this country that make that clear.
LikeLike
Is it really unethical and immoral to not pay more taxes than legally required? Who in America pays extra to the US Treasury, just to be a better patriot?
Trump is awful and there are plenty of valid issues to criticize him on, but I sincerely don’t understand this line of attack.
The politicians and lobbyists who crafted the tax code are unethical and immoral, not the tax filers who followed the rules.
LikeLike
Concerned citizen says: “The politicians and lobbyists who crafted the tax code are unethical and immoral, not the tax filers who followed the rules.”
Yes, and according to Trump he merely uses a system that is rigged–having nothing to do with the rigging?
Here’s the rigging that he uses but says he will fix. Unlike the rest of us who pay taxes and follow the rules, the wealthy can afford to (1) hire wealth managers to hide their wealth in “dark” places (in and outside the US); and (2) hire lobbyists and pay, or otherwise entice, politicians to rewrite legislation, or to be allowed to write it themselves, creating loopholes that only the rich can use, both with income and with inheritance of estates. They find ways to (1) continue using the infrastructure that their wealth emerged from and depends on in the US and all over the world while (2) employing every scheme they can think of to avoid paying taxes, which many see, not as a responsibility, but as a method of predatory nations. This way of doing things comes along with a great contempt for the other 98 percent whom they see as grabbers and leeches on their wealth.
(1) and (2) are bad enough and, in my view, unethical. Whereas the contempt for others just comes with the very human problems of fear of loss, the hoarding that follows from a greedy comportment, arrogance coupled with self-aggrandizement, all of which are merely developmental problems that are not confined to the wealthy, but that which we all would have to rise above, should we become so wealthy either through family wealth, luck, or hard work.
LikeLike
“The politicians and lobbyists who crafted the tax code are unethical and immoral, not the tax filers who followed the rules.”
Yes, and according to Trump he merely uses a system that is rigged–having nothing to do with the rigging?
Here’s the rigging that he uses but says he will fix. Unlike the rest of us who pay taxes and follow the rules,”
Again: Trump IS following the rules when he uses the RULE that allows him to distribute loss over a number of years. He did not invent the rule (unless he had a previous life we did not know about). The rule was written 98 years ago.
The same rule allows SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS to stay in business after a bad year. And, from a perspective view, for some of the small business owners on a percentage scale, their losses will be in the same percentage as Trump’s billion. It all depends on the scale of your business.
Now, if you want to change the rule, go for it. But do not call following the rules illegal and/or unethical. If it is for one, it is for all!
That argument reminds me of police officers. They will ticket me for speeding, but feel they can drive as fast as they want… No matter what the circumstances are.
LikeLike
Rudy–I was a business owner myself who used that rule before I began making anything–(not as much money, but please know I understand what you mean); and I thought it was a good tax idea at the time, considering my own circumstances, but I never thought I was so dxxx smart by doing so–never crossed my mind.
But my own and others’ arguments here are not concerned with that framing–but with the ethical considerations of several other factors, which I won’t repeat here (for instance, in my own and Diane’s notes) as you seem to block them out to keep repeating your own straw man claim.
Here’s another point–if Trump thinks the system and the laws are “rigged,” and they ARE, not for the 98 percent, but when you get to the movement of funds and assets of the wealthy (far beyond your framing), then Trump’s participation in them is complicit at the very least and his claim that he wants to change it is laughable in the light of his history of business dealings and saying what he thinks others involved want to hear.
Also, the apparent difference between Trump’s and the Clinton’s organizations is that both the means and ends are different. That is, the means are legal and ethical (unless you have other evidence?) in one and apparently illegal and unethical in the other. For instance, Trump stiffs those legitimate business people who contract or trust him to pay for goods and services rendered (If you don’t think that’s unethical, we’re done here); and the ends are certainly different–since, for instance, buying a personal larger-than-life self-portrait is a far cry from helping aids victims–not to mention just another sign of his self-aggrandizment.
LikeLike
I understand that the majority, if not all people who frequent this blog do not like Trump. Neither do I.
The generalization and paintbrush used is what bothers me. The tax rule and its use are legal and ethical. Do some abuse it (besides Trump)? Most likely. But there is a difference between saying a tax rule is abused and saying hat its use is “illegal and unethical.” Even your use was to your advantage – and the rule is meant to be used that way. It protects businesses from the ups and downs of the economy.
In the year Trump used it, it was used for a total amount of 50 BILLION dollars. That’s a large amount. What should have alarmed the IRS was the fact that ONE company/person claimed 2% of that. But the IRS did not take any steps (as far as we know).
What also surprises me is that no one spoke out against the fact that someone broke a confidentiality agreement by handing over the documents. Something tells me that had similar confidential documents related to the Clintons it would have been different…
LikeLike
Rudy,
This is your last comment on this subject. Period.
Trump’s failure to pay taxes was a result of his business failure. It was both legal and unethical. It is unethical for a man who claims to be a billionaire and wants to be president to contribute nothing to the public services we all rely on. He uses the roads. He breathes the air. He watches weather reports. There are a thousands of public services he uses and does not pay for. It is legal and it is unethical.
We have had this exchange about 10 times. No more.
LikeLike
Rudy: I don’t know how “abuse of the laws” is not equivalent to being unethical. Laws are general by necessity. When we or someone like Trump “abuses” them opportunistically, we might benefit in the short term (by a limited and low-life schematic of what’s good); however, we are also involved in inviting more laws into the picture to curb their abuse, thereby lessening everyone’s freedoms in slippery-slope fashion.
A little pedagogy here: Freedom in any democratic culture exists in the open air between (a) the general laws and (b) the responsibility of those who live in a democracy to employ that responsibility in their own lives, one at a time–and NOT to be opportunistic in our abuse of the laws and, by implication, our own freedoms.
Trump, and others in the public eye, are worse because they serve as “they-re doing it so we can” examples for those who are not yet solid in their own sense of being responsible citizens and persons, and who don’t understand or don’t care about the importance of their own fraudulent and unethical activities–THIS is what WE are doing in this free area, when we can get away with it. Wall Street, Wells Fargo, for example? Trump obviously subscribes to the opportunistic version of “how to deal with the law.” THAT is unethical. If we have to wait to be forced, then there go our freedoms. His lack of ethics defines is his method–he has no INNER law besides self-service defined from that very low horizon of ethics or “what determines the good,” or “What the best way to act in this case?”
I think Trump and his children have been in that frame of mind for so long, they probably have no conscience now whatsoever.
LikeLike
To Rudy: ETHICS: An afterthought. As applied to the Clintons, I think if they are guilty of anything with their foundation, it’s in “opportunistically” using the same loopholes as Trump did/does, but in order to do good in the world. By doing so (If I am right in this), and if such opportunism is unethical on its face (and I think it is) the Clinton foundational activities ARE DIFFERENT. That is, they have separated the means (taking advantage of loopholes in the law) from the ends (using their foundation for doing good in the world), but the ends are still ethical. Whereas, Trump’s are bad all over. I think that’s the distinction that’s missing in the argument.
LikeLike
Let me use an extreme example, slavery, to make a point. While it was legal in the United States, it was seen as immoral by a majority of the “civilized” world long before we outlawed it. Specious voting laws that seem to be popping up around the country are clearly designed to limit the access of people to the right to vote. Those laws are unethical and immoral. Using teams of wealth managers who hide your assets from the IRS and invent “creative” ways to avoid taxes with strategies unavailable to the vast majority of tax payers is certainly “smart” from a business perspective and may, in most instances, even be legal, but is an immoral avoidance of responsibility to the common good. Drawing the line between objectionable and unethical, however, isn’t always that easy, but legality does not necessarily identify that line. Clearly, current practice has warped, at the least, the concept of common good.
LikeLike
It seems that the name Trump seems to make a number of people blind to facts. The rule used by him is available to EVERYONE under the same circumstances. It is not “a creative way” to circumvent tax law. Not, like, hm, let me see…. Ah, here’s one: Incorporating under Delaware law, like Clinton has done. That is a “creative” way.
As mentioned before, small business owners can continue doing business because of that tax rule.
“Those laws are unethical and immoral. Using teams of wealth managers who hide your assets from the IRS and invent “creative” ways to avoid taxes with strategies unavailable to the vast majority of tax payers is certainly “smart” from a business perspective and may, in most instances, even be legal, but is an immoral avoidance of responsibility to the common good.”
Yes, indeed. Hiding assets is illegal. And immoral. Back to my small business friend. He was able to keep his employees working – BECAUSE of that rule. Since we do not have enough information, it is difficult to make that decision about Trump’s use of that rule. But again, because Trump has used it, does make it neither immoral nor unethical. Unless you can show me that there was an intent to purposely defraud the U.S. government of rightfully owed tax money, I would suggest being very careful with making such blanket judgments on people who actually use that rule.
BTW, it is a fact that Trump’s use of that rule made him a 2%er. His amount comprised 2% of that years entire use of that rule…
LikeLike
Rudy,
He got the tax break because of his bankruptcies and failure. The art of the deal consists of stiffing working people and the government.
He is a selfish egomaniac who gives nothing to anyone
LikeLike
“He got the tax break because of his bankruptcies and failure. The art of the deal consists of stiffing working people and the government”
And you base this on…? He got the tax break because it is LEGAL and ETHICAL to use by businesses. You assume a motive behind him using the rule. That’s up to you.
But you claimed the use of this rule for “anyone who wants to be president…” to be illegal and unethical.
I know Trump claims to be smarter than anyone else (Not sure who he is trying to convince) but something tells me he did not know 18 years ago that he would be running for president someday, and should therefore think twice before using this rule because lo and behold, here is the good Dr. telling us that he should not have done it…
LikeLike
Rudy,
He got the tax break because his businesses lost $961 million in a year. Read that in every story. As it was explained last night on CNN, if a developer puts up a building for $100 million, in which he invests $1 million and the bank invests $99 million, and the building fails, the developer can claim a loss of $100 million and take it off his taxes. Even though his actual loss was only $1 million.
LikeLike
Only Congress can rewrite the tax code. Not looking likely.
LikeLike
One of the greatest things about a Bernie Sanders presidency would have been his use of the bully pulpit — and in his own words, the first grassroots “organizer in chief” in the white house.
LikeLike
Of course it is unethical to be rich and not pay taxes. It is also standard practice for rich people and big corporations. It is by no means limited to Trump, but Trump is running for president and saying that it’s “smart” to avoid paying taxes. Yeah, that’s terrible. It is only “ethical” if “ethical” means “following the law,” but that’s a ridiculous idea of ethical. It makes every crime and injustice ever committed under the law “ethical.”
At the same time, to think that The Clinton Foundation is a ball of ethical compassion, and Bill and Hillary care a whole lot about tax loopholes, would be willfully disregarding reality about the Clintons.
LikeLike
No member of the Clinton family is paid by the foundation. The foundation is led by Donna Shalala, a woman of impeccable integrity. Yes, it addresses poverty and AIDS.
What does the trump foundation do? It purchased an oil painting of the master.
LikeLike