billy backstay

Trump's Fraudulent "Self-made" Fortune

Recommended Posts

Trump inherited his family's wealth through fraud and questionable tax schemes, receiving the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father's real estate empire. Trump has repeatedly claimed that "I built what I built myself." Trump and his siblings used fake corporations to hide financial gifts from their parents, which helped Fred Trump claim millions in tax deductions. Trump also helped his parents undervalue their real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars when filing their tax returns. In total, Fred and Mary Trump transferred more than $1 billion in wealth to their children and paid a total of $52.2 million in taxes (about 5%) instead of the $550+ million they should have owed under the 55% tax rate imposed on gifts and inheritances. Trump also "earned" $200,000 a year in today's dollars from his father's companies starting at age 3. After college, Trump started receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year, which increased to $5 million a year when he was in his 40s and 50s. Trump has refused to release his income tax returns, breaking with decades of practice by past presidents. There is no time limit on civil fines for tax fraud. [Editor's note: This is a must read. An abstract summary does not suffice.](New York Times)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Trump inherited his family's wealth through fraud and questionable tax schemes, receiving the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father's real estate empire. Trump has repeatedly claimed that "I built what I built myself." Trump and his siblings used fake corporations to hide financial gifts from their parents, which helped Fred Trump claim millions in tax deductions. Trump also helped his parents undervalue their real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars when filing their tax returns. In total, Fred and Mary Trump transferred more than $1 billion in wealth to their children and paid a total of $52.2 million in taxes (about 5%) instead of the $550+ million they should have owed under the 55% tax rate imposed on gifts and inheritances. Trump also "earned" $200,000 a year in today's dollars from his father's companies starting at age 3. After college, Trump started receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year, which increased to $5 million a year when he was in his 40s and 50s. Trump has refused to release his income tax returns, breaking with decades of practice by past presidents. There is no time limit on civil fines for tax fraud. [Editor's note: This is a must read. An abstract summary does not suffice.](New York Times)

And the rest of the story is that the Trump empire shows the power of crony capitalism and government subsidies.
 

Quote

 

"Fred Trump would become a millionaire many times over by making himself one of the nation's largest recipients of cheap government-backed building loans," the report says, citing Gwenda Blair's book The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a President. And the elder Trump passed on both the knowledge of how to use subsidized loans for personal profit and the profits themselves to his son:

Fred Trump began taking steps that enriched Donald alone, introducing him to the charms of building with cheap government loans. In 1972, father and son formed a partnership to build a high-rise for the elderly in East Orange, N.J. Thanks to government subsidies, the partnership got a nearly interest-free $7.8 million loan that covered 90 percent of construction costs. Fred Trump paid the rest. But his son received most of the financial benefits, records show.

I am highly sympathetic to the view that individuals should be free to structure their finances however they please, within the limits of the law, to pay as little tax as possible. But the Times' reporting suggests that Trump did not merely bend the law—he broke it. The front-loaded description of Trump's behavior as fraudulent, without any caveat, indicates the Times' confidence in its work, especially given how litigious Trump has been in response to media reports on his personal life.

Nor should be it be overlooked that the alleged tax dodging was focused on avoiding the estate tax; no less than James Buchanan, an eminence of libertarian economics, has argued for a 100 percent inheritance tax.

But even if you are unmoved by the charges of tax dodging, the report nonetheless effectively dismantles Trump's self-serving mythology. It makes clear that Trump is not a successful businessman; he is a successful financial sponge—off his father, and off the government subsidies that enabled the family real estate empire to grow in the first place.

 

There are reasons I called him the Crony in Chief over in the Kelo thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hermetic said:

I thought he got all his money from the russians? 

 

Only bail-out money in the 90's, when his multiple Bankruptcies caused US lenders to refuse him loans.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billy backstay said:
5 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I thought he got all his money from the russians? 

 

Only bail-out money in the 90's, when his multiple Bankruptcies caused US lenders to refuse him loans.....

which projects did the russians bail him out on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

which projects did the russians bail him out on?

 

Google it, there are reams of pages out there, I'm to busy at work to be bothered..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Who wouldn't cheat to beat a 55% tax?

People with ethics.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billy backstay said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

which projects did the russians bail him out on?

 

Google it, there are reams of pages out there, I'm to busy at work to be bothered..............

sorry, I thought maybe you had some solid info - not some 25 year old guesses by reporters that had no idea about the inheritance amounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is incomprehensible is that anyone would think the 55% tax rate was ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

What is incomprehensible is that anyone would think the 55% tax rate was ok.

Back when the U.S.A. was truly Great...long before MAGA....the tax rate on big incomes was higher than 55%. Went to the moon. Built the highways. Fast economic growth. Innovation. Big corporate profits. Hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

sorry, I thought maybe you had some solid info - not some 25 year old guesses by reporters that had no idea about the inheritance amounts.

 

There are documented reports, but don't confuse yourself with the real facts, when your mind is already made up.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Who wouldn't cheat to beat a 55% tax?

People who don't break the law.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

What is incomprehensible is that anyone would think the 55% tax rate was ok.

That doesn't excuse them from breaking the law.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

What is incomprehensible is that anyone would think the 55% tax rate was ok.

You are correct. This country had our greatest economic boom and period of growth when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

You are correct. This country had our greatest economic boom and period of growth when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

 

That's all Trump needs to do, to Make America Great Again!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

 

There are documented reports, but don't confuse yourself with the real facts, when your mind is already made up.....

name just one that's documented

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

That doesn't excuse them from breaking the law.

The crime should be levying those outrageous percentages. Lock those fuckers up!

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

 

That's all Trump needs to do, to Make America Great Again!!

It would certainly help address the national debt, infrastructure reconstruction and income inequality.  Glad you recognize that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

name just one that's documented

Trump Tower in Lower Manhattan.  

Condo's in Sunny Isle Florida (also known locally as Little Russia)

www.newsweek.com/trump-sold-40-million-estate-russian-oligarch-100-million-and-democratic-802613

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billy backstay said:

Trump inherited his family's wealth through fraud and questionable tax schemes, receiving the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father's real estate empire. Trump has repeatedly claimed that "I built what I built myself." Trump and his siblings used fake corporations to hide financial gifts from their parents, which helped Fred Trump claim millions in tax deductions. Trump also helped his parents undervalue their real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars when filing their tax returns. In total, Fred and Mary Trump transferred more than $1 billion in wealth to their children and paid a total of $52.2 million in taxes (about 5%) instead of the $550+ million they should have owed under the 55% tax rate imposed on gifts and inheritances. Trump also "earned" $200,000 a year in today's dollars from his father's companies starting at age 3. After college, Trump started receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year, which increased to $5 million a year when he was in his 40s and 50s. Trump has refused to release his income tax returns, breaking with decades of practice by past presidents. There is no time limit on civil fines for tax fraud. [Editor's note: This is a must read. An abstract summary does not suffice.](New York Times)

He has siblings; the wealth was divided and Trump was already a billionaire when his father passed away.

If this is the Left's best attack then you all must have despised JFK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

He has siblings; the wealth was divided and Trump was already a billionaire when his father passed away.

If this is the Left's best attack then you all must have despised JFK. 

Can you point me to where JFK pretended he made his money himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Left Shift said:
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

name just one that's documented

Trump Tower in Lower Manhattan.  

Condo's in Sunny Isle Florida (also known locally as Little Russia)

www.newsweek.com/trump-sold-40-million-estate-russian-oligarch-100-million-and-democratic-802613

bb's premise is that the ruskies stepped in with financing for trump's projects because the banks blew him off - not that the ruskies ended up buying some of his condos.  the ruskies bought from every developer

what is "trump tower in lower manhattan" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

He has siblings; the wealth was divided and Trump was already a billionaire when his father passed away.

If this is the Left's best attack then you all must have despised JFK. 

554124560_WarningMalarkey.jpg.4462ba4577903ec2db666b69afb01d50.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The meme fairy is back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

You are correct. This country had our greatest economic boom and period of growth when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

If they reintroduce that you will need a wall to keep those that pay 80% of the income tax from leaving. Do you really think it is fair that people should give 90% of what they earn to the Government?  Seriously? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

bb's premise is that the ruskies stepped in with financing for trump's projects because the banks blew him off - not that the ruskies ended up buying some of his condos.  the ruskies bought from every developer

what is "trump tower in lower manhattan" ?

His premise is correct, backed up by Donnie Jr.'s comment about having plenty of Russian money as the source of their cash for their buying spree.  Be the reports I've read, about $600,000,000 in loans from the Russians.

The Russian's also bought condos from Trump in NY and Florida and not from "every developer".  The NY condo purchases are especially interesting because only Trump and one other condo builder in New York would sell to buyers using LLCs to keep their names off the deeds.  All other high-end NY condos want to know who exactly is going to be part of the condo association and whom they will be sharing an elevator with.  

The Trump Tower in Lower Manhattan is the one that Donnie Sr. so proudly (but pathetically and erroneously) bragged about now being the tallest building in NY after the World Trade Center buildings fell.  A remark that should have disqualified him from ever being  *resident. 

For having such strong opinions, you sure don't know much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

If they reintroduce that you will need a wall to keep those that pay 80% of the income tax from leaving. Do you really think it is fair that people should give 90% of what they earn to the Government?  Seriously? 

It causes tremendous prosperity.

In the tax shelter sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

What is incomprehensible is that anyone would think the 55% tax rate was ok.

Yeah, it really interferes with getting that private 757 and that second 250' yacht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people most opposed to the 55% estate tax are the ones who will never have to worry about it.  They’re also the biggest supporters of tax cuts for the rich.

America is one fucked up country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

It causes tremendous prosperity.

In the tax shelter sector.

You do understand what "top marginal tax rate is, don't you?  It the rate for the last increment of your earnings. 

So, if you earn, say, $50 million in a year, perhaps the last $5 million would be taxed at 90%.  Puts a cap on greed, and the last bump on renegotiated NBA contracts.  And does promote charitable giving and other tax shelters, which do, or should, have a societal purpose.  

I don't recall vast numbers of people heading for foreign shores back then.  Certainly didn't put the Rockefellers in rags.  Nor did they move out of their nice digs up in Pocantico Hills.  Looked like a pretty sweet set up when I stopped by on my bicycle as a kid.  

 

 

3 hours ago, LB 15 said:

If they reintroduce that you will need a wall to keep those that pay 80% of the income tax from leaving. Do you really think it is fair that people should give 90% of what they earn to the Government?  Seriously? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Yeah, it really interferes with getting that private 757 and that second 250' yacht.

Well, Buffet (Not Jimmy), Allen, Gates and a few such others have stated that they are not taxed enough.  And they certainly have not left the country.  

Spanky tRump and his kind are of a different sort.  Greedy little cheap suits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LB 15 said:

If they reintroduce that you will need a wall to keep those that pay 80% of the income tax from leaving. Do you really think it is fair that people should give 90% of what they earn to the Government?  Seriously? 

Yes. Now you want to imagine where I might start that tax bracket?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/10/10/656269912/life-on-chinas-blacklist

After Trump's seventh chance, this solution seems almost refreshing (almost).   China is starting a program of credit scores merged with social justice.  The example lost $3 million when the Chinese clean coal market got hit by environmentalism.   He ended up defaulting on 1.5 million, and it was judged he had not made every effort to pay off his debt.   The article seems to prove the court's view.   His attempt to travel to Beijing by high speed rail was stopped, as it was a luxury.  So was air travel.   He had to take American speed trains instead.    He was not worthy of an expensive hotel even though he still had cash.   His picture was on a digital billboard as untrustworthy.   As a guy who's lost money more then a couple times to deadbeats and bankruptcy claims, I cannot feel bad for the example, and cannot help but wish Americans that abuse the system faced similar humiliation.   They are also experimenting where bad behavior ranging from aggressive driving to fraud hurts your credit worthiness.  That also can be used to determine eligibility for promotion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LB 15 said:
11 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

You are correct. This country had our greatest economic boom and period of growth when the top marginal tax rate was 90%.

If they reintroduce that you will need a wall to keep those that pay 80% of the income tax from leaving. Do you really think it is fair that people should give 90% of what they earn to the Government?  Seriously? 

Don't let the right wing loobies fool you - that's not how it actually works. We use a progressive tax system in the U.S., so the "Marginal" rate applies to income over a certain level.

Back in the early 1950s, the top Marginal rate reached 92%. What that means is that the amount you earned over $200,000 (which is around $2 Million today) was taxed at 92%. 

That rate affected about 10,000 taxpayers. And only on their income over $200,000.

Note that MEDIAN US Household income in 1951 was less than $4,000. You pay the rate for each bracket as you go up.

So if you earned $5,000 in 1951 you paid:

20.4% * 1999  + 22.4% * (3999-2000) + 27.0% * (5,000-4000) =

$407.80 + $447.78 + $270.00 = $1,125.58

$1,125.58/$5,000 = 22.5% total rate.

 

When the TOP marginal rates were in the 90% areas they only applied to people with the equivalent of multiple $millions in taxable income. So it's a gross mis-statement to say they are paying "90% of what they earn."

 

image.png.1438eb3b7af4dcfffd42b7bdc6f3ccbe.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't confuse them with all those facts and numbers BJ - you have to keep it simple for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

Don't let the right wing loobies fool you - that's not how it actually works. We use a progressive tax system in the U.S., so the "Marginal" rate applies to income over a certain level.

Back in the early 1950s, the top Marginal rate reached 92%. What that means is that the amount you earned over $200,000 (which is around $2 Million today) was taxed at 92%. 

That rate affected about 10,000 taxpayers. And only on their income over $200,000.

Note that MEDIAN US Household income in 1951 was less than $4,000. You pay the rate for each bracket as you go up.

So if you earned $5,000 in 1951 you paid:

20.4% * 1999  + 22.4% * (3999-2000) + 27.0% * (5,000-4000) =

$407.80 + $447.78 + $270.00 = $1,125.58

$1,125.58/$5,000 = 22.5% total rate.

 

When the TOP marginal rates were in the 90% areas they only applied to people with the equivalent of multiple $millions in taxable income. So it's a gross mis-statement to say they are paying "90% of what they earn."

 

image.png.1438eb3b7af4dcfffd42b7bdc6f3ccbe.png

Ok got it, but things were different IN 1951. Back then the president spent huge amounts to contain the Russians. Now he pays them just to keep quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Ok got it, but things were different IN 1951. Back then the president spent huge amounts to contain the Russians. Now he pays them just to keep quiet.

Actually the president (General Eisenhower)was paying huge amounts to build our national highway system, our electrical grid and on college education for vets.  And rebuilding Europe.  Military spending was a much lower percentage than it became with Vietnam and then Reagan.

Eisenhower was the one who warned of the military industrial complex. His phrase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care. its Friday.

Image may contain: one or more people

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
14 hours ago, LB 15 said:

If they reintroduce that you will need a wall to keep those that pay 80% of the income tax from leaving. Do you really think it is fair that people should give 90% of what they earn to the Government?  Seriously? 

It causes tremendous prosperity.

In the tax shelter sector.

Actually it causes higher wages and greater reinvestment, including private (meaning corporate) investment in research.

The period of time when the USA's economy was expanding the fastest, and the standard of living for -all- was rising the fastest, was when tax rates where up over 90% for the 1%ers.

As for needing a wall to keep in the wealthy, the great state of Kansas recently experimented with slashing top tax rates. Did wealthy people flock to Kansas?

Google it, don't take my answer.

New York City has among the highest tax rates anywhere. Lots and lots of very wealthy people live there.

If you want good economic policy, look at facts.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Left Shift said:
15 hours ago, hermetic said:

bb's premise is that the ruskies stepped in with financing for trump's projects because the banks blew him off - not that the ruskies ended up buying some of his condos.  the ruskies bought from every developer

what is "trump tower in lower manhattan" ?

His premise is correct, backed up by Donnie Jr.'s comment about having plenty of Russian money as the source of their cash for their buying spree.  Be the reports I've read, about $600,000,000 in loans from the Russians.

The Russian's also bought condos from Trump in NY and Florida and not from "every developer".  The NY condo purchases are especially interesting because only Trump and one other condo builder in New York would sell to buyers using LLCs to keep their names off the deeds.  All other high-end NY condos want to know who exactly is going to be part of the condo association and whom they will be sharing an elevator with.  

The Trump Tower in Lower Manhattan is the one that Donnie Sr. so proudly (but pathetically and erroneously) bragged about now being the tallest building in NY after the World Trade Center buildings fell.  A remark that should have disqualified him from ever being  *resident. 

For having such strong opinions, you sure don't know much.

I'd love to see your "report" that documents $600M in russian financing.

your claim that ny developers don't sell units to llc's is laughable  - anonymity and money trumps owner association wants

just because you write this stuff doesn't make it true - you have to back it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back up like this from the new york times:

"Mr. Jiha said he was spurred to make the changes partly by a series of articles in February in The New York Times that examined the growing use of limited liability companies in real estate transactions, particularly in high-end real estate in New York, a market that has become less and less transparent and increasingly alluring for foreign buyers. A number of the apartments examined by The Times were bought, using shell companies, by international buyers who have been the subject of government inquiries around the world, either personally or as heads of companies.

In all, more than half of New York condominium sales above $5 million last year were to limited liability companies, which can be established in many states without disclosing the names of the actual, or “beneficial,” owners."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Ok got it, but things were different IN 1951. Back then the president spent huge amounts to contain the Russians. Now he pays them just to keep quiet.

And pee on him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hermetic said:

I'd love to see your "report" that documents $600M in russian financing.

your claim that ny developers don't sell units to llc's is laughable  - anonymity and money trumps owner association wants

just because you write this stuff doesn't make it true - you have to back it up

Just do some fuckin' reading on your own.   There have been multiple stories researched in depth just a couple of clicks away.  Plus the specific statements on Russian financing by the second smartest son.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The period of time when the USA's economy was expanding the fastest, and the standard of living for -all- was rising the fastest, was when tax rates where up over 90% for the 1%ers.

Correlation isn't causation. I think we did well despite high taxes, not because of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Left Shift said:
23 hours ago, hermetic said:

I'd love to see your "report" that documents $600M in russian financing.

your claim that ny developers don't sell units to llc's is laughable  - anonymity and money trumps owner association wants

just because you write this stuff doesn't make it true - you have to back it up

Just do some fuckin' reading on your own.   There have been multiple stories researched in depth just a couple of clicks away.  Plus the specific statements on Russian financing by the second smartest son.  

like that deep research you did on llc ownership?

"stories" about funding, written before the revelation of actual inheritance received, are just that - stories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Correlation isn't causation. I think we did well despite high taxes, not because of them.

And your reason for thinking that is.......... what?

I don't think high taxes -caused- economic growth but it contributed to a lot of factors. More reinvestment, especially in research, higher wages (more consumers to buy stuff!), all good things -if- you want wide spread prosperity.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 11:13 PM, Left Shift said:

Actually the president (General Eisenhower)was paying huge amounts to build our national highway system, our electrical grid and on college education for vets.  And rebuilding Europe.  Military spending was a much lower percentage than it became with Vietnam and then Reagan.

Eisenhower was the one who warned of the military industrial complex. His phrase.

Actually Ike wasn't Prez until '53.

Current Republicans would regard him as a dangerous leftie socialist.

Luckily history is smarter than they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hermetic said:

like that deep research you did on llc ownership?

"stories" about funding, written before the revelation of actual inheritance received, are just that - stories

Here’s a fun Saturday project for you.  Call up the broker for a $10mm or so mid-town high rise condo and ask if they would accept a full-price all-cash offers from an LLC owner.  Tell them your name is Ivan, just for fun. But you want to remain anonymous.

report back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Correlation isn't causation. I think we did well despite high taxes, not because of them.

It did minimize large amounts of Capitol being sequestered by the half percent.   The economic benefit of multiple occasionally occupied vacation homes and DeVos style fleets of occasionally used yachts staged around the world is minimal.    Money spent on European tours and on a yacht in the Mediterranean doesn’t help the US economy at all.    Since their wealth is growing faster the can be spent the remainder is invested.   This sounds like a good thing, until we remember some is diversified overseas and more is spent on venture capital bs where companies are acquired, saddled with debt, gutted and left to rot while the investors buy another yacht somewhere.    So even their investments of surplus wealth have little positive benefit on the US economy compared to your presumed economic activity.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Left Shift said:
5 hours ago, hermetic said:

like that deep research you did on llc ownership?

"stories" about funding, written before the revelation of actual inheritance received, are just that - stories

Here’s a fun Saturday project for you.  Call up the broker for a $10mm or so mid-town high rise condo and ask if they would accept a full-price all-cash offers from an LLC owner.  Tell them your name is Ivan, just for fun. But you want to remain anonymous.

report back.

or you could educate yourself by reading the linked article in post 44

if it takes all day, i'll understand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 12:54 PM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

He has siblings; the wealth was divided and Trump was already a billionaire when his father passed away.

If this is the Left's best attack then you all must have despised JFK. 

Did JFK boast that he was a self made millionaire?

It's not the subtle things you miss.  It's the entire point you miss. It's no wonder you dropped out of MIT. You're an idiot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, benwynn said:

Did JFK boast that he was a self made millionaire?

It's not the subtle things you miss.  It's the entire point you miss. It's no wonder you dropped were thrown out of MIT. You're an idiot. 

FIFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hermetic said:

or you could educate yourself by reading the linked article in post 44

if it takes all day, i'll understand

Interesting.  I hadn't read the link, which is from 2015 and seems to be describing a fairly recent phenomenon. And a phenomenon that the city was looking at curbing.  It is contradictory to both my experience in kind of pricy NYC residential real estate - largely pre-2010 - and a well researched New Yorker article about Trump's real estate that was focused on his sales in the 1995 - 2008 era.  It is certainly possible that we are both right.  That, in 2015, anonymous LLC condo purchases were not uncommon, but that in prior years, Trump and his cohorts had figured out the scheme first.  And for the same reason Trump used that tool, ostensibly to launder his Russian friend's petro-dollars, the city, under di Blasio, recognized a problem and began to close that door.

At this point, what we do know is that Trump learned (and got a fair bit of money) from his father, who was a known racist and short-cutting developer, that Trump had no US banks to borrow from, that he borrowed money from Russians, sold condos to Russians (under whatever terms), that he has a peculiar affection for Vladimir Putin and that he has refused to disclose his taxes.  Real presidential timber.  

Remember the good old days when having briefly taken meds for depression or receiving an expensive overcoat or going fishing with a couple of hookers was disqualifying from high federal office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daddy stumped up the bucks .... end of .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 6:54 AM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

He has siblings; the wealth was divided and Trump was already a billionaire when his father passed away.

If this is the Left's best attack then you all must have despised JFK. 

except they left out their dead brother's chronically ill grandson..nice family.

Oh..Donald Two Scoops was executor...that must explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Obimbo might have said. "I may be the worst Billionaire but at least I will go down as a Billionaire." @realObimbo - Phone drop. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Interesting.  I hadn't read the link, which is from 2015 and seems to be describing a fairly recent phenomenon. And a phenomenon that the city was looking at curbing.  It is contradictory to both my experience in kind of pricy NYC residential real estate - largely pre-2010 - and a well researched New Yorker article about Trump's real estate that was focused on his sales in the 1995 - 2008 era.  It is certainly possible that we are both right.  That, in 2015, anonymous LLC condo purchases were not uncommon, but that in prior years, Trump and his cohorts had figured out the scheme first.  And for the same reason Trump used that tool, ostensibly to launder his Russian friend's petro-dollars, the city, under di Blasio, recognized a problem and began to close that door.

At this point, what we do know is that Trump learned (and got a fair bit of money) from his father, who was a known racist and short-cutting developer, that Trump had no US banks to borrow from, that he borrowed money from Russians, sold condos to Russians (under whatever terms), that he has a peculiar affection for Vladimir Putin and that he has refused to disclose his taxes.  Real presidential timber.  

Remember the good old days when having briefly taken meds for depression or receiving an expensive overcoat or going fishing with a couple of hookers was disqualifying from high federal office?

non-us'ers began using an llc to buy property when delaware first created the entity in 1996, since it provided anonymity (can you say money laundering?) and tax avoidance upon resale (foreign investment property tax).  since the data points to 50% llc ownership of high end property in nyc  by 2015, it is not reasonable to assume that llc purchases only began in the last 5 years.  and since the entities were legal, developers (such as trump) didn't care - a sale is a sale.

what is known is that the donald got a lot more money from his fathers estate than was previously disclosed.  it is also known that the donald is listed in a couple hundred llcs

everything else is conjecture, and unless mueller has real good basis - he's not going to try and pierce those llcs to disclose the other members and their roles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 8:27 AM, Steam Flyer said:
On 10/13/2018 at 4:08 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Correlation isn't causation. I think we did well despite high taxes, not because of them.

And your reason for thinking that is.......... what?

I don't think high taxes -caused- economic growth but it contributed to a lot of factors. More reinvestment, especially in research, higher wages (more consumers to buy stuff!), all good things -if- you want wide spread prosperity.

My reason is that I think people handle our own money better than government does as a general rule.

Investments that look good compared to a 90% tax hit might not really be that good. They're just good compared to the alternative.

If 90% is good, would 99% be better? Is there such a thing as a tax rate that's too high?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:
On 10/13/2018 at 8:27 AM, Steam Flyer said:
On 10/13/2018 at 4:08 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Correlation isn't causation. I think we did well despite high taxes, not because of them.

And your reason for thinking that is.......... what?

I don't think high taxes -caused- economic growth but it contributed to a lot of factors. More reinvestment, especially in research, higher wages (more consumers to buy stuff!), all good things -if- you want wide spread prosperity.

My reason is that I think people handle our own money better than government does as a general rule.

Investments that look good compared to a 90% tax hit might not really be that good. They're just good compared to the alternative.

If 90% is good, would 99% be better? Is there such a thing as a tax rate that's too high?

Sure.

OTOH corporate earning are not a single person's money. The current low-low tax rate allows a few favored individuals to shovel money into their own pockets, at which points it -does- becomes their own money. But a businesses profits are the product of investors, workers, and a community of law governing property & contracts (written and implied).

If you had the choice of putting a million dollars into your own pocket, or giving a raise to your companies' workers, or splitting it between workers and researching better products or perhaps a way to make your product more cleanly, etc etc. what would you choose? High(er) taxes incentivize choices that result in a wealthier and healthier society, rather than resulting in a few mega-rich individuals.

The problem I see is that our culture is shifted. It's all me, me, me. And Republicans are especially bad neighbors, while complaining about the neighborhood.

Old saying that it would be good to remember: if you want to have good neighbors, you have to BE a good neighbor. Many Republicans seem to want to live alone on an island, except that they won't move.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If you had the choice of putting a million dollars into your own pocket, or giving a raise to your companies' workers, or splitting it between workers and researching better products or perhaps a way to make your product more cleanly, etc etc. what would you choose? High(er) taxes incentivize choices that result in a wealthier and healthier society, rather than resulting in a few mega-rich individuals.

Where's the choice were 90 or 99% of the money earned by the company goes to the government in this scenario?

It's in the background. But saying that an investment makes sense compared to confiscation of the money is damning with faint praise.

By the way, you didn't answer that 99% question. Wouldn't that rate work even better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dogballs Tom said:

Where's the choice were 90 or 99% of the money earned by the company goes to the government in this scenario?

It's in the background. But saying that an investment makes sense compared to confiscation of the money is damning with faint praise.

By the way, you didn't answer that 99% question. Wouldn't that rate work even better?

guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns

 

Maybe. The answers to your over-simplified question can be found in several long books. You won't read them, so I thought you might read this instead

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is exposed as the fraud that he is...By Michael D'Antonio  Updated 0027 GMT (0827 HKT) October 3, 2018

 

Michael D'Antonio is author of the book "Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success" (St. Martin's Press). The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. View more opinion articles on CNN.

(CNN)Remember how then-candidate Donald Trump talked about how the "system is rigged"? He really knew what he was talking about.

In breathtaking detail and with exacting precision, The New York Times has confirmed that for much of his life, though he claimed to be a brilliant businessman, Trump was benefiting from a rigged system, which his family manipulated to transfer enormous wealth from his father to him.
This truth, long suspected by those who have peered into Trump's finances, included questionable and potentially fraudulent practices that were used so the Trump clan could avoid paying the kind of taxes ordinary people pay every day.
Trump's lawyer vehemently denies the allegations against his client, telling the Times they are "100% false, and highly defamatory."
And yet, the Times story is quite persuasive. According to the Times, by age 3, Trump was receiving $200,000 per year in today's dollars from his father's operations. By 8, he was a millionaire. And his wealth only grew from there.
Talk about rigged.
Overall, the picture the Times paints comports with much that could be surmised about the family over the years. By the 1960s, his father, Fred, was one of the wealthiest men in New York. His financial prowess backed his son's first big project, a hotel renovation at Grand Central Terminal, and his signature Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. Although the back story about the hotel project and Trump Tower were well established, the facts assembled by the Times show Donald Trump used deception, not just in carrying out those projects, but throughout the course of his career.
The Times notes he profited from his father's largess to the tune of more than $400 million. Much of this money was given to him though business entities, trusts and employment schemes that permitted him to accept multiple salaries at the same time.
This manipulation included schemes that made Trump into his father's employee, landlord, property manager and lender. One example, according to the Times, was Fred Trump's development of Beach Haven Apartments. After building the sprawling complex with federal loans, he made his children the landlords -- creating a stream of income that grew over decades.
But Beach Haven was just one of scores of schemes that Fred Trump devised, and his son was complicit in. In one key passage of the Times report, the authors explain that Fred and his wife, Mary, paid a little more than $52 million in taxes on payments of $1 billion given to their children. Under the law, though, they should have paid 55% tax on gifts -- a figure that $52 million doesn't even come close to.
The evidence the Times explored as this financial X-ray was assembled included more than 100,000 pages of documents. The data gleaned from these papers, some of which came from tax returns, show how nearly 300 streams of revenues, including receipts from coin laundries in apartment buildings, were funneled to the man who would eventually become president.
All the evidence gathered by the Times conflicts directly with the message Trump has long promoted. From his early days in Manhattan, when he marketed himself as a young tycoon, Trump insisted he had succeeded on the basis of his own ingenuity, creativity and grit.
This myth is the chief takeaway from his famous best-selling book, "The Art of the Deal," and it was the backdrop for the development of his TV show "The Apprentice." In the opening montage for the program, he falsely declared he was "the largest real estate developer in New York, by far." Real estate insiders, of course, knew this claim was rubbish.
Not surprisingly, much of Trump's rhetoric was seen as hyperbole in the service of a public image that was playful and ridiculous. However, once his business acumen became one of the pillars of his presidential campaign, it became fair game for intense examination. Trump has impeded the process by refusing to honor the tradition of releasing his tax returns. However, with impressive legwork and number-crunching, the Times has made the picture much less opaque.
Tax experts suggested to the paper that while some of the finagling done by Trump and his family was legal, they have doubts about other aspects of their strategy. The dicey aspects of all this maneuvering could explain why businessman Trump and now President Trump worked so hard to keep secret the details of his business life.
The wall of secrecy has now been breached, and what lies behind it seems to be proof that, at the very least, the reputation Trump claimed was a fraud all along.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now