Posted on 09/29/2020 3:48:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Did you know that Donald Trump paid very little in taxes in certain years? Seriously, I read it in the New York Times…several times. The latest “bombshell” story designed to take out the President is yet another rehash not only of things the media has reported in 2016 and 2018, but things he’s publicly admitted himself. In other words, it’s not news at all.
Never people to let the facts stand in the way of a good narrative, the media dutifully snapped into action to parrot the latest reworking of an old story as if it were new. The gang at Morning Joe were aroused by the news. Their brains so devoid of blood, with it flowing elsewhere in the bodies, that they brought on noted tax cheat Al Sharpton, who still hasn’t paid his tax debt, to lambast the President on the issue. It was like bringing in Jeffrey Epstein to discuss child care.
So what was the story? Basically, Donald Trump’s accountants followed the tax laws at the time to lower his tax burden over the course of his business life. I realize that’s a basic reciting of the story, but that’s really it. If you have someone do your taxes you’d hope they’d do the same.
Yet, the New York Times framed it as some nefarious act on his part, calling it “years of tax avoidance” in their headline. Well, there’s a significant and important difference between “tax avoidance,” which is perfectly legal, and “tax evasion,” which is not. The Times knows this, but they and their fellow travelers in the media are hoping their audience doesn’t. Given how many leftists still believe Russia is controlling an administration punishing their regime with sanctions, some people undoubtedly will.
But the thing about this latest “bombshell” is just how old the information is.
Here is a headline from 2016: “Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years.” Here’s another headline from 2018: “Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father.” They’re both basically the same stories, and they’re both from the New York Times. You could almost forgive the people at the Times for not reading the Times, but 2 of the 3 “reporters” on this year’s version of the story wrote the 2018 version of the story.
What is it? To put it in the most basic of terms, since we’re dealing with complex tax laws and sums of money most of us don’t have, is this: If you’re a business owner, you can roll over excess taxes paid in one year to cover future taxes in another future year. By the same measure, you can spread losses out over multiple years too. This lowers your tax burden in future tax years but does not change your overall tax liability.
If that doesn’t make sense, think of it like this: If you had $20,000 in income taxes withheld one year but only owed $10,000, you’d be due a $10,000 refund. You can choose not to take that refund and let the IRS keep it against your taxes the following year. If, in that following year, you end up owing $10,000 again, but had nothing withheld, rather than having to cut a check, you simply use the $10,000 the IRS already has from you to cover it. You’ve technically paid “nothing” in taxes that year, but you’ve really already paid that money. In the current year, you didn’t cut a check to the IRS that year, but you did pay what you owed.
That’s an oversimplification, but it illustrates how our tax code works. The same goes for business losses. That is what Trump did.
The Times even acknowledges this, “Each time, he requested an extension to file his 1040; and each time, he made the required payment to the I.R.S. for income taxes he might owe — $1 million for 2016 and $4.2 million for 2017. But virtually all of that liability was washed away when he eventually filed, and most of the payments were rolled forward to cover potential taxes in future years.” (Emphasis added.)
The “payments were rolled forward” part is what I was describing. In other words – there’s nothing to see here.But the thing about this latest “bombshell” is just how old the information is.
Here is a headline from 2016: “Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years.” Here’s another headline from 2018: “Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father.” They’re both basically the same stories, and they’re both from the New York Times. You could almost forgive the people at the Times for not reading the Times, but 2 of the 3 “reporters” on this year’s version of the story wrote the 2018 version of the story.
What is it? To put it in the most basic of terms, since we’re dealing with complex tax laws and sums of money most of us don’t have, is this: If you’re a business owner, you can roll over excess taxes paid in one year to cover future taxes in another future year. By the same measure, you can spread losses out over multiple years too. This lowers your tax burden in future tax years but does not change your overall tax liability.
If that doesn’t make sense, think of it like this: If you had $20,000 in income taxes withheld one year but only owed $10,000, you’d be due a $10,000 refund. You can choose not to take that refund and let the IRS keep it against your taxes the following year. If, in that following year, you end up owing $10,000 again, but had nothing withheld, rather than having to cut a check, you simply use the $10,000 the IRS already has from you to cover it. You’ve technically paid “nothing” in taxes that year, but you’ve really already paid that money. In the current year, you didn’t cut a check to the IRS that year, but you did pay what you owed.
That’s an oversimplification, but it illustrates how our tax code works. The same goes for business losses. That is what Trump did.
The Times even acknowledges this, “Each time, he requested an extension to file his 1040; and each time, he made the required payment to the I.R.S. for income taxes he might owe — $1 million for 2016 and $4.2 million for 2017. But virtually all of that liability was washed away when he eventually filed, and most of the payments were rolled forward to cover potential taxes in future years.” (Emphasis added.)
The “payments were rolled forward” part is what I was describing. In other words – there’s nothing to see here.
This, like the Bob Woodward “revelations,” is a rerun. Whatever happened to that Woodward book? That was supposed to destroy Trump, and 2 weeks later you don’t hear about it. That was after The Atlantic garbage story was supposed to destroy Trump. Which came after the Ukraine story that was supposed to destroy Trump. Which was…etc., etc.
Adding new adjectives to an old story doesn’t make it new, it just exposes the people behind it as desperate. We’ll see how it gets played in the debate tonight, but I suspect Joe Biden will try to re-spin it into something while refusing to discuss why his drug-addled, degenerate son raking in $3.5 million for God knows what from the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow is of no concern.
Everything old is new again when it comes to attacking the President, and nothing new matters at all when it exposes who Joe Biden really is. Democrats in the media are re-drilling dry wells trying to destroy President Trump while ignoring the gushers behind Biden. Rather than admit they’ve been wrong, it’ll only be a matter of time before liberals drag Michael Avenatti back on CNN to discuss how the President is a puppet of Putin’s. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Nothing new, but if they think this will force Trump to drop his planned Hunter Biden comments they are foolishly mistaken.
I did not vote for him because I thought he was a billionaire.
I did not vote for him because I thought he was a billionaire.
Trump’s Taxes = 2016 Rerun
Media has ran out of BS only options are reruns.
Pelosi comes from crooked dem Balto politicians like her daddy. Her husband slops at the public trough. She couldn’t write her name in the dirt with a stick.
DiFi married money who has also really cashed in on her position, sharing himself not only lucrative deals, but favorable positioning with the government.
John Kerry, are you serious? DC is the only city in America where a guy that stupid and ugly could be a successful gigalo. If you want to call marrying the ketchup shrew a ”business”, so be it. I doubt whether that was reflected on his tax returns.
When you bring up the Shrieking Squaw I have question your legitimacy. Are you on some sort of field trip from DU? That would be the same ”Liz” Warren who lied about being one-millionth (or whateverthehell) Cherokee to score herself a big fat $400K paycheck for teaching ONE course while bluffing the overeducated imbeciles around her into believing that DNA is useless when you have cheekbone evidence.
Now, tell me again about these oh-so-savvy business brains.
I’m hoping you were being sarcastic. For your sake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.