Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
For the tax ignorant rats whose bible is the NYTs
RoadTrip
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,306 
in Tug Tavern
Just one example of several inconvenient truths about Trump's taxes the NYTs is banking on its minions to not understand.
"Let’s try to educate the New York Times, again. Their review of Trump’s tax returns, however they were obtained, show that Trump paid no income tax in 10 of the previous 15 years and paid only $750 in income taxes in 2016. They claim this shows “a story fundamentally different from the one he has sold to the American public.”
There’s a basic difference between net income and cash flow. Taxes are paid on net income. Cash flow shows the net proceeds received by the owner and is what the investor/owner is most concerned about. Here’s how it works:
Suppose a real estate developer built a $100 million building. Suppose the building earned $3 million annually in before-tax income. If the tax rate is 33 percent, as it approximately was before the 2018 tax cut, the developer would pay $1 million in taxes and would have $2 million left over as his cash flow.
The IRS, however, allows investors to recover their investment capital before paying taxes. So, if the developer built a $100 building and the IRS allowed for the capital to be recovered over 25 years, then the developer would have a $4 million annual depreciation expense.
That means instead of $3 million in taxable income, the venture would have a $1 million loss. Therefore, no taxes would be paid, meaning the owner keeps all $3 million in income.
The tax returns would show a $1 million loss, but the cash flow would be $3 million instead of $2 million—a $1 million cash flow increase due to the reduction of income taxes. Any student who has taken at least one course in accounting or finance should know this."
New York Times Biased and Ignorant Reporting on Trump’s Taxes
https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-times-biased-and-ignorant-reporting-on-trumps-taxes_3517302.html
"Let’s try to educate the New York Times, again. Their review of Trump’s tax returns, however they were obtained, show that Trump paid no income tax in 10 of the previous 15 years and paid only $750 in income taxes in 2016. They claim this shows “a story fundamentally different from the one he has sold to the American public.”
There’s a basic difference between net income and cash flow. Taxes are paid on net income. Cash flow shows the net proceeds received by the owner and is what the investor/owner is most concerned about. Here’s how it works:
Suppose a real estate developer built a $100 million building. Suppose the building earned $3 million annually in before-tax income. If the tax rate is 33 percent, as it approximately was before the 2018 tax cut, the developer would pay $1 million in taxes and would have $2 million left over as his cash flow.
The IRS, however, allows investors to recover their investment capital before paying taxes. So, if the developer built a $100 building and the IRS allowed for the capital to be recovered over 25 years, then the developer would have a $4 million annual depreciation expense.
That means instead of $3 million in taxable income, the venture would have a $1 million loss. Therefore, no taxes would be paid, meaning the owner keeps all $3 million in income.
The tax returns would show a $1 million loss, but the cash flow would be $3 million instead of $2 million—a $1 million cash flow increase due to the reduction of income taxes. Any student who has taken at least one course in accounting or finance should know this."
New York Times Biased and Ignorant Reporting on Trump’s Taxes
https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-york-times-biased-and-ignorant-reporting-on-trumps-taxes_3517302.html
Comments
-
Nothing in that example is wrong. It's not super applicable to Trump since a vast majority of the deductions he took were losses unrelated to depreciation, but yes, that's how the tax law works.
Anyways, let's say this fictional scenario is exactly what happened to Trump and it's why he ended up having no material income tax. That would still be evidence of him being a pretty incompetent businessman. Tying up $100m in cash over a multi-year period only to achieve a 3% annual return is enough to get any CEO fired by the board. -
Trump is stupid and incompetent or he's fooled the IRS for decades
Our choice? -
I've always been on team "Trump is a mediocre businessman". There's a few aggressive positions he's taken that may get reversed on audit (the abandoned stake in his AC casino being the most notable), but there's nothing in the NYT story that screams fraud or really anything close to it.RaceBannon said:Trump is stupid and incompetent or he's fooled the IRS for decades
Our choice? -
Not unfair. His bidness acumen hasn't matched his ability to self promote over 40 years or soGreenRiverGatorz said:
I've always been on team "Trump is a mediocre businessman". There's a few aggressive positions he's taken that may get reversed on audit (the abandoned stake in his AC casino being the most notable), but there's nothing in the NYT story that screams fraud or really anything close to it.RaceBannon said:Trump is stupid and incompetent or he's fooled the IRS for decades
Our choice? -
He wouldn't tie up 100 million, he would tie up 10 and get a loan for the rest.
-
His crushing debt should concern you and all of us.Goduckies said:He wouldn't tie up 100 million, he would tie up 10 and get a loan for the rest.
-
So China should invest a billion and the Moscow mayors wife should send him 3.5 million. He doesn't know shit like the Bidens. Trump should attract huge money because not knowing shit seems more profitable.HHusky said:
His crushing debt should concern you and all of us.Goduckies said:He wouldn't tie up 100 million, he would tie up 10 and get a loan for the rest.
-
Giving up already?UW_Doog_Bot said: -
But what about . . .?Sledog said:
So China should invest a billion and the Moscow mayors wife should send him 3.5 million. He doesn't know shit like the Bidens. Trump should attract huge money because not knowing shit seems more profitable.HHusky said:
His crushing debt should concern you and all of us.Goduckies said:He wouldn't tie up 100 million, he would tie up 10 and get a loan for the rest.
Pathetic.
