DescentBB

sort of a crappy return on 10 billion in assets.....I do close to this good on one tenth of one percent of that much:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/tr ... li=BBnb7Kv

Actually someone with 10 billion in assets but has under 500,000 in taxable income per year, would be the mark of an incredibly shrewd businessman…assuming everything is legal.

Careful, what you say next could be considered libel.

I'll leave others to judge both the astuteness, veracity and adherance to law of Mr. Trump, but it sure doesn't fit the narrative, now, does it?

So how much money did daddy leave you and how much will you make it grow. It's always the people who never built up anything that criticize.

callmeslick wrote:it sure doesn't fit the narrative, now, does it?

I'm sorry, but you can't be this ignorant, surely? If you have 8 figures of assets, surely you know enough about the tax code to know that one of the major goals -- which the IRS even tells you to do explicitly -- is to structure those assets in such a way as to minimize your "income" because income is so inefficiently taxed.

If you're drawing close to $500k of income from your investments and you don't actually need that much to live on, fire your advisers. You shouldn't have a hard time drawing that amount in returns, but if those returns are being categorized as income, you're donating a lot of unnecessary money to the IRS. (And surely you know the difference between "income" and "returns", and are just insulting the rest of our intelligence by assuming we won't notice you glossing over this rather critical detail.)

callmeslick wrote:I'll leave others to judge both the astuteness, veracity and adherance to law of Mr. Trump, but it sure doesn't fit the narrative, now, does it?

No, it doesn’t fit “your” narrative, but it’s a known fact that wealthy people shelter a great deal of their wealth to avoiding paying taxes on it.

Business as per usual, except its Trump we are talking about, so there must be something seedy going on.

Kinda funny Spidey, remember when Romney was running and how vile he was painted yet now when he attacks Trump he is the elites hero.

Yup, all politics are relative, and hypocrisy rules the day.

And Ted Cruz comes out yesterday with the get rid of the IRS and the flat tax idea....again. I wonder what tax rate he's considering as one that's truly "fair", and fair towards whom or what entity?

Who knows…but thanks for continuing to make my point about fairness and equality and how when it comes to liberals you can never have both.

So it never happens to conservatives. So I guess that means you're not human.

No, I just think conservatives have a better idea that equality is virtually unobtainable and fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

Liberals on the other hand worship those two concepts, but constantly fail to get both to work on the same issue, having to settle for one or the other.

woodchip wrote:So how much money did daddy leave you and how much will you make it grow. It's always the people who never built up anything that criticize.

my point is that Trump, truth be told, may have actually LOST money from the 200 million he was left. I guarantee you that I haven't lost anything of any of the 3 major inheritences I benefitted from.

woodchip wrote:Kinda funny Spidey, remember when Romney was running and how vile he was painted yet now when he attacks Trump he is the elites hero.

I believe, on these very pages, I cited the irony(or hypocrisy, if you will) the moment Romney did so.

oh, and while I'm quite aware of the concept, details and active practice of income shelters, some completely legal, others questionable to varying extents, I am aware of no one sheltering 99.999% of their income. Were Donald Trump worth 10 billion dollars, the most conservative balance of investments would yield 5% in what is a good economy at present. That would mean he is reporting less than 0.1% of a reasonably expected $500,000, and that would seem to draw some serious taxation red flags. Now, Trump did say he was being audited a lot, so maybe.......

callmeslick wrote:oh, and while I'm quite aware of the concept, details and active practice of income shelters, some completely legal, others questionable to varying extents, I am aware of no one sheltering 99.999% of their income

Then, to be blunt, you're not very aware.

Again, "returns" and "income" are not the same thing. The vast majority of returns I get from my investments are not income. As long as he's set up his returns to be reinvested rather than realized as income, he can have a VERY small "income" while still increasing his net worth substantially.

Repeat after me: "returns and income are not the same thing."

the actual tax returns will tell us, Lothar, but I smell a rat(I, too, reinvest much of my dividend income, but not to that extent).

edit--had to clean up major coffee spill caused by 5 year old
Also, I am not sure exactly what you are reinvesting, but most reinvested income still gets taxed as income(I know the stock dividends I have set to reinvest all do, at both state and federal levels), so, once again we'll have to see what
the tax return states to see if it is ordinary income or cap gains income that is offset by some 'loss' or 'investment', or something altogether different.

Spidey wrote:No, I just think conservatives have a better idea that equality is virtually unobtainable and fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

Liberals on the other hand worship those two concepts, but constantly fail to get both to work on the same issue, having to settle for one or the other.

So the fact that conservatives think that since equality is virtually unobtainable, then it must follow that most conservatives will then rationalize that they can take what they want whenever they want and do what they want whenever they want, to hell with everyone else, and that's a better ideal. Mine, mine, mine, mine, F.U. everyone else. Pretty conceited don't you think? Being somewhat of a realist, I understand that equality for all is just a pipe dream. Forced equality is repressive and stagnant. I do agree that most uber liberals have that pie-in-the-sky attitude that if we all just get along and share and share alike like, it will bring about some type of utopian equality. That's not realistic. That's the one big fault in their ideology. I don't agree with it because I realize it's not possible. In some societies, they do get some forms of equality to work and most people seem happy with it. That means that I harbor a smidgen of hope that people will at least try to work together for the common good of everyone in this country, not just for themselves. One thing about liberals, at least they feel guilty when they take from others. Conservatives, never heard of the concept.

actually, the 'reality' that somehow you can't have equality and fairness is utterly bogus. The issue is that both deal with different points of perception. Equality is a target, and end point. Fairness is how you get to that, and other, end points.

tunnelcat wrote:One thing about liberals, at least they feel guilty when they take from others. Conservatives, never heard of the concept.

And just exactly what are conservatives such as myself “taking from others”???

I don't know about you Spidey, you're a small business owner just trying to make a living and since you're trying to protect your business and make a profit, so I can see why you'd be a conservative. However, since you're part of the tax cutting, regulation gutting, obstructionist Republican party, you're still guilty by association.

Duh, how many times do I have to explain that I'm no longer a Republican.

Then cheers to you. You're no longer guilty by association. Me, I haven't been a registered Democrat for years, so I'm not guilty by association either.

And the secret that you still vote Democratic is safe with me.

Kidding

And my secret is that I don't always vote Democratic.

Had to add this one to the list of fantastic business decisions by Trump. If Trump is such a good businessman, how come he couldn't even supply his own brand of steaks at one of his rallies? Worse, he told everyone those steaks were HIS STEAKS, even though he hasn't sold any since 2007 and he didn't even bother to give the real supplier's name or the credit.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/trump-steak ... 08800.html

Maybe they were his steaks because he bought them with his own money

He called them "Trump Steaks", not "I bought you some of the best steaks around". If I'd been the Bush Brothers, I'd have sued. What does that tell you about someone who puts his name on everything, even stuff that's not his own? It means he's so vain, he has to have his name and picture all over the place to keep his ego from deflating. If he does get to be president, we'll see his orange haired puss plastered all over the country on billboards for the unwashed masses to kiss and bend over and worship like some tinpot dictator.