Donald Trump: 'I'm smart' for not paying taxes
Washington (CNN)When Hillary Clinton said that her Republican rival Donald Trump had paid no federal income tax in some years, Trump didn't deny it.
In fact, he said: "That makes me smart."
People are wondering why he won't release his tax returns. Could it because he's afraid that that would reveal that:
-He's not as wealthy as he pretends to be?
-His businesses have gone bankrupt more often than he's already admitted to?
-He's been involved in numerous sleazy corrupt business practices?
-He really is a tool for the Russians & if elected that would pose a serious risk to national security?
But now we know. There have been years where's he's paid no taxes at all!!! 
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
In this country if you are rich and smart you don't pay taxes because of the code and loopholes. That is why a consumption tax is the ONLY FAIR TAX. Only one candidate is proposing this. Gary Johnson. BTW the Clintons don't pay their fare share either. This was proven by millions in donations to their own "charity" in order to avoid paying taxes on it. A "charity" they all make money from and that pays less that 15% to the proposed cause. To be clear they donated money to avoid paying taxes on it then paid themselves with that money.
Gary Johnson.
I assume you are referring to the mentally challenged Gary "What is Aleppo" Johnson?
Yes. The honest one. Speaking of mentally challenged, At least he is not guilty of "gross negligence" and knows what a classified email is. LOL!
At least he is not "grossly negligent"
Link?
My pleasure, and you obviously knew what I meant. That better?
Washington (CNN)When Hillary Clinton said that her Republican rival Donald Trump had paid no federal income tax in some years, Trump didn't deny it.
In fact, he said: "That makes me smart."
"Smart"? Cunning and evil might be more accurate...
Sorry Krish. All the rich people are not "cunning and evil" they are just smart enough to play by the rules set up by the "cunning and evil".
''All the rich people are not "cunning and evil" they are just smart enough to play by the rules set up by the "cunning and evil".
The rules set up by the cunning and evil, who are the rich and their lackeys.
It is ALWAYS their lackeys. BTW you just described Hillary brilliantly.
And it surely would include Trumpette as well 96.
That's why the smart ones won't vote for either of them.
Oh and BTW it is different for the two. You see, in your description, Hillary would actually be Trump's Lackey. Don't get me wrong, they both suck, but why would anyone vote for the lackey?
How much extra do you pay in taxes every year?
People who cannot prove that they have paid federal taxes should not be allowed to run for president.
People who cannot prove that they have paid federal taxes should not be allowed to run for president.
People who pay more in taxes than they are legally required to pay are too stupid to be president.
Well said. How many Democrats are paying extra taxes voluntarily? Step up please!
"People who cannot prove that they have paid federal taxes should not be allowed to run for president. "
People that have been found to have put national security at risk by the FBI and lie to Congress shouldn't be allowed to run either, but here we are...and nevermind the things I listed are much worse.
"People who cannot prove that they have paid federal taxes should not be allowed to run for president. "
I guess the 47% are ineligible then.
The 47% will be disappointed.
If the IRS has not preferred charges, there must be a reason, especially in an Obama run administration, I'm sure the IRS has been directed to audit to the last penny all of the Donald's finances. So, if he didn't break any laws the IRS investigators can find, why do you think releasing his taxes would be of some kind of benefit? Maybe you can find something they missed? That's laughable.
Following the law is smart, or at least it used to be.
Now breaking the law gets you rewarded with the Democratic nomination and following the law gets you attacked by the liberals.
Trump could have followed the law without a three thousand page tax return , or whatever Jr says it is.
People like Trump bribe the legislators to write the laws in their favor that they subsequently supposedly "follow". Some try to make it sound like Trump is being patriotic when he avoids taxes. ROFL.
If he dreamt of being president one day, he should have started paying freaking taxes.
"People like Trump bribe the legislators to write the laws in their favor that they subsequently supposedly "follow"."
What other above the law politician have you just described? Hypocrisy at it's finest!
People like Trump bribe the legislators to write the laws in their favor that they subsequently supposedly "follow". Some try to make it sound like Trump is being patriotic when he avoids taxes. ROFL.
People like Hillary take the "bribe" and turn being Secretary of State into a business enterprise. The Clintons are worth $250 million, all derived from giving speeches to corporations but refusing to disclose what she and Bill say that's worth corporations paying them this fortune.
Sorry but the Clinton's claim they are only worth 40 million according to their taxes LOL!
Sorry but the Clinton's claim they are only worth 40 million according to their taxes LOL!
I was really referring to the estimated $200 million or so that they made since leaving the White House. Since returns are supposed to be so informative, how much did they actually make? If they made over $200 million, then what happened to the rest of it? Did they gamble or drink it away? Lose it in foreign deals? Spend it on prostitutes? Inquiring minds want to know.
If he dreamt of being president one day, he should have started paying freaking taxes.
Tax evasion is illegal. Paying as little in taxes as possible is smart and that's why people hire tax accountants and tax lawyers. Demanding that people pay more in taxes than is necessary is one of the stupidest tax related ideas that I have ever heard.
"Demanding that people pay more in taxes than is necessary is one of the stupidest tax related ideas that I have ever heard."
It makes perfect sense to a Liberal. They always complain about the rich not paying enough taxes but if you tell them "If we could just close the loopholes, you wouldn't need new taxes" you get a blank stare. Go figure. If Hillary made a law last week that the top income bracket is taxed an extra 5% but a loophole is put in that will save them 10% her supporters would still be cheering it. They are not paying attention.
It makes perfect sense to a Liberal. They always complain about the rich not paying enough taxes but if you tell them "If we could just close the loopholes, you wouldn't need new taxes" you get a blank stare. Go figure.
They should blame the game, not the player. I may want to change the rules of the game but, if the rules remain the same, then I play to win under the rules as they exist.
If we could just close the loopholes, you wouldn't need new taxes" you get a blank stare.
I'm all about closing loopholes. Which loopholes do you suggest 96?
Offshore corporate tax loopholes would be a great start. It needs to be dealt with first and foremost. Then these three
Tax break for offshoring US jobs
The ability to save on corporate taxes by shipping operations overseas is one of the most vilified corporate tax breaks.
Yes, companies can expense the costs of relocating abroad. True, it's not a special tax break for moving, say, a factory and its 600 jobs from St. Louis to Singapore. And, says the Tax Foundation, jobs are at least three times more likely to be relocated from one state to another than overseas.
Still, when U.S. unemployment is high, a tax break that rewards the elimination of more U.S. jobs seems like a really bad idea.
Will these and other individual and corporate tax loopholes, deductions or, as the federal government calls them, tax expenditures, be eliminated or even tweaked a bit? It's not likely. All are quite popular among the groups that receive tax savings from them. And they are the same folks who tend to contribute generously to political campaigns.
But anything can happen on the way to the "fiscal cliff."
Second-home mortgage interest deduction
Not to keep picking on homeowners, but there's yet another residential deduction that needs to go: the deduction for interest on a vacation home loan.
Yes, some owners of second homes are far from wealthy. But those who own a ski chalet in Aspen, Colo., an ocean-view getaway along Miami's South Beach or a pied-a-terre in New York City in which to rest after a late Broadway opening night usually are rich. And they get to write off the interest on those expensive second homes as an itemized deduction, for mortgage debt as high as $1 million.
Even more amazing, owners of luxury yachts can deduct mortgage interest on loans they took out to buy their mini-Queen Marys. That's right: The Internal Revenue Code says a boat can be considered a home as long as it has sleeping quarters, a kitchen and a toilet.
The home designation rules also mean that recreational vehicles could qualify as residences, providing owners of those luxury buses an added tax deduction, too.
Sure, some people do live in straightforward houseboats. And because the deduction applies to all types of second-home options, supporters of the tax break argue that it's fair.
But the tax code would be even fairer if the vast majority of single homeowners didn't have to subsidize any second homes.
Carried interest special tax treatment
Remember the controversy over the low tax rates that Republican ex-presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney paid? Part of the reason was because of his capital gains on investments.
But Romney also got some pay for his work at Bain Capital. And a tax loophole allows that compensation to be taxed at a lower rate.
Managers of most private equity funds get a percentage of the net gains as a management fee. This payment is known as carried interest, and here's the beautiful part for the fund manager: Carried interest is not taxed like the regular interest most taxpayers get on regular savings accounts. It's taxed as a capital gain.
That means while regular interest received by most taxpayers on their savings accounts is taxed at rates that could go up to 35 percent, folks who get carried interest payments owe a current top rate of 15 percent on that special interest.
A Bloomberg Global Poll in January found that two-thirds of poll respondents worldwide said the carried interest tax break isn't justified. That's consistent with the poll's finding on the topic in the United States, where 67 percent said the lower tax rate isn't fair.
A bill was introduced in Congress to change the tax treatment of equity fund managers' earnings. Not surprisingly, it went nowhere.
Let's see, how many Corporations pay taxes. Trump has how many corporations? How many people within those corporations pay taxes?
If you don't like the law, get the law changed, but don't bitch about people following the law. It's a less than honest argument.
Right on. There is a world of difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax avoidance is LEGAL.
I think the laws should definitely be reviewed and modified if it is determined that the loop holes and other advantages are being misused and abused.
I'm sure one of the challenges to reviewing and making changes is that those who would be doing the reviewing and responsible for writing and submitting the legislation are generally the ones the are mostly impacted by the laws either directly or indirectly through donations and other perks. I doubt there is much incentive to change a law that benefits the lawmaker.
People who cannot prove they pay federal taxes should not be allowed to run for president, in my opinion. Trump is not patriotic, he is sociopathic.
People who cannot prove they pay federal taxes should not be allowed to run for president, in my opinion. Trump is not patriotic, he is sociopathic.
I agree with that. How do you feel about people who destroy government property after being subpoenaed for that government property and are unable to produce it?
Actually you're right. A person who is smart enough to avoid paying taxes (which is legal) is too smart to be POTUS.
I'm sure neither candidate would be happy with lots of tax loopholes being closed. There are many and probably should be closed off. Like donating large sums of money to a charity that you have financial control over.....
I think the laws should definitely be reviewed and modified if it is determined that the loop holes and other advantages are being misused and abused.
Does this mean you would vote for Mitt Romney ? That was on his platform ...
Does this mean you would vote for Mitt Romney ?
Is he running for dogcatcher? I'm in if he is.
Has Donald Trump said that if he is elected he will request a law that will force people like him to pay taxes? I haven't heard it yet.
The bigger issue here though is the hypocrisy of people who will rationalize a billionaire not paying any taxes but will then blast poor people who have learned how to work the government benefits system for a few extra dollars.
I guess if you are going to game a system it is better to do it for millions instead of twenties.
poor people who have learned how to work the government benefits system for a few extra dollars.
What about people who have lived off the taxpayers for 30 plus years and worked they system to become multi-millionaires at our expense? How do you feel about that?
What about people who have lived off the taxpayers for 30 plus years and worked they system to become multi-millionaires at our expense?
How many people have become multi-millionaires gaming the welfare system?
Is it you can't answer my question or that you just don't want to answer it?
I don't know of anyone who has become a multi millionaire by gaming the welfare system, although I am sure it is within the realm of possibility.
Undecided voters at a forum in NC felt quite differently about his statement.
If he is trying to appeal to these voters he struck out with that statement.
Undecided voters at a forum in NC felt quite differently about his statement.
If he is trying to appeal to these voters he struck out with that statement.
I don't think anyone would be able to honestly compliment that statement, but it was a fact. The rich don't get rich by being dumb normally. They especially don't remain rich by making dumb decisions.
The government regulations and requirements are getting so over the top that well established long term businesses are now running into obstacles from the government that are running them out of business.
I wouldn't put too much faith in an article where one of the people in it says most of her friends were Bernie Sander's supporters and the other comment was from a government employee.
Six, put faith in it or not, the results were that the statement pissed those people off. Simple as that.
What the heck does one person being a government employee and the other have friends that voted for Sanders have to do with this?
It not about who they work for or who their friends are, it's about them being undecided and not liking Trumps comment.
I didn't like the statement either, but it doesn't change the fact smart people take every advantage of saving money when filing taxes. It's pretty typical of Trump to say something like that.
He pretty much has a foot in his mouth and a foot in his hand so when he's finished chewing on one he doesn't have to reach for the other one.
When do we get to see the tax returns for the Clinton foundation? What do Hillary and Bill promise in those speeches they give for $200,000 a pop?
1ofmany - are you not at all curious about Donald Trump's business practices? This deflection away from discussing Donald Trump's financial dealings onto Hilary Clinton flabbergasts me. We can at minimum say that she had released much more information on her financial portfolio than Donald Trump.
I think there is enough information out there on Hilary Clinton that we can come up with a pretty good picture of her financial history unlike Donald Trump.
Of course, I think anyone should be concerned about his business practices, but when people see one of the candidates getting away with one felon after another and suffering no consequences, they feel his taxes are no more important than her surge into the multi-millionaire status during her government employment.
I know from the comments you have made you think Hillary's problem was just some office rules that were overlooked, so there is no way to expect any substance from this discussion, when you have such an opinion on the issue.
I know from the comments you have made you think Hillary's problem was just some office rules that were overlooked, so there is no way to expect any substance from this discussion, when you have such an opinion on the issue.
That's not nice. What's got you so grumpy today Six?
I think we just disagree on whether it's more important to win the battle or the war. I would rather concede on what I feel is a lesser evil AND - as I said in my earlier post. I have enough information about Hilary Clinton that I know who she is and what she is most likely to do if she's elected President.
What I've learned about Trump has only left me with more questions and, if I'm being honest, more concerns.
Not grumpy, but you completely avoided my comment. It's obvious even by this last statement that you are not concerned about what Hillary has already done, but are concerned with what Trump has or has not done.
Six - I'm not avoiding you comment. You're absolutely right. I don't put a lot of value on the fact that Hilary didn't follow a process in which the outcomes were not fully known because the technology is ever evolving. I care more about who is going to get their panties in a bunch when someone says his hands are too small.
In your apparent hate for Hilary Clinton you can't seem to weigh stupidity against dangerous. See - Now I'm grumpy!
PJ....... Can you say Islamic Fascist? Just checking.
Six - Can you say Nazi sympathizer; woman hater; minority hater.........?
We can go back and forth all day but you were probably spot on when you mentioned earlier that our discussion wouldn't lead to anything substantive.
I'll let you have the last word if you care to respond.
As a retired Military guy and a civilian employee of the Air Force, I would be in jail right now for doing what Hillary did, regardless of intent. Security rules are black and white, there are no gray areas. So, at the very least, she has shown exceptionally poor judgment for the sake of convenience.
That's not what I want in a President. In fact, neither of these two clowns are what I want in a president.
In fact, neither of these two clowns are what I want in a president.
I agree with that completely, but this is a swing state and Obama's brown shirts have been working this state since 2008 to change it to a blue state. The last person in the world I would want to become president is Hillary Clinton, so I have no choice, since the two party system has a hold on our government.
1ofmany - are you not at all curious about Donald Trump's business practices? This deflection away from discussing Donald Trump's financial dealings onto Hilary Clinton flabbergasts me. We can at minimum say that she had released much more information on her financial portfolio than Donald Trump. I think there is enough information out there on Hilary Clinton that we can come up with a pretty good picture of her financial history unlike Donald Trump.
Quite frankly I know enough about both candidates right now not to vote for either and seeing tax returns could not possibly change my mind. More specifically, I know very little about Trump's financial dealings other than what he says. Out of an alleged $10 billion net/gross worth, Trump says that he values his name, alone, at $3 billion. That tells me his worth may be largely subjective. A tax return won't answer that question one way or the other and I don't care about it anyway since, as I said, I'm not voting for him.
Plus, he's not going to release his returns because he says he's under an audit. No reputable tax attorney would ever suggest that his client release a return while it's being audited. The fact that the IRS doesn't prohibit the disclosure is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, Trump would have no interest in releasing a complicated tax return that would likely raise more questions than it answers and embroil him in a fight defending his returns from now until the election.
Hillary may be willing to disclose her tax returns but she hides everything else so she is hardly an open book. She has been involved in high profile scandals her entire adult life stretching back to Watergate. Apart from operating private servers as Secretary of State, the sole purpose of which appears to have been to evade the Freedom of Information Act and Congressional inquiries (made easier by deleting information and making it unrecoverable by using bleachbit on the server), she and her foundation have a shady connection to the Russian uranium deal that would never be explained in a tax return.
In case you don't remember the facts of the Russian uranium deal, here they are. Uranium One is a Canadian company that owned a controlling interest in US uranium mines. Uranium One wanted to sell its interest to Rostacom, the Russian atomic energy agency, but the sale had to be approved by the US Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS). As Secretary of State, Hillary had one of the nine CFIUS committee seats and could have objected to the sale (the fact that she had no veto on the sale is irrelevant to me). A number of investors in Uranium One donated to the Clinton Foundation (the amount, so far as I know is undisclosed). Plus, a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government, paid Bill Clinton $500,000 to give a speech (some might call this a bribe). Hillary raised no objection over the deal and it was approved. Hillary spun out from under this obvious and outrageous conflict-of-interest cloud because there was no direct evidence of a quid pro quo (as there wouldn't be since she didn't write down "I, Hillary Clinton, intend to bilk Canadian investors and the Russians out of over a half million dollars by not objecting to the sale").
Clinton at debate : He doesn't want you to know that he pays no federal taxes.
Trump: Maybe I am smart.
Does he have to tattoo it on your forehead? He pays no federal taxes.
Clinton and her surrogates should repeat this every day until election day. It IS an issue.
"Clinton and her surrogates should repeat this every day until election day. It IS an issue. "
Only among the uneducated. If he's meeting the law, I suggest you blame congress.
Clinton at debate : He doesn't want you to know that he pays no federal taxes.
Trump: Maybe I am smart.
He is smart. Only a fool would pay more than the correct amount of tax liability. If he can legally get near zero, then good for him. I don't work to pay taxes and I'd be fine with establishing a flat tax. Abolish the IRS and deductions. No more tax attorneys and tax accountants.
There is a reason we have a progressive income tax and not a regressive flat tax.
There is a reason we have a progressive income tax and not a regressive flat tax.
Just to be clear, progressive and regressive taxes are not synonyms for fair and unfair. It would only be progressive or regressive if the proportion goes up or down as income changes. A simple flat tax is neither progressive or regressive if the proportion stays the same. If you want to make sure everybody pays their fair share of taxes, then yoke everybody together like a team of dogs under one whip and eliminate the ability of a particular dog to lessen his load. Otherwise, any dog with brains will figure out how to pull less.
With a flat consumption tax as the only source of federal income, someone making 300,000 dollars a year will pay the same tax on a pair of jeans (and thus pay the exact same amount of tax) as someone who buys the same pair of jeans who makes 30,000 dollars a year.
Yes, the wealthier person might buy more jeans, or other things, but they also might not.
I was talking about a flat rate income tax not a flat rate consumption tax. I'm not opposed to a consumption tax but that might not be enough to run the country.
Trump isn't talking about a flat tax at all. Johnson is only talking about a consumption tax.
I was saying what I think, not channeling Trump or Johnson.
So what? Why is that not fair?
If you're talking to me, generating inadequate revenue while not curbing spending will run up the debt. It's like living in credit cards. Sooner or later that bubble will bust.
"There is a reason we have a progressive income tax and not a regressive flat tax."
So the 47% can enjoy free bennies?