What Kind of Genius Loses A Billion Dollars?

[Neo-Scholastic]

As a means of investment Real Estate operates on an entirely different set of rules. People should also remember that Trump did not write the rules - elected lawmakers did. Trump availed himself of every opportunity to avoid paying any federal income tax. That is what rational people and do. It's good business.

There are various ways to offset revenues and expenses, like capital depreciation, that look like loses on paper but nevertheless allow someone to expand their holdings. Looking at the bottom line tells you absolutely nothing. I do not know the ins-and-outs of Trump's business. I'm sure it is quite complex because I myself must hire an accountant to figure out what I owe.

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that there are many people that -do- know the ins and outs of trumps business...which makes it's inclusion as an argument for his election transparent in and of itself, imo. The really amusing bit, is imagining that trump has anything to do with what taxes he pays in the first place, though. He hires accountants, tax lawyers.......surely.

No one knows whether or not he's a "good businessman" or what anyone means when they say it, and he doesn't have anything to do with whatever brilliance allowed him to mooch for so long regardless.

[Aegon]

I think the revelation that Trump isn't paying his fair share of income tax is a big deal, but not because it makes him a bad guy. Trump is running on a right-wing populist platform. What sort of populist cheats his way out of paying taxes while the working class he supposedly represents is forced to give up percentages of their hard-earned money? How can anybody outside the 1% think that Trump will best represent their interests?

[Divinity]

According to Redstate (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/10/...s-meeting/) Trump apparently really does live in his own reality.

[vorlon13]

Someone on reddit explained the difference between Bill Gates losses and Donald Trump's quite well.

The losses that Gates had were based on "potential" net worth, not actualized worth. Most of Bill Gates' net worth comes from the stock market, and his "losses" were the result of stocks going down in value, but that doesn't mean he lost money; in fact the stocks were still worth more than when he bought them.

Say you buy a stock for $1, and its value goes up to $1,000. Your net worth has increased 99,900%, but you don't have to pay any taxes unless you sell the stock for money (which counts as capital gains). If the stock crashes to $250, your net worth has decreased by 75%, but you're still up 24,900% from what you originally paid.

As for Steve Jobs, he took back Apple in 1997 when it was already failing as a business. That loss would have likely occurred whether or not he was CEO. The year after the loss, Apple made a profit of several hundred million, and then of course turned Apple into the 9th richest company in the world.

I've had a 7 figure loss in the value of my farmland of late.  It's not for sale, and I'm unconcerned about it.  It's actually an opportunity as the loss of value is affecting everyone in the area and a significant deal might materialize.  Now am I smart/lucky enough to pull this off ??

Ideally, I'd jump on a bargain adjacent to me, using existing land as collateral, as values rise my ROI would be significant, and a small tract I farm but find inconvenient due to it's distance and configuration (not all fields are square) might be for sale after values rebound to apply to the amount owed on the larger tract.

There are some other angles to the low dollar value of farmland right now that are of significance but I won't go into that.  Suffice to say, it looks like I'm placed as well as I can be for hopefully growing the bottom line here.

As for Trumple shucking a billion, meh, looks like he made money on it.  Hope I can do 2% as well for myself with my 'paper' losses.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think the revelation that Trump isn't paying his fair share of income tax...

First, there is a big difference between active income and passive income. They have different rates and different rules apply.

Second, the phrase "fair share" sounds good but is absolutely meaningless. The sole criteria for tax policy should be achieving sufficient revenue to run the government with the least burden on the the wealth generating sectors of the nation's economy. Fairness has nothing to do with tax policy.

[Minimalist]

Yeah - the fucker is a "genius."

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/attack...re-raising

Trump's Attacks Have Raised President Obama's Approval Numbers Tremendously

In a new CNN/ORC poll, President Obama hit an all time high mark for his second term with a stunning 55% approval rating.
As the article says, a year ago the president was polling ten points lower.
Gee, I wonder why?
Crime rates are very low in America and job growth has continued to recover after the disastrous Bush/Cheney global financial meltdown, but Trump continues to paint America as a country overrun by thugs and killers that are shooting you as you walk across the street.
Donald Trump has used the entire conservative playbook from right wing websites, Fox News and AM hate talk radio to advance in Republican circles and it is killing his chances in the general election.

[Minimalist]

First, there is a big difference between active income and passive income. They have different rates and different rules apply.

Congratulations.  For once in your life you have correctly identified a problem.

[KUSA]

He was a democrat too.

[Minimalist]

Hmmm.....

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/17/technolo...ings-2015/

How Apple could make a $53 billion profit this year

All the Drumpfuck seems to do is file bankruptcy and outsource jobs to China.

But that's about what I'd expect from a lying sack of shit like him.