The NY Times made to look like a fool once again

[WVPATX]

The White House released President Trump’s tax return from 2005 on Tuesday, which showed that he paid $38 million on $150 million in income. This disproves the premise of a major New York Times story in the lead-up to the November election.

The Oct. 1 Times story was headlined: “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found.” The New York Times reporters wrote: “Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.”

This report was so substantial that Trump was asked about it at a presidential debate and responded that he used tax deductions in order to not pay federal income taxes, but did not say for how many years.

The tax return released Tuesday shows that the most time Trump could have deducted money from his 1995 tax return to avoid paying taxes is nine years. This is half the amount of time the Times implied was the case.

 

[moe]

The White House released President Trump’s tax return from 2005 on Tuesday, which showed that he paid $38 million on $150 million in income. This disproves the premise of a major New York Times story in the lead-up to the November election.

The Oct. 1 Times story was headlined: “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found.” The New York Times reporters wrote: “Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.”

This report was so substantial that Trump was asked about it at a presidential debate and responded that he used tax deductions in order to not pay federal income taxes, but did not say for how many years.

The tax return released Tuesday shows that the most time Trump could have deducted money from his 1995 tax return to avoid paying taxes is nine years. This is half the amount of time the Times implied was the case.

Really? lol I believe that 9 years is included in "up to 18 years". You really need to do some work on your "gotcha" posts, sad!

 

[WVPATX]

Really? lol I believe that 9 years is included in "up to 18 years". You really need to do some work on your "gotcha" posts, sad!

Your post makes zero sense. 2005 is clearly within the 18 years the Times claims Trump may have paid ZERO taxes. And this article was deemed so important, it became a debate question between Trump and Hillary.

They have been exposed.

 

[moe]

Your post makes zero sense. 2005 is clearly within the 18 years the Times claims Trump may have paid ZERO taxes. And this article was deemed so important, it became a debate question between Trump and Hillary.

They have been exposed.

The Times said that the loss he claimed was so substantial that "it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years", so maybe he could have wrote down the loss in 17 years or maybe he could have completed the write off in 16 years....or 9 years!! Do you know what the meaning of "up to" is? They had no other Trump tax filings to go on so someone with tax knowledge that knew what the maximum number of years that you could spread that big of a loss write down was and apparently you could spread it out over 18 years if you wanted but you could also use fewer years to write down the loss. Apparently Trump finished his write down prior to 2005 though he may have still taken some of the write down in 2005. Are there any tax write downs on the released 2 pages of his 2005 filing? Even if there's not, the Times is not wrong as he could have taken 18 years to write off the loss but he didn't.

Even you state that "the Times claims Trump may have paid zero taxes". They didn't say that he paid zero taxes, they said that MAY have paid zero taxes. Do you know what "may" means? It means that maybe he did and maybe he didn't.

 

[WVPATX]

The Times said that the loss he claimed was so substantial that "it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years", so maybe he could have wrote down the loss in 17 years or maybe he could have completed the write off in 16 years....or 9 years!! Do you know what the meaning of "up to" is? They had no other Trump tax filings to go on so someone with tax knowledge that knew what the maximum number of years that you could spread that big of a loss write down was and apparently you could spread it out over 18 years if you wanted but you could also use fewer years to write down the loss. Apparently Trump finished his write down prior to 2005 though he may have still taken some of the write down in 2005. Are there any tax write downs on the released 2 pages of his 2005 filing? Even if there's not, the Times is not wrong as he could have taken 18 years to write off the loss but he didn't.

You missed the point, as usual. The Times hyped the fact that Trump may not have paid any taxes for up to 18 years (that theory has now proven to be incorrect) in an effort to take Trump down as a tax avoider. It was such important information as deemed by the main stream media, it was included in the following debate between Hillary and Trump. They breathlessly put this speculation on their front page and it has now been demonstrated false.

More importantly, you posted this:

Really? lol I believe that 9 years is included in "up to 18 years". You really need to do some work on your "gotcha" posts, sad!

It makes zero sense. Care to explain you logic?

 

[moe]

You missed the point, as usual. The Times hyped the fact that Trump may not have paid any taxes for up to 18 years (that theory has now proven to be incorrect) in an effort to take Trump down as a tax avoider. It was such important information as deemed by the main stream media, it was included in the following debate between Hillary and Trump. They breathlessly put this speculation on their front page and it has now been demonstrated false.

More importantly, you posted this:

Really? lol I believe that 9 years is included in "up to 18 years". You really need to do some work on your "gotcha" posts, sad!

It makes zero sense. Care to explain you logic?

I'll start with the last first. 0 - 18 includes 9, ok done with that. You're just muttering to yourself in the first part. Stay on this important story though!!

 

[WVPATX]

I'll start with the last first. 0 - 18 includes 9, ok done with that. You're just muttering to yourself in the first part. Stay on this important story though!!

Again, your post makes zero sense. 18 years from 1995 would end in 2013. 2005 falls in that timeframe meaning if the NY Times was accurate, Trump would have paid zero federal income tax in 2005. But we now know he paid a huge amount of federal income taxes. Yet you wrote:

Really? lol I believe that 9 years is included in "up to 18 years". You really need to do some work on your "gotcha" posts, sad!

Again, your logic or lack thereof, escapes me. I really am trying to understand your post.

 

[moe]

Again, your post makes zero sense. 18 years from 1995 would end in 2013. 2005 falls in that timeframe meaning if the NY Times was accurate, Trump would have paid zero federal income tax in 2005. But we now know he paid a huge amount of federal income taxes. Yet you wrote:

Really? lol I believe that 9 years is included in "up to 18 years". You really need to do some work on your "gotcha" posts, sad!

Again, your logic or lack thereof, escapes me. I really am trying to understand your post.

What part of "up to" do you not understand? I explained how "up to" 18 years works in great detail above. Did you know that up to 18 years includes every number between zero and 18? So if I said that my dog may live up to 18 years and he died at 9 years old, then my initial statement would be true. The same could be said for the Times statement that he could have legally taken up to 18 years to write off that big loss and conceivably not paid any federal taxes during that time. I guess you're trolling me as no one could be as stupid as you appear to be in this thread or if you're just lonely please bother someone else.

 

[WVPATX]

What part of "up to" do you not understand? I explained how "up to" 18 years works in great detail above. Did you know that up to 18 years includes every number between zero and 18? So if I said that my dog may live up to 18 years and he died at 9 years old, then my initial statement would be true. The same could be said for the Times statement that he could have legally taken up to 18 years to write off that big loss and conceivably not paid any federal taxes during that time. I guess you're trolling me as no one could be as stupid as you appear to be in this thread or if you're just lonely please bother someone else.

The article states that he could have AVOIDED paying taxes for up to 18 years. 2005 is just 10 years in. So your post made no sense since the focus of the article was on Trump's NOT PAYING ANY TAXES.

Your post claims that 2005 is in between the years 1995 and 2013, which is true. But the article was focused on NOT PAYING TAXES, not on years in which he was likely to pay taxes. If the article stated that Trump was likely to pay taxes between 1995 and 2013, then I could understand your post.

The point is that the NY Times breathlessly reported on their front page, above the fold that Trump may have avoided paying any taxes for up to 18 years. They were WRONG. They wrote this story to create the image of a tax dodger or someone not paying their "fair share." It's how the Times rolls when it comes to the GOP.