Posted on 10/02/2016 5:19:40 AM PDT by rktman
This statement is a good elaboration on Trump’s correct reply at the debate: “It’s called being smart.” Most people don’t care whether or not Trump had to write a check to the IRS. Nobody wants to do that, and we admire anyone who can find a legal way to avoid doing so.
Creating jobs for 34,000+ (not to mention derivative economies for countless thousands more) people and incurring tax-deductible expenses while building large-scale businesses tend to lower the tax bill.
So my question to those who back the infernal witch who has never carried a private payroll in her life is: What fault are you finding here?
Also keep in mind that business taxes are not personal taxes. The majority of businesses show losses or almost no profit at the end of the year.
Taxes still get paid, however, through the personal returns of the individuals working/investing there.
Companies that routinely show profits tend to be larger C-corp structures that hold money for capital development and investment.
Trump obeyed the law for 20 years. This is going to really sink him now. He’s finished.
We all can do this too!
First though, you have to LOSE almost a BILLION dollars.
“The New York Times says could’ve legally allowed the billionaire to avoid paying taxes for almost two decades.”
Someone that smart ought to be president.
As I stated a month ago, the Clinton campaign already had illegally obtained Trump’s tax returns.... Everyone knows Obama’s IRS is corrupt. No surprise here.
Now, Trump’s campaign has proof of their federal law violation.
Trump gave them just enough rope to hang themselves.
Politics is a game of chess. Trump -Checkmate!
Why?
They're both "Slick". Co-conspirators in the same crime spree. Guilty as Hell and free as a bird.
In the worldview of the NYT paying taxes you could have legally avoided would elevate one to sainthood but we all know nothing Trump could do would absolve him.
The very title “.....may have legally......” was concocted to capitalize on the tendency for many readers to associate what their eyes see with “illegal.”
To say something is ‘legal’ doesn’t warrant an explanation of such. Subliminal, IMO.
Hmmm I wonder how much Obama or Hillary paid in taxes. I think they ‘re casting stones in glass houses.
This election and the paranoia of the Libs is way out of hand. Let’s see the Clinton Foundation taxes and expenses!
The question he needs to ask Hillary: Do you hire someone to do your taxes? Why?
If it’s not illegal, then good for him.
I suppose I learned something new. When I was young, I was taught that illegally doing or avoiding something was what got one in trouble. One more thing I was told wrong. Legally avoiding is what gets one in trouble now. Once again, I thank the Old Gray Whore for educating me.
Every liberal progressive that takes one deduction is a hypocrite. They should take the standard deduction and that’s it.
So? The operative word is “legally”.
How dare Donald Trump follow the lws!
How unnuanced of him!
What kind of role model for the young ferals?
And his follow up reply on that topic was something along the line of, (paraphrased) ‘if I did pay any federal taxes it all would have been squandered anyways.’
Understand, though, that THIS is how the Left wins. The “Look Over There” strategy of deflecting their own mountains of corruption by pointing to a speck of dust on the opponent’s side. They win not by defending their own sins but by arguing points that are easier to argue.
Well duh. Following the laws and avoiding paying taxes is WAY worse than committing actual crimes which may have cost people their lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.