I have explained it and so does the link I posted.
Your link said nothing about the difference in why Trump can claim $916,000,000 and Clinton only $3,000, if they were claiming the exact same deduction. Which is the only thing I've been discussing.
Yep because he was allowed to legally as a real estate developer.
But Hillary Clinton is not a real estate developer. So how can you claim she did the same thing, when you say Trump claimed a benefit granted to those in real estate?
Do you really not see why you are wrong?
something someone else brought up as well. There are several things going on at one time.
1. he is taking losses when he sells property to offset the gains on others.
2. he is allowed to deduct the depreciation on the properties that he does buy.
Right, he's being granted the ability to take off taxes under laws which did not apply to Clinton. So not the same thing. How can you claim something is the same thing when you're saying they are clearly different?
Nope I understand it just fine. the problem is that there is nothing that he is doing that is wrong.
There is nothing that he is doing which is illegal. No one is seriously arguing otherwise. But, as you've already noted, "wrong" is a matter of opinion.
can you drop the appeal to emotion argument?
That's not an appeal to emotion argument. Your grasp of fallacies is horrible.
What they make has 0 affect on what you can earn or anyone else can earn.
Once more you miss the point.
Good you find it unappealing that is irrelevant. I am a hard working middle class American and I try to pay as little in tax as possible and get as much back as much of my money as I can.
You're not trying to earn my vote. :shrug:
Again, you are missing the point.
It makes sense that the left as to continue their class warfare. what is sad is that people buy it without understanding it.
Given how little you've understood things in this discussion and many others you and I have had, you probably ought to refrain from making comments like this.
How is the law being exploited? It seems to be a fair law in some ways, at least. Naturally if you take a billion dollar loss it would probably give you tax breaks for years. Why not? If it were my money I'd certainly want to take it after a year where I lost that much.
IF Trump lost that much, and there's many ways to claim a loss where you don't have actual real losses, it wouldn't change the fact Trump has obviously led quite a luxurious lifestyle in the meantime.
And if Trump truly is very close to financial ruin, then it essentially undermines his only real claim to qualification for President. That's the point. IF Donald Trump has paid no federal taxes for nearly 20 years (and it's still an if at this point), then either he's a very wealthy man who takes advantage of tax laws which benefit the wealthy or he's not nearly as good of a businessman as he claims.
Yes, we haven't seen Trump's tax returns. We won't until his audit is finished. Why complain about it? It is what it is.
If the audit were to be finished tomorrow, I have my doubts we'd see his tax returns before the election. It's already been well established there's nothing about a tax audit which prevents him from releasing his returns. Him not releasing his returns is not about the audit.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066389770 said:
Actually its called denial. The Hillary Lemmings are almost over the cliff on this one. :lamo
Your comment doesn't even make sense.
