Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A day after the times did a smear piece on Trump and his taxes. Turns out NYT payed no taxes.

Of Coarse this will be excused as "but blah blah blah blah."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2016/01/31/new-york-times-hypocrisy-on-corporate-taxes-reaches-record-high/#450a7bbc6577

"For tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.'

The New York Times isn't running for President.

Originally posted by BackFire
The New York Times isn't running for President.

Why would that even matter as long as said person didn't break the law?

Originally posted by BackFire
The New York Times isn't running for President.

So legally avoiding taxes is only not okay if you're running for president?

Since at least in the other thread you talked about how Trump tries to portray himself as some successful business man. That logic makes some sense. But this "he is running for president" stuff makes zero sense.

The fact he is running for president is irrelevant to the fact that back in 1995 his tax returns show he had the POSSIBILITY to avoid paying taxes. Have we even seen any proof he didn't pay? Any proof that he indeed took advantage?

Originally posted by BackFire
The New York Times isn't running for President.

Yet they have endorsed Hillary who also did the same carries loss loop hole as trump.

Originally posted by Surtur
So legally avoiding taxes is only not okay if you're running for president?

Since at least in the other thread you talked about how Trump tries to portray himself as some successful business man. That logic makes some sense. But this "he is running for president" stuff makes zero sense.

The fact he is running for president is irrelevant to the fact that back in 1995 his tax returns show he had the POSSIBILITY to avoid paying taxes. Have we even seen any proof he didn't pay? Any proof that he indeed took advantage?

Hillary is innocent till proven guilty; Trump is guilty until proven innocent.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hillary is innocent till proven guilty; Trump is guilty until proven innocent.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

That's usually how American "liberals" act. The older I get, the more nauseating the American liberals/progressives become. So much hypocritical self-righteousness.



I am jealous of both candidates because they have enough money to get those tax breaks and take advantage of those tax loopholes.



I do agree with what Trump said to defend himself. He would be an idiot to not take advantage of the system in place that would best benefit his businesses profitability. I mean...how utterly obvious is this to everyone? Just as he stated, doesn't he have a responsibility to his employees and shareholders to make the most amount of money as possible AND do it legally? Taking advantage of tax breaks and loopholes that exist ON PURPOSE is hardly something to get jimmies rustled over. to me, this is just bullshit persecution. I mean, come on...there are plenty of other things to persecute Trump over, right? teeheeee!

Even though he did nothing wrong, and Hillary and the NYT did the exact same thing. Trump is guilty, and they are innocent according to liberal logic.

I think people also tend not to think about the fact that..the fact Trump knows all the shady shit businesses can do legally..might perhaps give him a special insight into ways of stopping this kind of thing?

I'm pretty sure Trump has more or less said this himself while discussing the pay to play scandals of the Clinton Foundation.

I would also find it shocking if it turned out the Clintons have never once taken advantage of legal loopholes.

People just assume Trump would use his presidential powers to give himself even further tax breaks, etc. They essentially think he'd abuse his powers as president, but they don't think the opposition would ever do that?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Even though he did nothing wrong, and Hillary and the NYT did the exact same thing. Trump is guilty, and they are innocent according to liberal logic.

Hold on, we know for a fact Hilary did the same thing?

Where are you when I post this stuff?? She did the same exact thing.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump

The hypocrisy is both hilarious and disturbing.

Originally posted by Surtur
So legally avoiding taxes is only not okay if you're running for president?

Since at least in the other thread you talked about how Trump tries to portray himself as some successful business man. That logic makes some sense. But this "he is running for president" stuff makes zero sense.

The fact he is running for president is irrelevant to the fact that back in 1995 his tax returns show he had the POSSIBILITY to avoid paying taxes. Have we even seen any proof he didn't pay? Any proof that he indeed took advantage?

I didn't say it's not ok. I don't really care that Trump maybe didn't pay taxes, most wealthy people exploit loopholes in the tax code, it's not a concern of mine.

My comment about him running for president refers to the interest people have in Trump's tax information compared to the lack of interest in the NYT's. The reason people care about Trump's tax returns is because he's now running for president, the reason people don't care about NYT's is because they aren't. If the CEO/President of NYT's decided to run for presiden then it would also become news. This idea that there's some grand hypocracy because the NYT's printed a news story is a bit silly. They are reporting on what their readers are interested in and there's nothing wrong with that. They didn't demonize the idea that he maybe didn't pay taxes, they didn't even flat out say he didn't, I believe they said the words "Could have paid no taxes".

And yes as I said I think the bigger news is that he lost almost a billion dollars in one year. That flies in the face of his "I'm an amazing and brilliant businessman" thing that he's running on.