NYT: Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Figures Show Over $1 Billion in Business Losses

[mystery-ak]

Newly obtained tax information reveals that from 1985 to 1994, Donald J. Trump’s businesses were in far bleaker condition than was previously known.

By RUSS BUETTNER and SUSANNE CRAIG
May 7, 2019

By the time his master-of-the-universe memoir “Trump: The Art of the Deal” hit bookstores in 1987, Donald J. Trump was already in deep financial distress, losing tens of millions of dollars on troubled business deals, according to previously unrevealed figures from his federal income tax returns.

Mr. Trump was propelled to the presidency, in part, by a self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome. He has attributed his first run of reversals and bankruptcies to the recession that took hold in 1990. But 10 years of tax information obtained by The New York Times paints a different, and far bleaker, picture of his deal-making abilities and financial condition.

The data — printouts from Mr. Trump’s official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, for the years 1985 to 1994 — represents the fullest and most detailed look to date at the president’s taxes, information he has kept from public view. Though the information does not cover the tax years at the center of an escalating battle between the Trump administration and Congress, it traces the most tumultuous chapter in a long business career — an era of fevered acquisition and spectacular collapse.

The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade.

more
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

[dfwgator]

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Wow, there are some super sleuths at the New York Times.   

 


                               

[libertybele]

This information has been known for quite sometime...why is this still news?  Fact remains that he has managed to bring about the lowest BLACK unemployment in history, the Hispanic unemployment is still dropping, and the GDP has still increased 3.2%. Use of food stamps is still declining.

Credit needs to be given to this President.

[Jazzhead]

This information has been known for quite sometime...why is this still news?  Fact remains that he has managed to bring about the lowest BLACK unemployment in history, the Hispanic unemployment is still dropping, and the GDP has still increased 3.2%. Use of food stamps is still declining.

Credit needs to be given to this President.

Credit also needs to be given to the GOP Congress, which enacted the tax cuts that have unleashed animal spirits again.   Low inflation,  record employment, wage growth, and renewed investment.    But while Trump is still around,  talking with Pelosi about driving up the deficit through infrastructure spending,  the GOP Congress is no more.

The GOP's goal this election cycle should be to send the message the while the good times are here, they're fragile.    Prosperity is a direct result of sound government policy.   And the Dems' talk of tax hikes, socialism and regulation represents bad policy that, if implemented,  will kill that prosperity.   

[Hoodat]

So this is what Trumps taxes looked like when he was a Democrat.  Hopefully, they will be able to track down the bureaucrats that leaked this and hand out some felony prosecutions and lengthy prison sentences.

[libertybele]

Credit also needs to be given to the GOP Congress, which enacted the tax cuts that have unleashed animal spirits again.   Low inflation,  record employment, wage growth, and renewed investment.    But while Trump is still around,  talking with Pelosi about driving up the deficit through infrastructure spending,  the GOP Congress is no more.

The GOP's goal this election cycle should be to send the message the while the good times are here, they're fragile.    Prosperity is a direct result of sound government policy.   And the Dems' talk of tax hikes, socialism and regulation represents bad policy that, if implemented,  will kill that prosperity.   

The goal truly needs to be to send the message that for any prosperity to continue we need to control our borders as we cannot economically sustain supporting the illegal invasion!!  Though I still have a hunch linking Mexico to the U.S. will be part of the infrastructure 'deal'.

[Jazzhead]

The goal truly needs to be to send the message that for any prosperity to continue we need to control our borders as we cannot economically sustain supporting the illegal invasion!!  Though I still have a hunch linking Mexico to the U.S. will be part of the infrastructure 'deal'.

The current prosperity is threatened by the fact that, in recent months, the number of job openings far exceeds the number of Americans looking for jobs.  While I don't dispute that we need to "control the border",  it is just as fundamental that employers be able to get - legally - the employees they need. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The current prosperity is threatened by the fact that, in recent months, the number of job openings far exceeds the number of Americans looking for jobs.  While I don't dispute that we need to "control the border",  it is just as fundamental that employers be able to get - legally - the employees they need.

Well...yes and no.

A labor shortage raises wages.  That isn't necessarily the best thing for growing GDP, or for stock portfolios, but it is a legitimate way to have people earn more money.  That's why immigration is the one issue on which Bernie and Trump agree.

[Smokin Joe]

The current prosperity is threatened by the fact that, in recent months, the number of job openings far exceeds the number of Americans looking for jobs.  While I don't dispute that we need to "control the border",  it is just as fundamental that employers be able to get - legally - the employees they need.

There is an incentive problem in both situations. Reduce welfare and jobs become more attractive. Reduce benefits for illegals, and being here also becomes less attractive.

Dry up the great teat some, and those jobs will be filled.

[Jazzhead]

There is an incentive problem in both situations. Reduce welfare and jobs become more attractive. Reduce benefits for illegals, and being here also becomes less attractive.

Dry up the great teat some, and those jobs will be filled.

I'm not sure why an employer would prefer to hire someone who'd rather be on welfare,  than someone who has demonstrated by his or her actions the motivation to travel thousands of miles to better themselves.

A huge problem for most employers is retention.   The bottom line is that immigrants tend to make desirable employees because they tend to be reliable employees.     

[skeeter]

The bottom line is that immigrants tend to make desirable employees because they tend to be reliable employees.     

Prove it. If its a 'bottom line' it should be easy.

[Jazzhead]

Well...yes and no.

A labor shortage raises wages.  That isn't necessarily the best thing for growing GDP, or for stock portfolios, but it is a legitimate way to have people earn more money.  That's why immigration is the one issue on which Bernie and Trump agree.

But wage growth has been stymied for a long time because of globalization.   What Bernie and Trump agree on is the need for tariffs to allow domestic industries that compete with their counterparts in low-wage countries to have a more level playing field. 

I'm sure I'm in the minority here in favoring both tariffs and increased immigration!   

[skeeter]

Wow, there are some super sleuths at the New York Times.   

 


                               

Anyone over 50 remembers all the hoopla surrounding Trump's economic difficulties in the late eighties, and his 'comeback' a few years later. The rat press is spinning yarns again.

[aligncare]

The media smear merchants continue to peddle their wares.

Look at just about any top corporation today (including Google, Apple, Ford and Harley Davidson) and you’ll see that their businesses had their ups and downs, including massive failed product lines and bankruptcies. But, they went on to succeed. Just as Trump has.

The media are desperately seeking a new narrative they hope will stick.

By the way, surprise, surprise, no one has lost more money in the media sector than the New York Times; and they, too, wrote off their business losses. Shall we take a good look at their taxes?

[austingirl]

The media is doing their best to assist the democommies in finding something to hang around Trump's neck. This rehash of old news is weak, very weak.

[Hoodat]

Reduce benefits for illegals, and being here also becomes less attractive.

DING DING DING !!!  WE HAVE A WINNER !!!


Please please please please, for the love of this Republic, please stop giving out free stuff to illegals.  Do that, and illegal immigration will plummet.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm not sure why an employer would prefer to hire someone who'd rather be on welfare,  than someone who has demonstrated by his or her actions the motivation to travel thousands of miles to better themselves.

A huge problem for most employers is retention.   The bottom line is that immigrants tend to make desirable employees because they tend to be reliable employees.     

Would an employer prefer to hire someone who had been on welfare? Likely not. But entry level jobs would be more attractive if the welfare benefits package did not exceed what could be earned. Housing, Medical care, food, utilities, and a little jingle, why work?

And your bias is showing when you say traveled thousands of miles to better themselves. You assume they are here to work, not to suck up the welfare programs. What we don't have in this country is a social atmosphere conducive to developing a work ethic, but that's another problem that Welfare is only part of.

[Hoodat]

Welfare benefits should have lifetime limits - say 60 months tops.  Once 60 months of welfare benefits are exhausted, that person no longer gets any welfare benefits.  If at any time they decided to repay out of a working wage what they have taken out in the past, they can build back up their 60-month limit in case they need it at some later time.

[Smokin Joe]

Anyone over 50 remembers all the hoopla surrounding Trump's economic difficulties in the late eighties, and his 'comeback' a few years later. The rat press is spinning yarns again.

Yep. In 1991 he sold the Trump Princess to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal at a loss (about 18.5 million from the purchase price of $30 Million and the $8.5 million refit), along with other assets to retire a debt. The Yacht (which Trump didn't particularly like to spend time on at sea) was renamed the Kingdom 5KR.

[Smokin Joe]

Welfare benefits should have lifetime limits - say 60 months tops.  Once 60 months of welfare benefits are exhausted, that person no longer gets any welfare benefits.  If at any time they decided to repay out of a working wage what they have taken out in the past, they can build back up their 60-month limit in case they need it at some later time.

What is really needed is a way to smooth the transition from welfare to workforce, in all seriousness. With the current system, benefits lost by working cannot be replaced at the income level that triggers the loss. At that point, someone in the system would be considered an idiot to bust their butt at some job and end up with less to show for it, and that's what makes getting people off welfare hard. Only those really determined to free themselves from the yoke of Social Services 'supervision' make that change.
Either reduce the benefits or find a way to transition from the dole to the workforce, or people won't make that move--while the rest of us pay for others to have things we can't afford for ourselves.