NY Times gets Trump’s tax returns (2 Viewers)

[brandon]

Trump refused to talk about his tax returns and blasted the Times report as "totally fake news" on Sunday. But the article portrays the anti-elite crusader who rails against a corrupt system as actually using its loopholes to avoid paying any federal taxes at all in 10 of 15 years beginning in 2000 by writing off his own staggering losses.

In 2016 and 2017 each, Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes -- far less than many Americans who are working hard amid a deep recession to stay afloat. Trump took huge deductions -- including $70,000 to take care of his hair -- and also appeared to write off hundreds of thousands of dollars paying his daughter Ivanka as a consultant to the Trump Organization, according to the Times report. The story also reveals the extent to which Trump's status as President is being used to shore up his losing ventures — for example his hotel in Washington, DC, and his golf resorts.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/politics/donald-trump-taxes-election-2020-joe-biden-debate/index.html

So there it is. I paid more in 2016 and 2017 in taxes than our billionaire president. Not even just all year...I paid more than he did in one lump sum with my tax return than he did all year.

$750.

 

[Roofgardener]

The juxtaposition is hilarious.

Can't see it myself, but I'm glad that I was able to brighten your day !

 

[Yggdrasill]

Wow.. that's VERY interesting Yggdrasill. We do it slightly differently in the UK.

Thanks for posting those links !

How does it work in the UK?

 

[Roofgardener]

How does it work in the UK?

You can't publish news based on illegally acquired information. AT least.. not as a primary source ? For example, a newspaper was - effectively - closed down after their reporters where discovered to have been involved in phone hacking.

In fact, the newspaper wasn't directly closed down by law, but by a parliamentary enquiry causing all the investors to pull their sponsorship and advertising.

There was the 'Zirkon Satellite scandal' back in the 1970's, whereby the BBC and the Guardian newspaper where raided by the Police when they both did articles on a (secret) government satellite program. Journalists where threatened with prison unless they revealed their sources. (and indeed, one journalist DID go to prison for a while ? )

 

[RobF]

You can't publish news based on illegally acquired information. AT least.. not as a primary source ? For example, a newspaper was - effectively - closed down after their reporters where discovered to have been involved in phone hacking.

This isn't quite accurate. We have a public interest defense in the UK, that can cover publishing of leaked or hacked material. Which is why we've seen publishing of things like the Panama Papers, Darroch cables, and Edward Snowden's leaked NSA and GCHQ material, to give a few examples.

That's not to say there aren't differences; there are, and one good illustration of this is the Guardian having to destroy their UK-held copies of Snowden's material back in 2013. Even then, that was limited to potential legal threats for them holding the material in the UK, it didn't stop them publishing reporting based on material held in American and Brazil.

It should also be said it doesn't enable journalists to carry out, solicit, or aid, illegal acts themselves. But I think that's the same in the USA to at least some extent, since once of the US charges against Assange is aiding hacking.

And it doesn't, of course, cover the publishing of private information based on solicited phone hacking where no public interest defense exists, hence the demise of the News of the World.

But speaking more broadly, the US and the UK are more similar in press freedom than not. E.g. Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index scores the US and the UK very similarly.

 

[Yggdrasill]

You can't publish news based on illegally acquired information. AT least.. not as a primary source ? For example, a newspaper was - effectively - closed down after their reporters where discovered to have been involved in phone hacking.

In fact, the newspaper wasn't directly closed down by law, but by a parliamentary enquiry causing all the investors to pull their sponsorship and advertising.

There was the 'Zirkon Satellite scandal' back in the 1970's, whereby the BBC and the Guardian newspaper where raided by the Police when they both did articles on a (secret) government satellite program. Journalists where threatened with prison unless they revealed their sources. (and indeed, one journalist DID go to prison for a while ? )

I don't think that the News of the World phone hacking scandal is analogous because in that case, the reporters themselves were doing the hacking or asking others to do it for them. Printing information received (unsolicited) from a third party who acquired it illegally and illegally acquiring the information oneself are clearly distinct activities.

One of the things that I did not like about President Obama was his administration's relentless attach on the press, for the same kinds of things as the Zirkon Satellite scandal: using the Espionage Act and going after journalists to reveal their sources. He was worse, I think, than any President in history in this regard.

 

[efil4]

Hmmmm....
In the USA, what is the term for somebody who profits from illegal activity ?

"Trumping"?

lol.

The papers are not "profiting" as much as you would anticipate and furthermore, they are publishing to inform. Truthfully.

Anywho, the Supreme Court has ruled- SDNY can have his returns and other supporting documents.

What Trump tax returns may reveal following Supreme Court ruling

Former President Donald Trump's accountants, Mazars USA, must hand over tax records to New York prosecutors following a Supreme Court ruling on Monday.

www.cnbc.com