|
ArmZ posted:megan mcardle is loving garbage https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-03/trump-s-1995-return-shows-good-tax-policy-at-work
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
ArmZ posted:https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-03/trump-s-1995-return-shows-good-tax-policy-at-work as usual, mcardle did no research, and people who at least pretend to be journalists actually did. according to the washington post it was briefly possible in the mid-1990s to harvest a taxable loss from a forgiven debt just coincidentally the tax return with a $900M loss is from 1995, after trump had several hundred millions of dollars of loans to a holding company forgiven. gee
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
that makes no sense, the irs considers forgiven debts to be income, at best there would have been some quirky rule that lets you cancel or shift some of that income trump had a $900 million loss because he actually lost a poo poo ton of money because he is not a good businessman because he can't make a deal unless everyone involved is groveling at his feet. there might be shenanigans around the edges but the bulk of his loss was a real loss. you can argue about the tax policy of allowing that to cancel past/future income for individuals (it is pretty obviously important for businesses) but the basics are there note that i am not trying to defend mcardle, most of her stuff is definitely poorly-researched and smug and i haven't even read whatever you just linked. iirc she is not a trump supporter tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
ok, i think i found the washington post article you're talking about, and yeah, it sounds like there was a loophole until 2002 where he could've avoided paying tax on the forgiveness while still using it to increase the cost basis of some other investments. but that wouldn't have inflated his losses in that year; he really did lose $900 million just because he's such a lovely businessman
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:ok, i think i found the washington post article you're talking about, and yeah, it sounds like there was a loophole until 2002 where he could've avoided paying tax on the forgiveness while still using it to increase the cost basis of some other investments. but that wouldn't have inflated his losses in that year; he really did lose $900 million just because he's such a lovely businessman almost certainly not. it's fairly unlikely trump even had 900 million to lose here is an in-depth explanation of how it could have been structured. turns out wapo and forbes were both just trying to interpret this "taxanalysis.org" article (btw as a policy matter this was totally accidental -- no one intended for this to be the tax policy, but the supreme court ruled that the hosed up wording of the law is what matters, even if the intent was obviously different) emphasis mine http://www.taxanalysts.org/content/news-analysis-donalds-double-dip quote:As general partner, that S corporation may have been allocated more losses in the form of interest expenses, operating expenses, and depreciation deductions than it could use against the three casinos' insufficient income. Once the income was exhausted, losses could be applied to reduce the owner's basis in the S corporation shares, but it is likely that basis was small. Passthrough of losses is limited to the shareholder's basis in S corporation shares (section 1363(d)).
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
i like trains
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Tax Analysts is the number one source in the tax industry for news. it's like the most reputable tax news site there is. basically flow through entities allow you to deduct losses to the extent of your basis. basis is contributions plus income less distributions. distributions aren't taxable to the extent of basis, but you flow through income every year, which will either increase or decrease your basis depending on if you made or lost money. basis also includes debt in the entity to the extent you are at risk for it. trump was likely "at risk", so he was able to take huge write offs based on that debt. then he didn't need to include the COD income because of the code section cited, which has to do with when an entity is insolvent. p standard real estate tax poo poo, he just managed to get some hella sweet NOLs out of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
ok, i see trump's casinos lost a shitload of money. that money came primarily from various bank loans, some of which were personally guaranteed by trump. trump got the banks to forgive most of that guarantee in the vague hope that eventually they'd get paid the rest of it. he also got them to give him half a million a month just to jet around to uphold the trump image; so he's a terrible businessman but he did successfully play the banks like chumps. anyway, the casinos had enormous losses, well into the billions, but trump couldn't just claim those directly because the money wasn't actually his, it was the casinos. the debt forgiveness was also income for the casinos, but they were insolvent, and for some reason that allowed them to not even treat the forgiveness as income. but trump was still able to treat that forgiveness as having increased the nominal value of his investment in the casinos, which then got wiped out because the casinos were worthless, so he gets a huge loss he can perpetually carry over that flaw in the law was introduced by congress while they were tinkering with it in response to heavy lobbying by trump and others. trump actually wanted a very different change, basically reintroducing the massive loopholes that were killed in the 80s where intentionally investing in money-losing real estate developments could actually benefit you, but congress didn't give him that. but they did add the thing to allow forgiveness to increase cost basis, which is supposed to always be offset by the forgiveness being income but they hosed it up, and the supreme court ruled that the irs had to stand by the letter of the law until congress fixed it so yes, trump was basically able to abuse the law as written to turn his loan forgiveness into a loss, which was big enough to offset his entire income for years. and nobody else can do that anymore
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
the main takeaway is that, as a matter of policy, this was really dumb and bad and could only encourage stupid behavior yes, trump got good tax advice no, this was not a good policy outcome mcardle is just completely, totally off-base which is pretty normal for her
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
agreed
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
this is not transit chat please chat about transit
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
I really hope BART measure RR passes but between the extra cost*, BART's low public opinion in general and the high threshold it has to achieve I don't think it's going to, and that's going to be a huge setback. http://www.yesforbart.com/ *It'll add like $100/yr onto hilariously low prop-13 suppressed property taxes and people are still bitching. gently caress you boomers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:gently caress you boomers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:I really hope BART measure RR passes but between the extra cost*, BART's low public opinion in general and the high threshold it has to achieve I don't think it's going to, and that's going to be a huge setback. looks like they were smart enough to limit the initiative to san francisco, contra costa, and alameda counties -- places it might actually pass. (does that mean measure RR will fund no improvements outside those three counties?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Even though there are BART lines in San Mateo county I guess they don't have BART district representation? The only counties that have districts are those three.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
in other ballet measure news, seattle ST3, which will fund this seems to be polling well, despite the efforts of the usuals: local newspapers stumping for right wing ownership, etc. plan would add 62 miles of light rail and 50 miles of BRT, including a single LRT line from tacoma to everett which will be the longest continuous light rail line in the country (although the plan is to break it up into 2 individual overlapping service patterns once it opens, instead of end to end). seattle had a recent insanely successful LRT station opening in the city center that seems to be buoying voters. the seattle LRT plan is really more of a psuedo HRT, as its mostly aerial or subway, high frequency, and high speed. LA has Measure M on the ballot, which will fund this:  there seems to be more concerns about Measure M passing. the rich enclaves of the city are doing the normal pearl clutching concerns, including whining that a) there isnt a project close enough to them soon enough and b) that transit will bring in brown people. the city also hosed up its timing and rushed the opening on the Santa Monica light rail line, in a hope to garner voters support for Measure M, but the rushed opening led to weeks of service issues that are now mostly ironed out but rightly pissed people off. Measure M also includes a ton of highway and road spending, which in a city with LA congestion is just a complete waste of money. that said, having just spent a week commuting across LA for a dumb work training, if this city votes down Measure M, they are the dumbest cock and labia suckers on earth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Cygni posted:LA has Measure M on the ballot, which will fund this: lol. so if the measure passes should we expect to see that completed before, or after the heat death of the universe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
to my ignorant butt, that looks like a super ambitious plan for a single ballot initiative
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
i know multiple cities on the new part of A are already stonewalling building new bridges and crossings for the gold line to come through also they are very upset that trains have horns all of a sudden and want quiet zones all through the city Sagebrush posted:lol. so if the measure passes should we expect to see that completed before, or after the heat death of the universe? heat death sounds about right, but current estimate for the goldline from citrus to montclair is 2023 assuming it gets funding
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:to my ignorant butt, that looks like a super ambitious plan for a single ballot initiative its like $120 billion/50 years. also a lot of that is BRT. it really is a huge ballot initiative tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Shaman Linavi posted:also they are very upset that trains have horns all of a sudden and want quiet zones all through the city They should be it's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Illinois has a constitutional amendment up for vote this November to mandate that all gas taxes are used for transportation projects i surprisingly have no strong opinion either way
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
as long as "transportation project" isn't "road project" whatever One of these is at Fruitvale and it's so pretty. More art and trains please. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2O3fRv8BBQ 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:as long as "transportation project" isn't "road project" whatever what does your heart tell you
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
minivanmegafun posted:Illinois has a constitutional amendment up for vote this November to mandate that all gas taxes are used for transportation projects A thing like that passed in Minnesota a few years ago. All sales tax revenue from the sales of motor vehicles is now dedicated to transit spending. Interestingly, ours mandates that only up to 60% of this money can be put toward roads, thus at least 40% must be put toward public transit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
it's just dumb symbolic stuff, gas tax revenues are undoubtedly way less than the state's transportation budget fake edit: illinois transportation budget was approx 7 billion. gas tax not broken out in current source but all "other" taxes are 350 million
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:lol. so if the measure passes should we expect to see that completed before, or after the heat death of the universe? if you omit the gaps where nothing was being built, it took about twenty years of continuous work to build the current system. they are now talking about doubling the size of the current system 20 years is a long time to plan a budget but it's not "heat death of the universe" scale
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
In San Francisco it's taken like 10 years to make a 20 block BRT line happen lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
rjmccall posted:it's just dumb symbolic stuff, gas tax revenues are undoubtedly way less than the state's transportation budget yeah that was pretty much why I didn't have much of an opinion when I got the amendment text sent to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
DEUCE SLUICE posted:In San Francisco it's taken like 10 years to make a 20 block BRT line happen lol oh no the overall process took 40 years, 1976-2016. it was just 20 years of actual construction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
LA and SF are both beating the pants off of NYC though the 2nd avenue subway was initially planned in the 1920s. it has actually been under construction since 1946. this year, in december 2016, they plan to open "phase 1" of the 2nd ave subway. it travels 37 blocks, from 96th & 2nd to 63rd & Lex. There are three stations. This took seventy years to plan, fund, and execute.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
why yes, i would much rather be a transit-dependent person in LA or SF compared to NYC..
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:why yes, i would much rather be a transit-dependent person in LA or SF compared to NYC..
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:why yes, i would much rather be a transit-dependent person in LA or SF compared to NYC.. yeah, no doubt, the system as it stands is better than average that doesn't excuse the horror of MTA capital projects or purchasing. they're just nightmarishly terrible. the only thing in the world that could make the NY MTA look good is the loving Port Authority. go figure that's also present in new york the other thing to remember is that the new york subway system is moribund. most of the system's equipment is from the 1920s and 1930s. the suppliers are all long-gone. they manufacture spares on their own, in-house, at union rates, with according costs lastly, the bus system is in big trouble. average speeds are just above walking. in an era when every big city transit system is seeing record numbers, nyc buses lose passengers every quarter. it's not good
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
the mta spent $500 million to build a new "south ferry" station. the station opened in 2011. the station closed in 2012 after hurricane sandy. so far, costs to re-open it are estimated at $600 million. it will cost more to fix the station than it cost to build as always, the PA exist to make us look ok. the PA world trade center station was destroyed in 2001. the replacement station opened in 2016. for fifteen years commuters trudged through temporary holes in the ground. it "only" cost four billion dollar.s four billion dollars. for one subway station. lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
traffic is a significant source of microplastics. tire and road marking wear, specifically
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
toronto transit: a boondoggle in several parts
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:toronto transit: a boondoggle in several parts gently caress rob ford, but motherfuck our goddamn city council
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
and double upside down gently caress the provincial government for enabling it all for the sake of a single riding in scarborough that won't even have the service. also find an even more impressive number of fucks and apply them to every idiot in scarborough who voted for these craven assholes
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Wheany posted:traffic is a significant source of microplastics. tire and road marking wear, specifically tires are made from rubber smartypants
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 01:57
|
|
