Did Trump lose 250 million+ 1990 and 1991? If so, does it really say anything other than he had a hard couple years? Were they business expenditures or actual losses to the bottom line?

Does this have anything near the negative connotation that the media is pumping?

Just asking questions to try to get others' views.

I wont be responding so fire away at nothing if questions trigger you.

My answer: Who cares what he lost. What I care about is how the American public is winning with him as president.

Look at Oblunder he never built, created wealth on his own, or became rich from his work and the US was the loser for that. He just didn't understand money.

How many tens of billions did bezos lose a few months ago?

You'll say he made it all back.

Yeah, well so did Trump.

[/thread]

Don’t care about finances, just care about how he is running country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-08-2019 05:54 PM)king king Wrote:  Did Trump lose 250 million+ 1990 and 1991? If so, does it really say anything other than he had a hard couple years? Were they business expenditures or actual losses to the bottom line?

Does this have anything near the negative connotation that the media is pumping?

Just asking questions to try to get others' views.

I wont be responding so fire away at nothing if questions trigger you.

As he explained, they were losses associated with his business ventures. As he also said, you want to show a loss to limit your tax liability. Completely legal, tax avoidance vs tax evasion.

Apparently the left is not worried about anything but being able to troll the POTUS.

(05-08-2019 05:54 PM)king king Wrote:  Did Trump lose 250 million+ 1990 and 1991? If so, does it really say anything other than he had a hard couple years? Were they business expenditures or actual losses to the bottom line?
Does this have anything near the negative connotation that the media is pumping?
Just asking questions to try to get others' views.
I wont be responding so fire away at nothing if questions trigger you.

Umm, business expenditures generate actual losses to the bottom line, so not sure what distinction you are trying to draw there. If you mean, did he have to shell out $250 million from his own pocket, no he didn't.

As for negative connotation, let's talk about what actually happens in a land development project. You put in a bunch of money, you have investors who put in a bunch of money, and you borrow a crap ton of money to leverage that investment. You then spend the resulting funds to buy land, build buildings, put in infrastructure, and build amenities. During this phase you are generating no income so you have huge tax losses. It is a high risk deal. To encourage developers and investors to take those risks, our tax laws allow you to front end a lot of tax deductions. So, with the leverage provided by the bank loans, you can potentially write off for taxes several times the amount of your own money tied up in the deal. But in an economic sense you are creating something of great value with the money you spent, including that which you borrowed as well as what came out of your pocket, so actually you haven't lost anything. Then the project opens and you start making money off the economic value of your investment. And what you make on the back end more than offsets what you spent up front. I will admit the numbers were a bit stunning in size, but given the grandiose nature of Trump's deals, they seem very possible.

It's not a hard or bad couple of years. It's just the early stages of development projects. There were probably financial projections before the fact showing that those tax losses were planned. So it's intentional.

What we are seeking now is the reason they want his returns. They know there is nothing there only some talking point they can latch on to for a month. How ridiculous is this “he’s the biggest loser” rant they are on now. SMH at the ignorance...

(05-08-2019 05:54 PM)king king Wrote:  Did Trump lose 250 million+ 1990 and 1991? If so, does it really say anything other than he had a hard couple years? Were they business expenditures or actual losses to the bottom line?

Does this have anything near the negative connotation that the media is pumping?

Just asking questions to try to get others' views.

I wont be responding so fire away at nothing if questions trigger you.

As for the bold, absoluetly not. It's obvious this is just another shot at Orange Man Bad. As someone that has made loans in the past, I've seen this type of thing numerous times. IMO, most of the losses are probably not even cash. All those noncash items have to be added back in order to get a more adequate picture of cash. Even then, it doesn't reveal the detail of an audited cash flow statement. Of course, the MSM will never tell that part of the story because it very well may destroy their narrative.

Guys I have zero experience in this kind of thing. Just trying to get some other viewpoints so as to understand better.

No distinction being made or trying to troll.

Thanks to those that have responded to help explain some of this.

Owlnumbers said it best.

What they want to do is try and create some 'fodder' out of the tax laws that THEY wrote, and he merely followed.

Almost any company and most ventures you can think of 'loses' money up front... and only a fool wouldn't take the tax loss... It's part of the economics that makes a deal make, or not make sense to do. Take away this, and one of two things happen....

either the deals don't get done...
or they DO get done, but at vastly lower cost... because the ROE doesn't change.

This is the part that tax naive people don't get... so we have to put it into context for them. Part of the reason why homes are worth what they are worth is because of the tax benefits of home ownership. Take that away and the value of your property declines. How many people support that? If you make the 'venture' less profitable for the investor, they will choose another venture (or no venture at all). That leads to lower property valuations, lower tax bases, lower employment, lower wages etc etc etc depending on exactly what the venture is.

Warren Buffett, the 'god' to many leftists (and a very shrewd investor) made his fortune doing one very simple thing.... buying up mom and pop funeral homes out of an estate or a family paying 40+% tax (which means you discount the future value at 40%) and putting them into his corporation that paid 25% or less on the same income. If this were a 'rightie', the left would say he 'stole' 15+% from everyone else.

This isn't how you do the math... but it's close enough for conversation to those who don't get it...
If a mom and pop shop looks like it's going to make $1mm next year and the tax rate for that family is 40%, that means they're looking at taking home $600,000. If Buffett offers them $601,000... this is a better deal, right? Buffet's corp is taxed at 15% though (ignoring all the deduction games he too could play)... meaning that $1mm is worth 850k to him, and he paid 601k for it.

No it's not that simple, but that's the idea. In reality Buffett bought lots of these out of estates... where the family couldn't pay the estate taxes without selling.

Taxes matter

(05-08-2019 06:25 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  My answer: Who cares what he lost. What I care about is how the American public is winning with him as president.

Look at Oblunder he never built, created wealth on his own, or became rich from his work and the US was the loser for that. He just didn't understand money.

(05-09-2019 08:44 AM)king king Wrote:  Guys I have zero experience in this kind of thing. Just trying to get some other viewpoints so as to understand better.

No distinction being made or trying to troll.

Thanks to those that have responded to help explain some of this.

No worries. The more you understand about tax returns they more you'll realize all this is nothing more than political theater.