15 ms·

It's partially that everything about the man feels like a fishy facade and that the combination of running everything as a pass through but also having business

by rtkwe 6y ago

It's partially that everything about the man feels like a fishy facade and that the combination of running everything as a pass through but also having business bankruptcies. There's also the question of stories like [0] where there are huge loses claimed that on closer examination seem dubious and are later banned. I think it's the mixing of personal and 'business' finances that really muddle the waters here and that the twin facts of him being 'rich' and 'losing gobs of money for decades' feels unfair. [0] https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trump-lawyers-advised-him-that-irs-might-call-tax-dodge-improper/ https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trump-lawyers-advi...

umvi 6y ago
True, but take any <rich person>. If that rich person doesn't pay taxes because they legitimately had no positive income because their business is hemorrhaging, the media can easily spin that into public outrage. "Mr. Moneybags over here paid fewer taxes last year than Working Class Joe! The injustice!"
- rtkwe 6y ago
  Generally that doesn't happen for decades though, and when it does it's still an indictment of the idea that capitalism/America is meritocratic. The original business will eventually fail or the person runs out of money isn't that rich any more. When neither of those things happen it starts to look fishy, especially when it's known that the person uses legal at the time but dubious or even now illegal tax holes. On top of that even if they're losing a lot of money they're still getting all the benefits of the government they're just not paying into the system in a proportion to the amount they're getting from it.
  - vmception 6y ago
    > On top of that even if they're losing a lot of money they're still getting all the benefits of the government they're just not paying into the system in a proportion That's such a weak argument undermining your deeper potentially stronger retrospective. I've seen that argument before and it requires basically brainwashing that a particular government (the US, if we're being honest) is offering sooo much infrastructure that was required to make a profit. "Roads, schools, and such an amaaaazing court system". And that's just not true to domestic and heavily international business, and even if it was there would be a diminishing return that this argument doesn't even begin to account for.
    - rtkwe 6y ago
      I think a lot of the difference is just how expansively I see the benefits of things like schools. For instance no matter how poorly they perform relative to international standard they're still essentially free childcare for every person in the US which frees up so many people into the workforce. Just look at how much panic there was over the fact that keeping schools closed or very limited was the best way forward for public health, it really highlights how much work they do just letting more people into the workforce.

by rtkwe 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

True, but take any <rich person>. If that rich person doesn't pay taxes because they legitimately had no positive income because their business is hemorrhaging, the media can easily spin that into public outrage. "Mr. Moneybags over here paid fewer taxes last year than Working Class Joe! The injustice!"

rtkwe 6y ago
Generally that doesn't happen for decades though, and when it does it's still an indictment of the idea that capitalism/America is meritocratic. The original business will eventually fail or the person runs out of money isn't that rich any more. When neither of those things happen it starts to look fishy, especially when it's known that the person uses legal at the time but dubious or even now illegal tax holes. On top of that even if they're losing a lot of money they're still getting all the benefits of the government they're just not paying into the system in a proportion to the amount they're getting from it.
- vmception 6y ago
  > On top of that even if they're losing a lot of money they're still getting all the benefits of the government they're just not paying into the system in a proportion That's such a weak argument undermining your deeper potentially stronger retrospective. I've seen that argument before and it requires basically brainwashing that a particular government (the US, if we're being honest) is offering sooo much infrastructure that was required to make a profit. "Roads, schools, and such an amaaaazing court system". And that's just not true to domestic and heavily international business, and even if it was there would be a diminishing return that this argument doesn't even begin to account for.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    I think a lot of the difference is just how expansively I see the benefits of things like schools. For instance no matter how poorly they perform relative to international standard they're still essentially free childcare for every person in the US which frees up so many people into the workforce. Just look at how much panic there was over the fact that keeping schools closed or very limited was the best way forward for public health, it really highlights how much work they do just letting more people into the workforce.