The NY Times, which has become an integral part of the Hillary Clinton campaign, was the recipient of a leaked copy of Donald Trump’s 1995 tax return and used it to hammer Trump in another one of its political hit pieces:
Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.
The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.
Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.
Not surprisingly, the Times claimed it did not receive the part of the return which would have included any charitable donations.
This effort was meant to tee up the ball for hillary clinton and she wasted no time pulling out the driver:
Hillary Clinton ripped Donald Trump over the report in The New York Times that he may have turned a nearly $1 billion loss into 18 years of not owing taxes, saying he was “taking from America with both hands, leaving the rest of us with the bill.”
The tax story was the centerpiece of Clinton’s argument on the economy, which came in the swing state of Ohio — which the Democratic presidential nominee had not visited since Labor Day.
“While millions of American families, including mine and yours, were working hard, paying our fair share, it seems he was contributing nothing to our nation,” she said during the rally in Toledo.“He’s been dissing America in this whole campaign. He talks us down, makes disparaging comments about our country, calls our military a disaster. It’s not, but it might have been if everyone else had failed to pay taxes to support our great men and women in uniform.”
I’ve said it a million times- you can’t spell either “democrat” or “liberal” without the letters h y p o c r i t e.
The Clinton’s utilized the law in exactly same manner as did Trump to reduce their tax liability in 2015:
And Hillary following up, adding Trump “apparently got to avoid paying taxes for nearly two decades—while tens of millions of working families paid theirs.”
However, a look back at Hillary Clinton’s tax returns from 2015 (here), proudly displayed by the campaign proving she has nothing to hide – shows something awkward on page 17…
In fact, so did the NY Times:
Finally, as we noted previously, the NYT itself is also perfectly happy to take advantage of the US tax to minimize the amount of money it pays to the government: in 2014 the company got a tax refund of $3.6 million despite having a $29.9 million pretax profit, an effective negative tax rate for 2014, which it explained was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.
Of course, there was a time when Trump escaping all that debt was a positive accomplishment:
“Though there are still four years to go in the 90’s, business and government leaders in New York honored Donald J. Trump yesterday for pulling off what they called ‘the comeback of the decade,’” the paper said at the time. “Mr. Trump, the developer who came to epitomize opulent wealth during the 80’s before tumbling into deep financial trouble, has managed to erase much of his debt and is moving ahead with major projects at a time other developers are idling.”
The Times even called Trump the “Comeback King.” My how times change. The very same Comeback King is today disparaged by the NY Slimes for the same events.
Thing is, if losing one billion is bad, then losing six billion has to be far worse, and lose $6 billion of US tax dollars is what hillary clinton did:
In a mind-boggling example of how the government blows—or perhaps steals—our tax dollars, billions vanished from the U.S. State Department mostly while Hillary Clinton ran it, according to a new alert issued by the agency’s inspector general.
Could the former Secretary of State be using the cash to fund an upcoming presidential campaign? In all, $6 billion are missing and it’s highly unlikely any of the money will ever be recovered. The cash was supposed to be used to pay contractors but it just disappeared and documents that could help track the dough cannot be located. How convenient! The paper trail, which federal law says must be maintained in the case of government contracts, has been destroyed or was never created to begin with.
How could this possibly happen? Like a lot of government agencies, outside contracts are a free-for-all at the State Department with virtually no oversight. Hundreds of millions of dollars are doled out annually for a variety of services and no one bothers to follow up on the deals. This “exposes the department to significant financial risk,” according to the State Department Inspector General, which issued a special management alert this month outlining the lost $6 billion. The watchdog further writes that “it creates conditions conducive to fraud, as corrupt individuals may attempt to conceal evidence of illicit behavior by omitting key documents from the contract file.”
Among the examples listed in the memo is a recent investigation of the closeout process for contracts involving the U.S. mission in Iraq. Investigators could not locate 33 of the 115 contract files totaling approximately $2.1 billion. Even of the files they found, more than half contained insufficient documents required by federal law. In one billion-dollar deal involving the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement in Afghanistan, the actual contract was determined to be “incomplete.”
In one alarming case a contract file conveniently omitted that a $52 million deal was awarded to a company owned by the spouse of another State Department contractor employee performing as a specialist. In other cited cases a contracting officer actually falsified government technical review information in a $100 million deal and a contracting officer’s representative allowed nearly $800,000 to be paid on a deal with no official documents to support the payment. It’s the free-flow of public funds under extremely suspicious circumstances.
At the very least the State Department is violating its own policy, according to the inspector general, which divulges that it’s found “repeated examples of poor contract file administration over the years.” The watchdog confirms that “it is the Department’s policy that all contracts, regardless of dollar value, be properly documented so as to provide complete record of: pre-solicitation activities; the solicitation, evaluation, and award process; and [sic] the administration of the contract through closeout.”
This unbelievable report documenting the mysterious disappearance of $6 billion from the coffers of a major government agency brings to mind a similar and equally enraging story reported by Judicial Watch a few years ago. The Pentagon somehow lost $6.6 billion sent to Iraq for post-invasion “reconstruction.”
If you are bothered by what Trump did, your problem is with the law, not with Trump. He did nothing illegal. The same people who will find Trump’s actions offensive are the same who will us every deduction possible on their tax returns. That makes them (especially Hillary) in principle absolutely no different from Trump.
And speaking of tax dodges, the Clinton’s took $2 deductions on Bill’s used underwear:
Clinton, on the other hand, has valued his underwear as high as $2 a pair. And a pair of long underwear, per Clinton on his 1988 return, is worth $15.
A typically extensive document — which apparently Clinton wrote out in his own hand for the tax return filed for 1986, when he was serving his third term as governor of Arkansas — is titled “Salvation Army 12/27” and lists items numbered 1 through 17, for which Clinton took a deduction of $555.
Hillary topped off her insults with this beauty:
“At the time of the worst financial crisis in Ohio in 2009, he would have let you twist and fall,”
Firstly, Trump was in business and not in the business of welfare. Secondly, I know of four guys in Benghazi who were left to twist and fall by Hillary:
The bottom line on this is much the same as it is for everything else. Taking advantage of the tax laws is perfectly fine for Hillary Clinton and the NY Times but not for Trump.
What’s happening here is a horrible commentary on society today and I will explore that in the next post.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Greg: particularly anyone claiming to hold traditional conservative values.
You see Greg the liberals will never figure anything thats plain common sense out.
We are seeing the destruction of our government before our very eyes, just because a man is course, rude, shows lack of wisdom for his age, has few redeeming traits doesnt mean that same man doesnt want good things for his country.
The other candidate however revels in her scrabble of corruption and cant earn her position, gets it by stealing it. Pollutes everything that she touches. Name calling, looking down on all others. She is a dried up bitter old thief, any woman that wants to put her up as a role model for their daughters is pathetic beyond words.
@kitt, #54:
Trump sums up the core argument of his campaign in a single sentence:
What I see Hillary Clinton as is the target of an unbelievably intense and prolonged defamation of character campaign, which focused almost entirely on Obama for six years and then switched to his most likely democratic successor the moment the 2014 election ended. I view Donald Trump as the only deeply flawed candidate in this particular match-up.
I think what we’re most likely seeing is the destruction of the Republican Party and possibly the conservative movement, largely at the hands of one man. I believe Trump would never step aside to save either, because neither the Republican Party nor the conservative movement is what his candidacy is about. In his mind, this is an opera that centers on the person of Donald Trump. If a triumphant entry into Rome can’t be managed, it can be played out as the Götterdämmerung. The program doesn’t include a self-effacing act of self-sacrifice, with republicans and conservatives rallying around a potentially popular second-in-command who steps in at the last moment to save the day.
Whatever the outcome, I think future political science majors and historians are going to spend years analyzing and arguing over how it all came about. Trump’s candidacy will likely be seen as a point of demarcation, where there was some fundamental shift in how the new media can be used to control public perception.
@Greg: Despite what Hillary has been saying about taking on Wall Street, she has been telling Wall Street that she is going to let them police themselves. Despite what she says about bringing jobs back to the US, she tells Wall Street she is for open borders and open trade, which guarantees more businesses leaving the high taxation she intends her to go off shore where regulation and labor is much cheaper; just what Soros wants her to do.
And she tells Wall Street, don’t worry about the hard line she takes out in public… that’s just for the dumbasses. She’s telling THEM, her benefactors, her financiers, what she REALLY means.
The left, that ignores and forgives Bill Clinton actually carrying out what Trump says (factually) powerful men can do to women. The left ignores that Hillary not only enabled all that, but attacked the VICTIMS. The left doesn’t care about women’s rights, save for some of the women when THEY are mistreated; all they care about is pointing fingers.
Indeed, if Hillary is allowed to win, it WILL be the demise of the Republican party and conservatism… because, like Obama, she will carry on the campaign to make that not allowed. Who says she can’t use the IRS to attack conservatives? Who says she can’t use the FBI to investigate conservatives while ignoring violations by liberals? Who says she can’t issue Executive Orders to eliminate 2nd Amendment rights? (or 1st Amendment, for that matter) Who says she can’t unilaterally change laws passed by Congress to benefit her and her ideology? Who says she can’t make treaties with foreign entities and ignore Congressional oversight? Who says she can’t decide all illegal immigrants have instant citizenship, and bring more in to be granted citizenship by her hand?
The precedent has been set and, with a compliant Supreme Court to stamp out any challenges, NOTHING says she can’t circumvent the Constitution, just as her predecessor did, only to a greater extent.
Folks like yourself LOVE the prospect of all these unauthorized powers, because they further the liberal agenda. What you fail to consider is how badly liberalism has served this nation and the People and how more of it will ensure the collapse of this great nation.
@Greg: Too late in the game to not call the Democrats bluff. She said she was sorry sort of for the very recent Deplorable remarks, he said he was wrong for the 12 year old locker room chat.
The old Rinos can shove it they are NWO back stabbing cowards. We have nothing to lose and everything to lose.
He may suck as a president, she will suck she has a proven track record.
Executive powers tend to be exercised on a wider range of issues when Congress ceases to involve itself in the business of governance and fails to address them. That’s become the norm during Obama’s second term. That said, I’m not aware of any areas where Obama has clearly overstepped his constitutional authority.
As with Hillary Clinton, unproved accusations from one’s political enemies are nothing but verbal attacks in a propaganda war, and run a dime-a-dozen. Such claims are now so casually made and numerous that they can no longer taken seriously. They’re largely directed toward an audience that doesn’t seem to impose any penalty for making claims that can’t be backed up with evidence.
@Greg: ok 20 unanimous rulings by the supreme court where the Prez got too big for his britches that was in only 5.5 years the constitutional professor should know what his boundries are but like a child keeps testing his limits http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381676/ted-cruz-obamas-20-unanimous-supreme-court-losses-o article is old but accurate, most recently his amnesty was also given a no.
You should become more “aware”.
@Greg:
What you and Obama seem to not realize is that there is this Constitution thing we have around these parts. Because of that obstructive document, people like Obama don’t get to unilaterally run the country just because the other two branches won’t bow to his greatness and rubber stamp is left wing failure agenda. He had that for two years and only managed to pass the worst law ever made.
Remember that Obama really set the stage for bipartisan cooperation when he told the Republicans “elections have consequences” and to shut up and cooperate. Since that moment, Obama has tried to bully his way past the Constitution and, when that mean old Constitution wouldn’t believe his “red line” any more than Assad did, he whines and cries about “obstruction”.
Even the lap dog Comey confirmed Hillary lied about classified information on her secret, private, unsecured server… classified prior to being on her server, marked classified and sent hither and yon unsecured. THAT violates State Department rules and regulations and lying about it, under oath before Congress constitutes a CRIME.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: We have tried to school Greggie head up Hillarys saggy arse on the multiple statutes she has violated, the FBI and DOJ is so polluted obstruction of justice by the State Department, Destruction of evidence by the FBI, and collusion by the DOJ. IRS weaponized against conservative groups to intimidate and supress conservative voters. Boxes of emails missing, computers destroyed FOIA requests ignored, multiple immunites given while no one is under indictment, and yet the 5th is given during testimony, no nothing to to it.
@kitt, #59:
I would interpret 20 Supreme Court rulings against Obama administration directives as evidence that the Constitutional checks and balances system is in perfectly good working order. The Executive Branch could be said to be circumventing Constitutional law only if that mechanism had been ineffective.
This is precisely how things are supposed to work. Were you thinking a Chief Executive was supposed to be intimidated into inaction and ineffectiveness by fear of negative Supreme Court feedback?
@Greg: The supreme court only gets to decide if someone files a suit or questions an action through legal processes. You reasoning process is flawed as usual.
You don’t seem to understand how the checks and balances system is supposed to function. Maybe you should have stayed awake during American Government class.
His Harvard education should have taught him his limitations tying the court up with his shenanigans when they could be taking care of more important business. His oath was to uphold the laws not write his own. Slow learning curve, with all the times he lost.
He should have in 8 years learned how to work with congress rather than try be congress.
His “shenanigans” have consisted of the wise and largely successful governance of a great nation for 8 difficult years, despite the mindless resistance of a collection of gibbering organ-grinders’ monkeys posing as a Legislative Branch. That they’ve accomplished absolutely nothing despite having the largest republican majorities since 1929 is not a reflection on the man in the White House; it’s a reflection on their own dysfunction. They couldn’t even get it together to allow an up or down vote on an entirely credible and qualified Supreme Court nominee, or on a request for authorization to use military force against a terrorist organization that has sworn to harm us by any means possible and has proven the seriousness of their intentions time and time again. Now they’re trying to saddle the country with a totally unqualified presidential candidate who could prove even more dysfunctional than they’ve been–in spite of the fact that they appear to recognize the serious problems with him themselves.
Get back to me with your opinion on Obama when you’ve sorted your own lot out.
@Greg:
Greg, typing for the democrat party again….
Administration officials say they expect more: Obama himself told a crowd last week at the University of Colorado in Denver that his administration will “look every single day to figure out what we can do, without Congress.”
“We can’t wait for Congress to do its job, so where they won’t act, I will.”
Is this the concept of “separation of powers” as Charles de Montesquieu advocated?
Can the executive branch legislate? It would appear you should have actually participated in American Government Class……
@Greg:
20 times the Supreme Court has had to smack Obama down. Have you wondered why?
Obama thinks that the office of the President, when he occupies it, is Lord and Master of the Universe and all should bow down before him in holy reverence whenever he declares what HE wants (keep in mind, 74% of the country disagrees with his vision). When he proposes far left legislation to Congress, he means for it to be passed, dammit, and it damn well better be or he will use his phone and pen. His support in Congress has eroded, both through the loss of seats due to his failures and lies and due to his arrogant nature and irreverent treatment of the Constitution. No, Congress does not pass his measures… because they are bad. Regardless, as the Supreme Court shows (and demonstrates why giving liberals another activist on the bench would move us further away from Constitutional rule), the left will not let the Constitution get in the way of their march towards socialism and more liberals on the bench would be a devastating blow to our liberty and freedom.
Obama wanted a rubber stamp Reichtag but that damned Constitution stood in the way. He would have liked nothing more than a Supreme Court that would rubber stamp what Congress would not. Hillary would as well, following the directives of Soros to lead our free Republic towards being just another cog in the global syndicate.
You admit Obama overstepped his Constitutional boundaries at least 20 times but I wonder if you actually consider it a good thing that the last line of defense, the Supreme Court, upheld the Constitution (at times) and blocked his path? Or, would you prefer the rubber-stamp version of the Supreme Court Hillary would provide if she took office and filled two or three seats?
@Greg: Ya wisely as his governance has us on the Brink of WW3, but he gave himself a better retirement package, what is a few trillion extra in debt, could find money for terrorists, terrorist attacks in this country on nearly a weekly basis. Pardoning 214 violent offenders so far, releasing terrorists back to kill in the ME, failing health care system, if he were any more wise…
@July 4th American: #67:
“Last week” being October, 2011. That’s how long it’s been since Congress turned into a road block instead of a partner in governance.
The fact of the matter is that the presidency does have a Constitutionally-defined range of administrative powers that can be exercised without the necessity of Congress having to act. Obama announced that he would utilize them to the fullest extent to address problems that Congress has refused to act on, and he has done so. Good for him.
As a result of the 2014 elections, the 114th Congress was seated with the largest Republican majorities since 1929. Congress has had the option of legislatively addressing immigration problems, gun violence, unemployment, terrorism and the threat of ISIS, infrastructure issues, etc. They haven’t made any credible effort. They could have addressed the out of control rise in prescription drug prices. They could have focused on making many real cost-saving improvements to the Affordable Care Act, rather than wasting time with 60 symbolic efforts to repeal it that anyone who isn’t a total idiot recognizes as political theater. They didn’t.
The Real Clear Politics national poll averages show the Congressional job approval rating now stands at only 13.4 percent. Obama, on the other hand, has an approval rating of 50.6 percent, which is remarkably high for an American president in the final 3 months of his second term of office. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what the comparative job approval ratings mean.
@Greg: Obama told the Republicans to shut up and sign. His arrogance didn’t work out for him; he found out his charisma is only for the weak minded. So, his far left march towards socialism got kicked back in his smug face.
If Obama seeks one-man rule, perhaps he should try his hand in Venezuela. I doubt even HE could screw that up worse than it is now.
@Greg:
Can a President issue an executive order that has the force of law in lieu of Congressional legislation?
Did the democrat controlled Congress act a s a partner in governance from 2006 through 2008?
It’s fortunate we haven’t have a President who has been as useless, ineffective, and divisive as the Republican-majority House and the Republican-majority Senate.
And they still haven’t accomplished anything useful. They haven’t even tried to do so. Remember all of those pre-election promises they made? They get away with the same thing election after election. What are you paying these idiots for? To prep for the next election? To conduct the same investigations of their political opponents over and over, and then to ignore their own findings?
@Greg: Looks like you still do not know how government works. Need a 2/3 majority to over ride a veto. Maybe you should read a little instead of smoking weed!
@Greg: Greggie Republicans don’t get away with anything you moron!! I know it’s hard for libturds like you to understand but in the United States we have these things called elections where the people express their views by voting. Fact is Greggie Obola and the Demoncraps had everything when Obola was elected because he made promises about his healthcare plan that where pure crap. Therefore in 2010 Piglosi and the demoncraps LOST the House in historic numbers, that’s an expression of the will of the people Greggie. Then in 2014 Republican took the Senate based on the will of the people Greggie. I remember when Obola said to the Republicans “We won” but in fact he should have said I lied to get elected and so it goes Greggie. Obola has made NO effort to work with congress the elected officials in the legislature Greggie. Face it libturd, you ARE in the minority and it doesn’t surprise me one bit!!
@Greg: Like a pre election promise that if your plan or doctor you can keep them period?? Such a libturd you are!!
@Greg: Yes, such good fortune. That’s why 74% of the country think we are headed towards ruin.
@Bill… Deplorable Me:
There is more liberty when Congress does less. Former senator Paul Laxalt said, “Every day Congress meets, the American people lose a little more liberty”.
The Country would be far better off if Congress would get out of the way of the American people by legislating less.
@Greg: “What I see Hillary Clinton as is the target of an unbelievably intense and prolonged defamation of character campaign,”
It’s impossible to defame HilLIARe’s character, it’s already so far down it’s licking the borders of hell .
@Randy, #74:
It’s not the normal situation for one or the other party to have a 2/3 majority. Not having a 2/3 majority hasn’t kept Congress from functioning as an effective legislative body in the past. That’s actually the normal state of affairs. All you have to do is come up with genuinely useful legislation that addresses actual problems.
The 114th Congress was seated almost 2 years ago with the largest Republican majorities since 1929. They control both Houses. If they can’t work effectively to produce useful bills under those circumstances, they’re not really trying.
@Greg: That is right Greg. I knew if I wrote in small enough words you may understand. Neither party had 2/3 vote o over ride a presidential veto. That is why little got done. (Was presidential, little, neither and party too big of words for you to fully understand?) There I go again, understand is another big word.
@Greg:
Greg, typing for the democrat party shows the lack of understanding of the application of the veto process.
A 2/3 majority are the votes of the members of the House and the Senate to override a presidential veto.
One house or both do not have to have a 2/3 majority in order to override a veto.
@Greg: How about the 4 years that the Republicans had the House but Cyclops Reid controlled the Senate and shelved everything the House sent for consideration? Reid would not even offer for debate Obama’s “pass this now” jobs bill.
The Democrats lost total control because the abused their control, passing the worst law in history instead of trying to lubricate the economy back towards growth and expansion. Since that moment, they have shown themselves to be vindictive little babies blocking economic bills, budgets and any possibility of compromise.
@Bill… Deplorable Me:
That is not important to Greg and fellow leftists. Dingy harry is on the right team. If it were not for double standards, liberals and democrats would have no standards…..
@Greg: #70
You are incorrectly informed. The republicans did partner in governance. How els could we be 19trillion in debt?
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #83:
Perhaps they should have sent bills unencumbered by random provisions that they knew perfectly well would be totally unacceptable to a majority of democratic Senators. That might have helped.
It’s the republican fondness for throwing unrelated poison pills into the mix that produced so many bills that were DOA. They often kill appropriations bills in the House in the same fashion.
@July 4th American, #85:
The national debt is the result of decades of spending without stopping to consider where the money will come from to pay the bill. Both democrats and republicans are guilty. Even with the cumulative result as enormous as it is, some people still insist that new rounds of tax cuts don’t need to be paid for. In fact, everything has to be paid for in some fashion, or the cumulative debt will continue to rise.
@Greg: That’s pretty funny. You feel Democrats are justified in blocking legislation because you say (without example) that Republicans should not have included things Democrats don’t like (such as fiscal responsibility) but Republicans are obstructing when they have the same position.
Once again, you make my point for me.
If they were fiscally responsible, they wouldn’t be advocating another round of high-end tax cuts with the same breath they mention fiscal responsibility.
@Greg:
Tax cuts, reductions in rates do not and have never been a line item budget appropriation.
If they must be paid for then they must be contained in the budget detail as an appropriation and there has never been an American fiscal budget with an appropriation for a tax cut.
Paying for tax cuts has always been a democrat narrative with no basis in economic theory.
@Greg: They aren’t. They propose across the board tax cuts that the middle class benefit mostly from. And tax cuts ALWAYS stimulate the economy, unless there is something like Obamacare around its neck to drag it down.
What has Obama proposed to help the economy and those out of work? Hillary proposes tax HIKES for the middle class.
@Greg: #86
Tell us Greg, what was the national debt when your
President took office and what is it today?
We nearly doubled what in fact took decades culminating in more than two centuries in less than one decade. Your president is on the hook for more than 9 trillion in new debt in 7 1/2 years, what an accomplishment
@July 4th American, #89:
Right. It makes perfect sense to think cutting taxes when you’re already spending more than the amount of revenue you have coming in will somehow magically balance the budget. All that’s needed to make this work is Dumbo’s magic feather.
@Greg:
Use algores amazing internet and tell us greg, what happens to federal annual revenue in the short few years following tax rate reductions for presidents Kennedy, Reagan and GW Bush.
You are free to believe whatever you wish, but the facts are not on your side.
Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue
@Greg
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
By Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Facts and myths.com, and no author attribution in the piece.
Typical liberal propaganda.
Here are the numbers:
After the JFK income tax rate cuts, tax revenue ROSE from 94 to 153 billion.
After the Reagan income tax rate cuts, tax revenue ROSE from 601 billion to 909 billion.
After the G.W. Bush income tax rate cuts, tax revenue ROSE by 785 billion from 2004 to 2007.
In all three cases, “the rich” paid both higher amounts and a higher percentage of the total income tax haul than they had before the tax rate cuts.
These are facts that anyone with an Internet connection and a desire for the truth can uncover. The problem with the media and the far-left is that they do not want you to know the truth. They want class warfare and will suppress anything that contradicts their economic fairy tales.
http://www.alliance4liberty.org/lies_damn_lies_and_tax_cut_statistics
@July 4th American: This email to JP explains perfectly Greg they speak about being complicit.
trying to s’plain complex economics to him pointless.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
@Greg: Actually Greg, some tax cuts do increase revenue. It did for JFK, Reagan, and Bush. Obama raised capital gains taxes even when told by his own staff that revenues would go down. His reply was that I want to tax the rich more!
Hillary Clinton: ” What kind of genius can lose a billion dollars in one year?”
Bill Gates: -$3.2B
Amancio Ortega: -$1.5B
Warren Buffett: -$2B
Carlos Slim: -$1.6B
Charles Koch: -$1.3B
David Koch: -$1.3B
Jeff Bezos: -$2.6B
Larry Ellison: -$1.6B
Mark Zuckerberg: -$1.7B