|
Post by dabbler on Sept 28, 2020 15:13:16 GMT -5
Haha that was hard to see coming. Sadly you didn't get your wish of a silent response not HBMC
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Sept 28, 2020 15:32:48 GMT -5
Hey despic remember when you deleted your "whembly" account? According to the other thread, some people would love for you to do it again!
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Sept 28, 2020 16:00:51 GMT -5
whembly. Explain how someone who is 400 million dollars in debt is suitable as President, please. That has to be the biggest red flag imaginable. You mean, that he's already publicly disclosed? As to whether its a "red flag"... this is the norm for estate developers. Do you actually believe what you're writing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 16:14:50 GMT -5
As to whether its a "red flag"... this is the norm for estate developers.
For the short term, not having them sit there until they're ready to foreclose. Bank of China is gonna tear him a new asshole when he leaves office.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 28, 2020 16:48:30 GMT -5
Do you actually believe what you're writing? [/quote] Yes. Tax laws are complicated as fuck. There's a whole multi-billion dollar industry with the sole purpose of mitigating your tax liabilities. C'mon, out of all of the other legit criticism Trump deserves, this one is one of the weakest.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Sept 28, 2020 16:50:06 GMT -5
out of all of the other legit criticism Trump deserves The one you won't talk about?
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 28, 2020 16:56:06 GMT -5
As to whether its a "red flag"... this is the norm for estate developers.
For the short term, not having them sit there until they're ready to foreclose. Bank of China is gonna tear him a new asshole when he leaves office.
I did a cursory research on the bank holding his loans and so far I'm not seeing any China owned banks servicing his loans. Guess what large corporation does when their loans are nearing maturation? They get new loans. This is nothing more than critics trying to insert morality of paying your "fair share" bs. First off, “morality” doesn’t have jack shit to do with taxation. You pay what you legally owe. Nobody willingly pays the government more than they legally owe. This has always been this way since America has had income taxes. There is endless court precedent. You pay what you legally owe. That’s it. If you pay less than you legally owe, then the government will fine or imprison you. If you pay more than you legal owe, the government will laugh and laugh, and will still take your money anyways....because you're an idiot. Every single person who barks about how somebody else should be paying more? They themselves are paying the minimum they can get away with. As they should... as should you too. You know what the NYTs also couldn't find? -Any Russian connections. Not even The Mueller team could find any financial connections.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Sept 28, 2020 17:06:23 GMT -5
Nobody willingly pays the government more than they legally owe. Not true. I could deduce charity donation from my taxes, and don't. I legitimately do pay more than I legally owe. You'll call me an idiot but I couldn't care less ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2020 17:48:32 GMT -5
I did a cursory research on the bank holding his loans and so far I'm not seeing any China owned banks servicing his loans. Guess what large corporation does when their loans are nearing maturation? They get new loans.
While Well Fargo currently holds the debt in question, it's previous owner was Bank of China.
I worked for a company that made about a million dollars profit a day on a single casino, of which we had multiple. We'd borrowed 500 million from Bank of China and then made a point to pay off the debt. That firm is largely debt free and still in business. While they only have a few casinos, they own the franchise rights for the entire western half of New York. Even among large companies, there's something said for paying off your debts before they come due.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Sept 28, 2020 19:17:24 GMT -5
There's also the part where Trump is not a company, he's the President. He shouldn't be 400 fucking million dollars in debt, just as he should've divested all his financial interests before he took office but didn't.
Since you so graciously brought up the point, what's the biggest thing Trump should be getting flak for?
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Sept 28, 2020 21:39:43 GMT -5
There's also the part where Trump is not a company, he's the President. He shouldn't be 400 fucking million dollars in debt, just as he should've divested all his financial interests before he took office but didn't. Since you so graciously brought up the point, what's the biggest thing Trump should be getting flak for? To be clear, 3/4 of the debt is debt he personally signed for. It's not clear he has the money to pay it back from the information provided. Never mind that several of his written deducations are illegal. The IRS clearly stated years ago and got a ruling in court that haircuts are not a business expense, yet trump claims over $70k in haircuts as a business expense. He's paying his kids as consultants for businesses where they are overtly employed (which is the same dubious scheme Trump benefited from in the 90s). He's moving debt around in a manner that is suspiciously reminiscent of a one man Ponzi scheme, using loans to offset the debts he owes, then moving those debts to get a tax write off and then going off to find more loans.
It is normal of real estate developers to abuse the tax system to massively reduce their taxes, but not to this degree and not with so many other things that are almost certainly illegal.
The stupid part the right wing partisans are missing is the other angle though, at least where these returns are concerned; Either Trump is lying to the IRS, or he's lying to the people loaning him money. To one he presents a case of sweeping losses and to the other big profits. Both can't be true. Either is blatantly defrauding someone which is basically what Cohen accused him of doing and what NY is criminally investigating him for. Now that this information is public he's probably going to have a hard time stopping subpoenas short of straight up ignoring them (which he could do, he's already done it a bunch of times).
I suppose he'll continue his patented defense of saying he wasn't defrauding X, he was defrauding Y in the courts at the same time with X and Y flipped in the different cases against him.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 29, 2020 8:29:32 GMT -5
I did a cursory research on the bank holding his loans and so far I'm not seeing any China owned banks servicing his loans. Guess what large corporation does when their loans are nearing maturation? They get new loans.
While Well Fargo currently holds the debt in question, it's previous owner was Bank of China.
I worked for a company that made about a million dollars profit a day on a single casino, of which we had multiple. We'd borrowed 500 million from Bank of China and then made a point to pay off the debt. That firm is largely debt free and still in business. While they only have a few casinos, they own the franchise rights for the entire western half of New York. Even among large companies, there's something said for paying off your debts before they come due.
True. However having casinos, when done right, has vastly different cash flows than the standard residentials/resorts like the Trump properties. Look, this isn't hard if you have some modicum of idea of how these things work. The Trump critics are claiming that because Trump has more than $400MM in loans maturing over the next few years, that he is facing massive defaults and will consequently be desperate to cut a deal. That's sounds scary...right? I mean, it's not that far fetched to imagine Trump using his now power connections to grift his way to solvency by selling access. That's where we're at...right? Well...lemme break this down simply. Let's take the most iconic property, the Trump Tower. Looking at these financial disclosures, that property was valued at $480MM (by a third-party appraiser). That makes the current loan ~21% loan to value (LTV). For context, the average securitized loan is 60 - 75% LTV, making this an incredibly low leverage and safe loan. *For those who care and understand what this means, it's fee simple with full term IO. Its a routine/common loan structure for these sort of things. The debt service ratio is 2.99x, which means that nearly 3x the amount of cash flow coming from the building alone will cover the debt Trump owes. The building is currently 82% occupied and can hit near vacancy before Trump has to even take a penny from his pocket. He's no where NEAR in dire straights where he'd have to risk EVERYTHING to break laws to grift his way to being debt-free by selling access to his presidency. For those bloviating that Trump's a poor real estate investor, this is how great he ACTUALLY is: Trump can refinance the loan when it matures in 2022 at the same level, OR he can refinance at a standard leverage (i.e. 65%) and literally walk away with more than $200MM of cash that day. These loans on his properties seem pretty standard and much of his debt is strategically planned to mitigate his tax liabilities.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 29, 2020 9:05:11 GMT -5
There's also the part where Trump is not a company, he's the President. He shouldn't be 400 fucking million dollars in debt, just as he should've divested all his financial interests before he took office but didn't. I wished he did completely divest, but I also understands that its not really that pragmatic. Recently? His Phone & Pen dictating that no one can be evicted till the end of the year. (only Congress can do that, and is being sued in court for that.) While it's a good rationale, he doesn't have that kind of power.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Sept 29, 2020 9:41:15 GMT -5
Have you ever stopped to consider that following the rules of the game isn't necessarily the same as acting in a way you ought? You repeatedly argue that things are fine because they're legal (tax avoidance, rushing a SCOTUS judge through), but you never seem to realize the greater implications of actions beyond "is it legal?". It's never "should I be doing this?" or "what consequences would this have on society?" but always "is it legal?". The law is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Morality should shape law, not the other way around.
Clinton had a private server, which to you is bad because it wasn't the way things were supposed to be done. Trump has a 400 million personal debt which is apparently fine to you, despite creating a far greater national security risk and potential conflicts of interest than Clinton's server, because being in debt is in itself not illegal. Trump refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power is fine because it's legal, but him trying to use powers he doesn't technically have is the worst thing he's done recently.
Your country fetishizes Washington as "a modern Cincinnatus" but the reactionary elements in your politics have never done more than pay lip-service to the ideal of restraint, to the point where the South went to war over it.
While we're at it, care to apologise for claiming that it was likely personal bias causing us to believe that US police deliberately targeted the press, rather than it being well-documented by international media?
EDIT: I just realized this characterization is only partially accurate. "You wish" he'd follow the law and divest but understand it's not "pragmatic"? Come the fuck on.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Sept 29, 2020 12:32:16 GMT -5
|
|