Someone sent a copy of Donald Trump’s 1995 tax return to the New York Times. The Times then shared it with the world. This particular year’s return included a nearly one billion dollar write-off, and the write-off and the embarrassment/outrage it might generate is, I imagine, the reason that the leaker chose that year to send to the Times.
The Times, which long ago abandoned any semblance of impartiality and which has apparently decided that it is obligated to do all it can to stop Trump’s election, offered up speculation that such a massive capital loss could completely offset Trump’s income for 18 subsequent years. Thus, it could headline “Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades.”
“Could Have.” Not “Did.” Without his subsequent returns, we can’t know the truth. In fact, it’s grossly irresponsible of the NY Times to suggest, based on only three pages of a single year’s tax return (which very likely is hundreds of pages long) and zero other evidence, as it did. For all we know, Trump could have paid millions in taxes all those years. [Here][5] is a bit more depth on this “could have” tendentiousness.
And, “Avoided.” Not “Offset.” “Offset” would be more accurate. As would “Income Taxes,” by the way. There is no information about other taxes (e.g. property taxes) that Trump may have paid over those 18 years. Tax “avoidance” sounds dirty. Tax “offset” does not. “Taxes” is a broad brush, while “Income Taxes” establishes a narrower and more accurate scope. Think these are not deliberate word choices?
The reaction has been what you’d expect from the press and the Internet. Reporters are, by and large, not the most deeply-informed people on most of the matters they cover. In fairness, it’s hard to be an expert on everything. Nothing wrong with being only lightly informed on a topic IF you recognize your degree of ignorance and temper your words accordingly. Reporters rarely do, in my experience.
Internet denizens are even worse. Everyone’s now a tax expert, and everyone’s either loudly denouncing Trump for not paying taxes or loudly defending him as “smart” for taking full advantage of the tax code. The denouncers are often operating on the assumption that he didn’t pay any taxes, not that he might not have, as the Times speculates.
Despite no allegation of any impropriety, many denouncers are going after Trump as if he’s some sort of tax cheat. Why? Because his accountants did their jobs? That makes no sense at all, and I challenge the selfishly righteous to show me examples of people who deliberately paid more taxes than they were obligated to.
Others are turning this incident into “proof” that the tax code is stacked heavily in favor of the rich. It’s not, as a perusal of tax burden by income data shows. In the aggregate, the more you earn, the higher your tax burden, in both percentages and dollars. Outlier data points are just that, outliers, especially if they’re a cherry-picked single year.
Still others are claiming that this massive write off is proof that Trump is not the genius businessman he claims to be. Without offering an opinion on Trump’s acumen, I find it ridiculous that someone can expect a perfect investment track record from anyone else. Even the best Wall Street types make bad bets on stocks. Venture capitalists witness more failures than successes. Rewards involve taking on risk, and risk is not just a vague concept. Without risk-taking, we’d have far fewer new businesses, far less economic growth, and a far less affluent and successful society.
The defenders, meanwhile, are making lemonade. They’re trying to spin the bad optics of this story into a positive. But, just as a 20 year old tax return is not a damning indictment of the man in general, it’s not proof of extraordinary business acumen. It’s simply a piece of a businessman’s narrative, and shouldn’t have anywhere near the traffic or traction it’s getting. In a rational world, no one would care about the “revelations” in Trump’s 20 year old tax return. But, we don’t really live in a rational world, do we?
This is all politics as usual. The shame of it is that people fall for it over and over again. Why? Because it feeds their own biases, and because they often feel that, if they don’t feed their own biases, those with opposite biases will “win.” Even many who know this shouldn’t be a story feel they have to make it one to advance their cause. So, instead of talking about issues and things that matter, we suffer through spin and counter-spin about a deliberately planted distraction.
This is why we can’t have nice things. I am depressed.
[5}: https://lara-murphy.com/thoughts-trumps-1995-tax-return/
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters