We have a tax system that provides for a lower tax rate on dividend income. That is why liberal superstar, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Our tax system also allows depreciation expense (non-cash charge) to be charged against income properties. Typically, you can write off the cost of income properties (building but not land) over 29 years. Trump has several billion dollars of real estate so he gets to shelter $100,000 to $200,000 of income every year. You have to recapture the depreciation when you sell the property but there are also ways around that. All of you politically correct putz’s seem to think this is unfair and that he is gaming the system. He is simply following the the tax laws that have been in place for the last 50 years or so. If you don’t like it, become better informed and lobby Congress to change the tax laws. If it is so unfair, why haven’t we gotten around to changing the tax laws over the last 50 years. I have never in my life met an individual who purposely pays more in taxes than the amount legally owed. I am more interested in his charitable donations. Hillary has reported approx $10 million in income (all from speeches and producing no jobs or economic benefit) and donated $1,040,000 (10%) to charity. Note that she donated $1,000,000 to the questionable Clinton Foundation which donates only 15% of the money it receives and is a slush fund for her and Bill’s personal expenses. She and Bill donated the remaining $40,000 to a golf tournament. The same golf tournament donated over $700,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Talk about gaming the system.
Democrats are making a heroic effort to rewrite history and sell the public on a different Hillary Clinton than we all know so well. She has a long history of lies going back to 1980 when she turned $1000 into over $100,000 investing in cattle futures. Odds of that happening are probably several billion to 1. Or, it was a payoff to her husband for political favors. The only way she makes that much money is through a broker placing both sides of a trade (buy and sell) and assigning the winner (Hillary) and the loser (purchaser of political favors like say Tyson Foods) at the close of the transaction. Back then, this could be done with little scrutiny. Fast forward to recent events. First, the email scandal. She used a private server to hide her communications and avoid public scrutiny. When she got called on it, she and her legal team deleted over 30,000 emails that she says were personal. That’s like someone taking the bar exam, grading their own paper, announcing that they passed and are now an attorney, and then destroying the test so no one can verify whether or not she passed. You don’t get to grade your own papers in the real world. And if you lie about it to the public on multiple occasions and to the FBI, chances are you don’t get a free pass from the FBI unless you are Hillary Clinton. Then there was Benghazi. This was blown security by her State Department that caused a US Ambassador and several aids to be killed by Islamic militants. As this happened in the middle of a Presidential Election, lies were told by Hillary and others in the Obama administration to the public that it was caused by some obscure film that blasted Islam. The truth didn’t come out until after the election. The truth could have cost Obama the 2012 election to Romney. I could continue to site examples including the insanely corrupt Clinton Foundation, but I think my point has been made. The problem the Democrats have with selling the public that Hillary Clinton is trustworthy is that it flies in the face of the facts. The problem with Hillary Clinton is that people think she is corrupt and dishonest (and with good reason). Many, many people simply do not trust her to run our country.