NYTimes: Trump Used $885M in Taxpayer Subsidies To Get Rich

[Torie]

I said he was a welfare queen, not a criminal. He knows how to secure unfair advantages by manipulating the system -- legally.

I don't understand how taking advantage of tax incentives available to all developers is securing an "unfair advantage".  The tax incentives are there for a reason - to get developers to build more housing, including subsidized housing.  Every major real estate developer is incentivized by those tax incentives.  That's the whole purpose of them.

Fair enough, but I think he did more than that. I don't think he was just passively raking in the tax breaks that were sitting there in the tax code. He bought government properties and so forth, and did a lot of lobbying.

[PeteB]

I said he was a welfare queen, not a criminal. He knows how to secure unfair advantages by manipulating the system -- legally.

I don't understand how taking advantage of tax incentives available to all developers is securing an "unfair advantage".  The tax incentives are there for a reason - to get developers to build more housing, including subsidized housing.  Every major real estate developer is incentivized by those tax incentives.  That's the whole purpose of them.

Fair enough, but I think he did more than that. I don't think he was just passively raking in the tax breaks that were sitting there in the tax code. He bought government properties and so forth, and did a lot of lobbying.

Even if he squeezed the tax opportunities to the max, I don't see why anyone should blame him for that.

But, on the flip side, I also don't see why anyone should believe him that, if elected President, he would somehow transform his personal greed into a "welfare greed" for all.  If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's awful but obviously not something any politician who's gotten rich over their government connections can criticize hi on.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Oh great, more of this Orwellian language that promotes the idea that the natural state of tax rates is 100% and anything below that is a giveaway / government subsidy.

Um, the natural state of the tax rate is the tax rate. Trump doesn't respect that, and neither do all of the überwealthy who take advantage of the system.

[Hermit For Peace]

The issue is NOT that Trump somehow changed or abandoned his moral or ideological stripes.  He has pretty much confessed to be ideology free, beholden only to making as much money as possible.  In principle there is nothing legally wrong with getting tax subsidies, nor will it hurt him with his supporters who probably wish they could have a similar tax windfall.

The real issue IS whether the nation can trust someone who is a self confessed opportunist to suddenly grow up, change and look after the common interest.  Who is to say that decisions made by a potential Trump administration would not be in the long-term interest of Trump family, as opposed to the US? 

This is where his most ardent supporters need to look and figure out if they can trust that a millionaire, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who has never looked charitably at another human being (outside his family), will suddenly become a humanitarian, helping the common man. 

In your entire post you have captured the real issue here very well. It's not about a businessman getting the most tax breaks he can out of a system that allows it, (if you manipulate the system right).

It's about the kind of person Trump is, having been brought up in privilege, always looking out for himself only, being able to do a sudden turn around at age 70 and start thinking about what's good for the entire country, not just his personal bank account.

That's where the problem lies. Many of us see no road connecting one state to the other, given Trump's behavior down through the years, up to today.

[SirMuxALot]

Trump doesn't respect that, and neither do all of the überwealthy who take advantage of the system.

So if I take home mortgage interest deduction (the tax code makes it optional!) am I taking advantage of the system?  Am I not respecting your natural tax rate?

[PeteB]

The issue is NOT that Trump somehow changed or abandoned his moral or ideological stripes.  He has pretty much confessed to be ideology free, beholden only to making as much money as possible.  In principle there is nothing legally wrong with getting tax subsidies, nor will it hurt him with his supporters who probably wish they could have a similar tax windfall.

The real issue IS whether the nation can trust someone who is a self confessed opportunist to suddenly grow up, change and look after the common interest.  Who is to say that decisions made by a potential Trump administration would not be in the long-term interest of Trump family, as opposed to the US? 

This is where his most ardent supporters need to look and figure out if they can trust that a millionaire, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who has never looked charitably at another human being (outside his family), will suddenly become a humanitarian, helping the common man. 

In your entire post you have captured the real issue here very well. It's not about a businessman getting the most tax breaks he can out of a system that allows it, (if you manipulate the system right).

It's about the kind of person Trump is, having been brought up in privilege, always looking out for himself only, being able to do a sudden turn around at age 70 and start thinking about what's good for the entire country, not just his personal bank account.

That's where the problem lies. Many of us see no road connecting one state to the other, given Trump's behavior down through the years, up to today.

Thank you but Atlas is hardly a cross section of the country. The thing that is so puzzling to me is exactly the support he has from the have-nots. People who get bilked on a daily basis by mini-Trumps, who mistrust people outside their community really believe that Trump will give two hoots about them, if he gets elected? Like I said, there is a definite market for selling the Brooklyn bridge.

[SirMuxALot]

People who get bilked on a daily basis by mini-Trumps

This gets at the core difference between Ds and Rs.  Let me try to represent the conservative/Republican view on this best I can.

The R perspective on this is that the private sector ultimately has no power.  No one in the private sector can put a sword to your neck and force you into anything.  Feel victimized by Wells Fargo?  Easily resolved...you fire them and hire a different bank.  Don't like how Trump does business?  Easy...rent your Manhattan business office from someone else.  Competition is wonderful, isn't it?

However, the government does have the power of the sword behind it.  To take a simple example, what if one doesn't feel that the government has the moral right to require them to wear a seat belt?  Too bad, it will be enforced at gunpoint.  Yes, gunpoint.  Literally.  Because if you take this to a logical extreme, and refuse to pull over for a cop wanting to ticket you for failing to wear your seat belt, you will end up with deadly force being threatened.

No private sector organization can or will force you to do anything at gunpoint.  That is why restraint of government abuse and limiting it's power is far more important to Rs than the private sector abuse.  The individual citizen often has no recourse against government abuse, and when they do have recouse, it is exceedingly difficult and expensive to pursue.  The individual citizen almost always does have recourse against private sector abuse, and it is often as simple as closing an account and taking your business to a competitor.

Now, there is an extent to which government erects barriers to the competition (heavy regulation is a common way to do this; see all the small bank closures/absorptions after Dodd-Frank for an example) and puts private citizens in a position where they're unable to avoid private sector abuse.  Rs and Ds might agree that this happens and even agree that something should be done about it.  But Ds propose even more regulation on top of this, which results in the typical unintended consequences of cleansing power of free market competition less able to be the correcting hand it would otherwise be.

Rs see this is as a problem with government power, not private sector power.  Government unintentionally enables private sector abuse through over-regulation inevitably reducing competitive forces.