No WONDER he doesn't want to release his tax returns!!

[MADem]

He has something to hide!!

Donald Trump Is Reportedly Worth Only a Quarter of What He Claims

new report slashes estimates of Trump’s wealth.
BY EMILY JANE FOX
Billionaire G.O.P. front-runner Donald Trump is no stranger to self-aggrandizement; one could say any man resting his head in a gold-dipped penthouse, repeatedly referring to himself as one of the smartest guys he knows, and blasting any slight criticism he hears, lives with a heightened sense of self-importance.

The Donald’s head might just explode, then, when he sees the May 1 cover story in Fortune magazine. According to the New York Post, the upcoming feature pins Trump’s net worth at $3.72 billion, a quarter of the $10 billion he has boasted. It’s even below Forbes’s previous estimate of $4.5 billion, a figure that caused Trump to fly off the handle. “All I can say is Forbes is a bankrupt magazine, doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” he said.

On the new magazine story, Trump reportedly told Fortune, “Fortune has no idea what my assets are or the value of these assets. Nor do they understand or know my cash flow or the many successful transactions that make up my cash flow. Fortune has totally lost its way.”

The magazine found its way into obtaining an eight-year-old photo showing Trump flashing his middle finger at a photographer, according to the Post. That’s not exactly an image that screams “presidential,” which happens to be the face Trump has been working so hard to project as he tries to pivot from a loose-lipped, insult-hurling primary candidate to one suited for a general election.

A Fortune spokesman told the Post, “We’ll let the story and photo speak for themselves.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/donald-trump-net-worth-fortune?mbid=social_twitter


This is worth a look: http://fortune.com/donald-trump-businessman/

[msongs]

1. oh I thought this was about sanders: " No WONDER he doesn't want to release his tax returns!!" nt

[MADem]

2. In that case, I'd have put it in GD: P or risked the wrath of the forum hosts!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

12. I'm sure there's a good reason to alert this post and let a jury of Hillary's peers decide to hide

[MADem]

26. I should hope not! I think everyone's been quite civil thus far! What's not to mock about Trump?

I don't think we have too many Trump fans here--the few we have are hiding their affiliation and trying to fight against the eventual nominee from another perspective, but even the people they hide amongst are starting to have their number.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. It is not possible to accurately determine wealth from a tax return.

Oops.

[MADem]

5. Here's their breakdown (from the last link)

?w=760&h=721

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. His campaign designed to increase worth of his brand (Fortune mag values at $250 million). . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Liquid assets $302 million upper limit for self-funded campaign, ... except $2 billion FREE media nt

[MADem]

15. Ah, but the media is a cruel master....it giveth, and it taketh away. Ask this guy....

What's the value of NEGATIVE publicity?


Every story needs an arc, and if you don't pay for it, you don't craft it.

No "take-sies back-sies" if you don't get the product you want, either.

[JonLeibowitz]

13. I'm not sure what that is intended to prove.

I stand by my original statement.

[MADem]

14. Take it up with them, then! Your original statement is non-operative, but never mind that.... nt

[JonLeibowitz]

18. Uh, no.

You said he didn't want to release his tax returns, as if that had some bearing on being able to calculate his net worth. I countered that one cannot obtain a correct estimate using tax returns.

You counter with an image which is based on information that is not found in tax returns.

I say that is irrelevant to what I said, and is in no way a refutation.

You follow up with "non-operative" (whatever that means).



You can see how a reasonable person might be confused.

[MADem]

22. Well, they wouldn't use them in a vacuum. IF they ever got a hold of them, mind you.

Since no one HAS his tax returns to examine, factoring them in at this point in time is "non-operative." (That is a snarky riff on a Ron Zeigler term, "That statement is no longer operative" FWIW, from the dark days of the Nixon administration).


To arrive at the conclusions they've reached to this point, they used the voluminous FEC filing material and all the public documents cited in the big orange ball elsewhere in this thread. They focus a good amount of their energy on the fact that The Donald confuses income and revenue.

In order to get a full picture of what they are saying, you have to read the original Fortune document (last link) AND click on the links within THAT article, as well.

It's a long string to pull and a bit of a slog.

[JonLeibowitz]

23. I see what you mean, they can be used in conjunction with other financials.

[MADem]

27. Yes, precisely--and they would clearly delineate the income/revenue issues. nt

[fanbrits]

4. lol

i mean is it even a surprise?

[AllyCat]

6. How is 3.72 one fourth of 10?

Whatever. He isn't going to release his tax returns because he is the Donald. His returns won't show his worth as another poster upstream has said. I would say he is worthless, but hat is another issue.

[MADem]

16. Fair point, that!

Maybe they're allowing him some slop, but that's a lot of slop, certainly.

Their guesstimate wasn't based on his returns though--how can you figure out his worth from them, when he hasn't released them?

The figure came from his real estate and other holdings (see the big orange circle -- LOL -- elsewhere in this thread).

[mjvpi]

7. Enter What happens if he is elected?

Does this go into a blind trust? Is he going to stop running and branding businesses?

[MADem]

17. Good question--I think the rules, according to The Donald, don't apply to him. nt

[padfun]

8. A quarter?

"$3.72 billion, a quarter of the $10 billion he has boasted"

Um, That is more than a third, not a quarter. Not even close to a quarter. This article didn't need to make such a huge math error to make its point. It loses its effectiveness when they pull shit like this to make their point.

[MADem]

20. I think they're referring to this linked article from a couple of months back, actually....

http://fortune.com/2016/03/02/donald-trump-tax-returns-income/?iid=leftrail

It's a long slog, but here's the big finish:

Here’s the bottom line: Without knowing how much Trump’s business pays in taxes, it’s impossible to calculate his net worth. If he pays no tax, and boasts a 30% operating margin, his empire could be valued at $3 billion, plus cash of $300 million, or $3.3 billion. That’s assuming a rich multiple of 20 times earnings. If the operating margin is far lower, and he pays lots of tax, the number would be greatly reduced.

In the June filing, The Donald estimated his net worth at $8.74 billion, and now says the number exceeds $10 billion. He apparently had lots of fun valuing his brand, reporting an asset of $3.32 billion for “real estate licensing deals, brand and branded development.” In the PFD, however, Trump reported royalty income of somewhere between $10 million and $37.5 million. Assuming he earns 90% margins on his royalties—a generous assumption—and pays no tax, he’s telling the world his brand should carry a price-to-earnings ratio of 100. It’s more like 200 if you take the lower end of the range, and tack on a reasonable tax rate. It’s interesting that Martha Stewart sold her Martha Steward Living, one of the world’s leading licensing brands, for $353 million last year.

Trump doesn’t think his tax returns will tell us much that’s new, advising the curious to look instead at his voluminous PFD. But the return, if it’s forthcoming, will make fascinating reading. It will dispel the confusion between profits and revenues, show the size of the Trump empire and reveal if he’s a big taxpayer, or uses totally legitimate rules to avoid big levies.

[downeastdaniel]

9. Gee, I'd think that all this denial of admitting to tax has to do with LEGALITY AND OTHER CRIMINAL

RISKS.

[The Second Stone]

19. We want to see the candidate's tax returns to know that they are not tax cheats

Every candidate since 1968 except Mitt Romney has released all their tax returns.

[MADem]

21. And even Mitt (who did a limited release) is saying that if you don't release, you aren't QUALIFIED!

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/11/477700943/mitt-romney-trumps-decision-to-not-release-tax-returns-is-disqualifying

Mitt Romney: Trump's Decision To Not Release Tax Returns Is 'Disqualifying'

[The Second Stone]

24. Mitt's limited release was a huge announcement that he was not to be trusted

They guy was planning his whole life to run for President, had enough money to hire excellent accountants, and then in some years did some embarrassing crap with his taxes so much that he wouldn't release them?

In fairness, I was never going to vote for Mitt, but this is what turned me on he might be a vulture, but at least basically honest.

[MADem]

25. What's quite interesting is that, to my mind, Trump and Mitt are cut from the same cloth.

The big difference is this--you call Mitt a "vulture" (and I agree with you) but I would submit that, compared to The Donald, he's an "ethical vulture." He's biased about his charitable giving, but at least he gives. He's clueless about anyone outside his Wonder Bread and Jello universe, but at least he acknowledges their existence without calling them rapists, drug dealers and criminals. Sure, it's a low bar, but he has .... standards!



Further, Mitt--like The Donald--is a BUSINESSMAN, and NOT a politician.

But...but, one might say--MITT was GOVERNOR OF MA!!!! Sure he was, I would reply, but he BOUGHT that gig with incessant Disney-colored commercials and blatant BIG FIB promises that he would bring "jerbs" to a commonwealth that had huge pockets of unemployment, was in a moribund state, and actually LOST A CONGRESSIONAL SEAT (Barney Frank got caught in that) due to the flight of citizens to the south and west for better economic opportunity! Those jobs never materialized, and the commonwealth got worse before it got better.

No real politician--one who is in it for life--spends SIX MILLION bucks of his OWN money to spend one term in a job that pays less than a hundred and forty grand a year. All he was doing is buying a resume bullet. It's shameful, really, that he got as far as he did. He hadn't done the work. And, of course, neither has The Donald!

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. The Fortune article was an interesting read ... except for the homophobic stab at Roy Cohn ...

From what I've read, Cohn was a slimy enough character, without their (indirectly) referencing his sexual orientation.

[gratuitous]

29. Pretty mild (and factual) description of Cohn

I wouldn't rank it as a "homophobic stab." Roy Cohn ruined a lot of lives during his career. Two of his favorite methods of destroying his enemies were red-baiting and gay-baiting, while vigorously defending himself against rumors of his own homosexuality, which he maintained right up until his death from AIDS.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Oh ... I agree. He was a nasty piece of work. I just didn't find his sexual orientation ...

and death from AIDS, relevant to the story.

[MADem]

30. He plays a big role in the play/film adaptation of ANGELS IN AMERICA

His sexuality was something he vehemently denied to himself and to others, in the oddest way. It was almost as though he regarded "it" as a thing apart from himself. He was indeed a slimy character, and very complex. He apparently did have flashes of compassion but I don't think they were terribly visible in his day-to-day dealings. Apparently, Barbara Walters, who frequently served as a beard for him, was a loyal friend because RC bailed out her father, Lou, when he was in dire financial distress.

It's hard to know if FORTUNE's writers had that dichotomy that was a big aspect of Cohn's life in mind in their commentary (Cohn, the "gay baiter" was indeed gay), or if they were just being jerks. Trump, too, is a rather bifurcated personality--he lies about stuff (he was pro-choice before he decided he was pro-life, he wasn't very religious before his "Two Corinthians" forays, he's a total panderer, etc.). I mean, after all...it's FORTUNE magazine, not "Ethical Living" or "Moral Financial Responsibility" magazine (LOL)...! Those guys aren't on 'our' team on a good day!

If we take their remarks at face value (history is history, after all), it would seem to me that they're suggesting that Trump learned some of his more OTT business tactics from Cohn--and that might be a fair point to make:

However, Cohn’s shocking 1973 counterclaim—a legally far-fetched, media-grabbing shot over the bow announcing that Trump would spare no expense to impose costs on ­critics—provided a template for attacks, which have become a mainstay of Trump’s business arsenal ever since.

OT, but tangential--Pacino as Cohn in AinA:

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. I saw Angels in America ...

it prompted me to look deeper into Cohn. He was a really, really nasty piece of work.