Trump und die Steuern

Anmerkung: Der Artikel ist nicht von Nicolai Haehnle, sondern von Stefan Sasse. Da gab es irgendeinen Fehler in WordPress. 

Bevor Präsident Donald Trump sein gesamtes Umfeld mit Corona infizierte und auch willentlich in Kauf nahm, unbeteiligte Dritte anzustecken, gelang der New York Times ein journalistischer Aufklärungserfolg, als sie an die Steuerunterlagen Trumps aus den Jahren 2015/16 kam – jene Jahre also, für die der damalige Präsidentschaftskandidat seine Unterlagen zu veröffentlichen sich weigerte. Die Veröffentlichung der Steuerabrechnungen gehört zu den vielen Normen des US-Politikbetriebs: alle Kandidaten für das Präsidentschaftsamt machen das. Alle, bis auf Trump. Schon damals gab das in informierten und interessierten Kreisen Anlass zu Spekulationen. Jetzt, da die Unterlagen da sind, wissen wir Genaueres. Für immerhin drei Tage beherrschte das Thema auch die mediale Diskussion um Trump, dann wurde es vom nächsten Skandal de jour abgelöst. Aber das ist ja kein Grund für uns, nicht einmal näher hinzuschauen.

Ein Blick zurück

Wie so viele Normenbrüche der Trump-Ära ist auch die Weigerung Trumps, seine Unterlagen offenzulegen, nicht nur nicht bestraft, sondern sogar belohnt worden. Denn ist eher unwahrscheinlich, dass seine Kandidatur seinerzeit die Offenlegung überlebt hätte. Bevor wir uns ansehen, werfen wir einen Blick zurück auf den Wahlkampf 2012, in dem die Steuerunterlagen Mitt Romneys ebenfalls ein Politikum darstellte. Romney, wie wir uns erinnern werden, bezahlte eine effektive Steuerrate von 14% – obwohl er Multimillionär war. Genauer, weil er Multimillionär war. Schließlich bezahlen die Superreichen, ob in den USA oder Deutschland, praktisch keine Einkommenssteuern. Oder irgendwelche anderen Steuern. Romneys reiche Hintermänner werden wohl darüber gelacht haben, dass der Mann tatsächlich 14% bezahlt hat.

Die erfolgreiche Strategie des Obama-Teams, Romney als „out of touch„-Raffsack hinzustellen, funktionierte ausgezeichnet. Es half auch nicht, dass eine geheime Aufnahme ans Licht kam, in der Romney auf einem Fundraiser verkündete, dass 47% aller AmerikanerInnen wirtschaftliche VerliererInnen seien und er „keinerlei Verantwortung“ für diese Menschen habe. Sie würden „niemals“ Verantwortung für sich und ihr Leben übernehmen. Es war keine Überraschung, dass Romney so dachte. Genauso wenig, wie Trumps „Grab them by the pussy„-Allüren jemanden überraschen konnten. Aber 2012 funktionierten die Normen der Demokratie noch.

Rückblickend fragt er sich vermutlich, warum er damals seine Steuerunterlagen veröffentlicht hat. Warum er nicht einfach gelogen hat. Klar gab es ein Video, auf dem er diese Kommentare machte. Aber er hätte einfach sagen können, das sei er nicht. Das Video sei gefälscht. Die New York Times hätte daraus mit Sicherheit die Überschrift „Democrats, Republicans argue over authenticity of video“ gemacht. Das war Trumps Strategie, und mit viel Glück und ordentlich Hilfe von außen gewann er.

The Goods

Was aber lernen wir aus Trumps geleakten Steuerunterlagen? Die sofort verständliche Zahl, auf die sich die Medienberichterstattung auch schnell einschoss, war, dass er in beiden Jahren jeweils nur rund 750 Dollar Steuern bezahlt hatte. Pro Jahr. Ich bezahle mehr Kirchensteuer als Trump Einkommenssteuer. Aber das ist in dieser durchgedrehten Debatte ja nicht einmal ein Nachteil für ihn; seine Anhänger werden es ja doch nur als Ausdruck seiner genialen Deal-Maker-Fähigkeiten sehen. Und die Linke tut sich erfahrungsgemäß schwer damit, ein griffiges Narrativ um die systemische Ungerechtigkeit des Steuersystems herum aufzubauen.

Über das offensichtliche Fakt hinaus, dass Trump effektiv keine Steuern bezahlt – das gilt, wie gesagt, für die gesamte parasitäre Klasse der Superreichen und war auch 2015/16 bereits klar – ist viel spannender, WARUM er keine bezahlt. Und diese Information ging in der 750-Dollar-Zahl ziemlich unter. Bei Romney war die Sache damals klar: hunderte legaler Steuervermeidungstricks, hoch bezahlte Steueranwälte, jahrzehntelanger Lobbyismus, all das trug dazu bei, dass er anders als die breite Mehrheit der Bevölkerung nur sehr wenig Steuern bezahlen musste – völlig legal.

Aber bei Trump ist nie alles völlig legal, nie gewesen und wird es nie sein. Entsprechend muss er damit rechnen, bei Ausscheiden aus dem Amt erst einmal ein Steuerbetrugsverfahren am Hals zu haben. Die genauen Details sind so langweilig wie irrelevant; es ist im Endeffekt dasselbe wie bei den Steuern von Al Capone. Blanker Betrug aber mag ihm die einen oder anderen zehntausend Dollar Steuern erspart haben, der Rest aber kommt daher, dass er effektiv keine Gewinne gemacht hat.

Das ist nun ebenfalls kein Alleinstellungsmerkmal in der Welt der Superreichen; Amazon macht ja bekanntlich auch seit 30 Jahren keine Gewinne. Im Falle Trumps aber ist das nicht nur eine clevere Arm-Rechnerei, sondern Fakt. Als Trump 2015 seine Präsidentschaftskandidatur verkündete, war der Mann pleite. Und zwar nicht pleite im Sinn von „hatte kein Geld mehr“, sondern pleite in dem Sinn, wie es nur Superreiche sein können: Er hatte fast eine Milliarde Dollar Schulden, davon 421 Millionen Dollar allein in kurzfristigen Krediten, die innerhalb der nächsten vier Jahre fällig werden. Oder, wie es die Times formuliert:

“This time around, he is personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $421 million, with most of it coming due within four years. Should he win re-election, his lenders could be placed in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.” 

Implikationen

Sicherlich ist es peinlich für einen Präsidenten, wenn seine Gläubiger ihn wegen seiner Schulden vor Gericht zerren. Es ist doppelt peinlich für jemanden, dessen gesamte Karriere auf der Vorstellung aufbaut, er sei ein genialer und, vor allem, genial erfolgreicher Geschäftsmann. Ohne diesen Ruf hätte er weder Vorwahlen noch Wahlen gewonnen. Aber diese Peinlichkeit alleine ist gar nicht das Relevante. Relevant ist viel mehr die Frage, wer diese Gläubiger eigentlich sind.

Denn Donald Trump und die Bankrotterklärung sind alte Freunde. Vor allem in den 1990er Jahren legte der damalige B-Promi und C-Spekulant eine Reihe von Bankrotten hin, bei der seine Investoren und Gläubiger, aber auch er selbst alles Geld verloren. Das Geld, das er dabei verlor, war zwar nur zu geringen Teilen sein eigenes (auch hier, keine Ausnahmestellung in der Welt der Superreichen). Trumps permanente Betrügerreien gegen HandwerkerInnen und LieferantInnen, die etwa seine Casinos ausstatteten, sind ebenso aktenkundig wie seine Strategie, diese bei Beschwerden zu verklagen.

Aber das Geld, mit dem Trump sein Unternehmen in den 1970er Jahren eigentlich begründete und 1980 in die High Society New Yorks pushte, war das Erbe seines Vaters, Fred Trump. Sohn Donald selbst hat in seinem ganzen Leben noch nichts Beständiges geschaffen, das seiner eigenen Arbeit zu verdanken gewesen wäre. Und in den 1990er Jahren war dieses Geld komplett futsch.

Natürlich fiel Trump, der gescheiterte Geschäftsmann, dadurch nicht in Armut. Er fand neue Gläubiger, unter anderem die Deutsche Bank, auf die man sich immer verlassen kann, wenn es darum geht, halbseidene Geschäfte finanziell zu unterstützen. Wenig überraschend verlor auch sie ihre Anlagen in Trump, dessen zahlreiche schlecht durchdachte und mies gemanagte Unternehmen in den 2000er Jahren ebenfalls eines nach dem anderen mit dem Bauch nach oben schwammen.

In den 2010er Jahren war die schrottige, aber erfolgreiche TV-Show „The Apprentice“ die einzige vernünftige Einnahmequelle für Trump. Und das Geld, das er dort machte, floss an anderer Stelle freigiebig ab, in wesentlich größerem Umfang. Warum also bekam er immer neue Kredite? Noah Smith gibt darauf eine Antwort:

The obvious conclusion is that standard economic theory doesn’t apply to the current situation. Economists Simcha Barkai and Matthew Rognlie have both written papers arguing the apparent high returns on capital are actually something else. Barkai calls it the “profit share,” while Rognlie labels it “factorless income.” One possible source of these profits is increasing market power, which Barkai suggests could come from rising barriers to entry. But Rognlie doubts this thesis, arguing instead that financial markets have simply become disconnected from companies’ real investment decisions in ways economists don’t yet understand. Though cheaper money may make some marginal businesspeople such as Trump more eager to spend on questionable projects, in other words, it hasn’t had this effect in general. This suggests financial capital is being rationed in the U.S., rather than allocated by the price mechanism. Investors are willing to lend huge amounts of money very cheaply, but only to a tightly circumscribed set of borrowers — big powerful companies, famous personalities like Trump, and so on. That would make corporate investment similar to the post-2008 mortgage market, in which rates have been low but lending standards have been tightened so much that many people can’t borrow at all. 

Einmal mehr systemische Ungerechtigkeiten und die Dummheit der Finanzmärkte also. Auf den Trump-Mythos hereinzufallen war aber keine Provenienz der Banken; generell waren die Lügen des begnadeten Selbstdarstellers derart atemberaubend, dass ihre Adressaten gar nicht glauben konnten, dass sie existierten, wie Jonathan Chait anschaulich beschreibt:

The strategy was to convert Fred Trump’s fortune into publicity, which Donald could then monetize. The lies used to construct Trump’s image were massive. In 1984, Donald concocted a series of lies to persuade Forbes he was worth $900 million. Its reporter, Jonathan Greenberg, diligently unraveled every exaggeration and reduced the published sum to $100 million, only to discover decades later that the actual amount was a mere $5 million. The power of the lie was its scale. Greenberg could imagine Trump was exaggerating his wealth tenfold, but the idea he was exaggerating it 180-fold beggared imagination. 

Man kann die Banker also ein wenig in Schutz nehmen. Sie lernten ja auch dazu; nicht einmal die Deutsche Bank gab Trump in den 2010er Jahren noch Geld. Aber er wurde auch aus anderen Quellen finanziert. Und diese sitzen alle nicht nur komfortabel außerhalb der USA, sondern generell außerhalb der viel zitierten westlichen Wertegemeinschaft.

Der Manchurian Kandidat

In dieser Zeit begann Trump eine lukrative Geschäftsbeziehung mit zahlreichen Gestalten, deren Beziehung zu Rechtsstaat und Demokratie eher entspannter Natur ist. Ein Großteil dieser Geschäfte fand in Russland statt, aber auch in den Golfstaaten und der Türkei fanden sich Interessenten, mit ihm zusammenzuarbeiten. Und bei all diesen Leuten hat Trump Schulden.

Gleichzeitig begann Trump bereits schon vor seiner Inauguration, die Präsidentschaft als Vehikel für die Rettung seiner Unternehmen zu nutzen. So zwang er ausländische Botschafter, in seinen Hotels zu übernachten, nutzt seine eigenen Liegenschaften (an die etwa der Secret Service hunderte von Millionen bezahlen muss) oder stellt sein eigenes Merchandise her.

Relevanter als dieses Kleinvieh ist aber noch die Einflussnahme über Direktinvestitionen, die autokratische Regierungen dieser Tage pflegen. Ob Riad, Ankara oder Moskau, überall werden plötzlich Eröffnungen von Trump-Immobilienprojekten (Hotels, Casinos, etc.) möglich, die vorher nicht finanziert waren oder keine Baugenehmigung hatten. Wer diese Leute sind, die urplötzlich hunderte von Millionen in diese Investmentgräber schaufeln, ist völlig unklar.

Aber da Trump sich, anders als es die Norm verlangt, nicht von seinem Unternehmen durch einen „Blind Trust“ getrennt hat (zu dem die Republicans etwa Jimmy Carter 1976 zwangen, der deswegen seine Farm verlor), bestehen all diese Interessenkonflikte nahtlos fort. Man muss es der New York Times hoch anrechnen, dass sie auch diese Vorgänge alle ausführlich untersucht hat.

Fazit

Die Abhängigkeit von fremden Mächten, in der Trump persönlich steht, wurde von Hillary Clinton bereits im Wahlkampf 2016 erfolglos thematisiert. Im virulenten Bothsiderismus und der sich ständig frenetisch drehenden Skandalmaschinerie des Kandidaten selbst verpuffte jeglicher Versuch. Es ist nach wie vor auch völlig unklar, wie abhängig Trump tatsächlich ist, ob er bereits Entscheidungen auf Basis irgendwelcher solcher Abhängigkeiten getroffen hat oder nicht.

Es ist aber auch völlig unmöglich das festzustellen, solange die Unterlagen dafür nicht öffentlich verfügbar sind. Während Clinton seinerzeit sämtliche Mails veröffentlichte und Heerscharen von Reportern ebenso wie Sicherheitsbehörden sie bis zum letzten Komma durchkämmten, hüllte Trump sich in Schweigen und blockierte. Wie Romney wäre auch Clinton sicherlich besser gefahren, hätte sie die Dinger einfach gelöscht und die Klappe gehalten. Das wäre toxisch für die Demokratie, aber offensichtlich bringt es keinerlei negative Auswirkungen mit sich.

Das Akzeptieren von Trumps Verhüllen seiner Steuerunterlagen im Wahlkampf 2016 zeigt sich daher rückblickend als ein noch größeres Versagen von Medien und Politik als die völlig unverhältnismäßige Obsession mit Clintons Emails. Wie bei so vielen eigentlich skandalösen Themen sind sie aber nicht so gut in ein Narrativ zu verpacken wie die „Skandale“, die dann die Schlagzeilen bestimmen. Es ist gut möglich, dass Trump deswegen einmal mehr durchkommt.

Vielleicht aber endet seine politische Karriere aber auch so wie die von Al Capone. Das wäre ein mehr als passender Abschluss.

{ 58 comments… add one }
  • Ralf 14. Oktober 2020, 23:06

    Hmmm … Der Artikel steht jetzt schon zwei Tage hier und es gibt null Kommentare. Ich denke, das liegt daran, dass wir mittlerweile alle komplett abgestumpft sind. Keiner hat erwartet, dass Donald Trump auch nur einen Penny Steuern bezahlt hat. Ansonsten hätte der Präsident seine Steuererklärung nicht verstecken müssen. Folglich fällt es mir schwer zu glauben, dass irgendjemand tatsächlich überrascht war, als die New York Times das Offensichtliche endlich belegen konnte. Auch dass Trump kein erfolgreicher Geschäftsmann ist, ist seit vielen Jahren bekannt. Seine Pleiten und Bankrotte sind ebenso zahlreich wie spektakulär. Oder dass er in der Tasche von Diktatoren steckt. Ist da tatsächlich irgendwer erstaunt, der seine gemeinsame Pressekonferenz mit Putin vor – ich glaube – zwei Jahren gesehen hat?

    Jeder andere Politiker mit dieser Geschichte wäre politisch tot. Und bei jedem anderen Politiker hätte dieser Artikel viele Leser und mindestens 200 wütende Kommentare bekommen. Aber Donald Trump ist es gelungen uns alle zu ermüden. Keine Woche vergeht ohne Skandal. Kein Monat vergeht ohne Megaskandal. Manchmal reiht sich Megaskandal and Megaskandal in derselben Woche. Immer wenn man glaubt, eine Tiefe des Niveaus sei erreicht, die unmöglich noch untertunnelt werden kann, wird man eines Besseren belehrt. Der zehntausendfach überführte Lügner, Betrüger und Dieb hat uns durch komplette Sättigung von Negativnachrichten mürbe gemacht. Ich klicke mittlerweile einfach weiter, wenn ich das Wort “Trump” in einer Überschrift lese. Und anderen scheint es genauso zu gehen. Alle Ansprüche an den mächtigsten Politiker der Welt sind kollabiert. Man will nur noch seine Ruhe haben. Was das für den langfristigen Respekt vor Politik und Demokratie in der Gesellschaft bedeutet, kann man nur erahnen.

    • Stefan Sasse 15. Oktober 2020, 06:51

      Ist auch meine Vermutung, ja. Wie ich im Artikel ja schreibe ist die Tatsache, dass dieses Thema so einfach fallen gelassen wurde blanker Wahnsinn.

    • TBeermann 15. Oktober 2020, 08:36

      Was wollte man dazu auch groß diskutieren? Es ist im Großen und Ganzen das, was man eigentlich seit Jahren relativ sicher weiß, wenn man es nicht krampfhaft übersehen wollte.

      Die Leute, auf die letzteres zutrifft, wird auch das nicht überzeugen. Im Zweifelsfall werden sie es als Fälschung abtun. Vor allem treiben die sich aber vermutlich eher nicht in diesem Blog rum und würden ihr, um ihr Idol zu verteidigen.

      • Stefan Sasse 15. Oktober 2020, 13:48

        Beeindruckend ist, wie viele Leute das krampfhaft übersehen wollten.

        • TBeermann 15. Oktober 2020, 14:53

          Absolut. Das ist sicher auch eine Folge der Tribalisierung in Kombination eines Versagens der Medien der „Mitte“.

          In den linken Medien wurde schon früh im Wahlkampf 2016 darauf hingewiesen, dass es diverse Aspekte in Trumps Selbstdarstellung gab, die nicht zueinander passten. Aber aus der Richtung war es leicht, die Berichte vor seinen Anhängern als politisch motiviert abzutun.

          Als dann die großen Medien, die Trumps Spiel eine weile mitgespielt haben, zunehmend kritisch berichteten, war es zu spät. (Und von den rechten Medien ist hüben wie drüben keine Integrität zu erwarten.).

          Einerseits spannend, andererseits auch wieder egal, weil vorbei – wäre die Überlegung, ob es ein Zeitfenster gegeben hätte, in dem das Trump-Narrativ sich noch nicht verfestigt hatte und man ihn entzaubern konnte. Für Zukünftige ähnliche Fälle sollte man das auf jeden Fall im Kopf behalten (wird man aber nicht).

    • Dennis 15. Oktober 2020, 10:41

      Klar, alles richtig. Am besten, man lässt Herrn Trump diese Sache höchstpersönlich kommentieren:

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters

      Diese Leute haben sich vermutlich auch nicht für Steuererklärungen interessiert:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOEfL4k_zF8

      Dialektik der Aufklärung – oder so ähnlich.

  • Dimitri 15. Oktober 2020, 12:28

    Auch wenn man es so oft wiederholt, bleibt es ein Mythos, dass Amazon kein Gewinn mache und keine Steuern zahle.
    Es wird beständig behauptet obwohl es wirklich einfach ist, dies mit einer kurzen Recherche zu wiederlegen. (Seite 47)
    https://s2.q4cdn.com/299287126/files/doc_financials/2020/ar/2019-Annual-Report.pdf

  • Johnson 15. Oktober 2020, 15:08

    Sure enough, this morning Mr. Sasse apparently acquired his accounting designation from the University of Internet and became a US income tax expert. That clearly sets him apart from all the people who don’t know anything about tax laws and retweet the opinions of others who also don’t know anything about tax laws. And I thought here in this blog you could only have an opinion on, let’s say Covid-19, if you had an epidemiology degree (this one NOT from the University of Internet preferably) and were an acclaimed infectious disease expert.

    First off, “morality” or whether Donald Trump is a good or mediocre or bad businessman, or what he did or did not do in the 80’s and 90’s, and whether he’s a good or bad person (definitely the latter, just to be clear) doesn’t have jack sh*t to do with his current taxation issue. You pay what you legally owe. Nobody willingly pays the government more than they legally owe.

    This has always been this way since America and any other nation has had income taxes. 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 legally owe, the government will laugh and laugh, and then take your money and forget to say thank you.

    Second, “loopholes” is a term most often used by people who don’t understand accounting or tax law, to complain about how somebody else used the existing laws created by Congress to pay less than what that person thinks is “fair.” Regular people have heard the bullshit term loopholes tossed around so much that they start to believe that it is some magical easy button that rich guys can just push so they don’t have to pay taxes.

    Nope. They’re just laws. These “loopholes” exist because at some point in time Congress (Democrat and Republican both!) decided that they wanted to promote some type of behavior or discourage some other type of behavior. So they basically put a reward into the tax law saying if you do this thing we like, you’ll pay less taxes! Or the opposite, Congress wanted to discourage some type of behavior, so if you do that thing we don’t want, you will end up paying more taxes.

    These things come and go, all based upon whatever behavior Congress is trying to promote at that time (or what favors they are doing for their friends). Why was mortgage interest tax deductible? Because at one point Congress said “we really want people to own houses!” Even regular people have things that are considered “loopholes” by somebody else. This, among other things, makes tax laws and regulations balloon to thousands of pages, with another thousand disclaimers and exemptions.

    It is this complexity that makes it hard to figure out what anyone actually owes. The more complicated your affairs, the more of these laws and regs you run into, the more “loopholes” you may be able to take advantage of.
    We’ve already determined, nobody willingly pays more than they owe. The real problem is determining what you actually legally owe. And this is where it gets sticky. Because the laws are very complex, the more complicated your finances, the more likely you are to have confusion over your taxes.

    Sometimes there is confusion about what can or cannot be deducted. Some things are clear. Others are questionable. Some things the IRS has clearly stated are good to go, others you make your best guess, and then hope the auditor doesn’t disagree. Which brings us to today, with people freaking out about how Trump allegedly didn’t pay taxes for 10 out of 15 years and how that’s unfair or immoral. Assuming that the anonymous tip isn’t total bullshit, and that the information is accurate (which means that whoever leaked it committed a felony, but that’s a whole different discussion)… the answer is so what?

    Is it plausible that a (supposed) billionaire paid no taxes for a period of several years? Yes. Totally. See all that stuff above about the complicated tax code and how you can take advantage of all the laws Congress has passed to save your money? Pretty much that. It has happened many times before, and it will happen many times again.

    One thing that’s really unfair about the US tax system and any tax system really, is that it is rigged in favor of people who have more resources.
    Trump has those resources. I bet he’s got a floor full of accountants and lawyers, and their leader is probably a war worn old CPA with an eye patch and a raven who sits on his shoulder. The raven also has an eye patch and an accounting degree. This man has seen it all, and he’s going to take full advantage of every tax break in the law for his client, and do so gleefully, knowing that many of those laws were signed by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

    Is it unfair that rich guys can employ Gandalf level CPAs and take advantage of more complicated tax laws, while regular people use TurboTax? Yes. But in the meantime, as long as those tax laws are there, the rich guys would be fools not to take advantage of them.

    On the other side the IRS has some pretty fearsome auditors. Those guys sell their soul to the devil, and then fine the devil for failing to list that soul as a depreciable asset. When they show up to audit a company, they appear in a flash of fire and brimstone, as a Swedish death metal band plays their theme song.

    If it comes out that Trump broke the law, then it is up to the IRS and the justice system to either fine or imprison him. That’s how tax audits and tax laws work. On one side black hearted CPAs, and on the other hell spawned auditor demons, and they’ll argue, and go to court over what is and is not owed to the government, and then the client will pay what is legally owed plus any applicable fines and penalties. Both sides of this eternal struggle are far smarter than anyone at the NY Times and they have access to the actual financial data, unlike all the people who have opinions about taxes owed without ever having seen the actual financial statements those tax assessments were based on, or knowing what they mean.

    Same as the rest of us, Trump owes what he owes. And the IRS and the courts will determine if that number is accurate or not, and not the NY Times or Mr. Sasse, newly minted CPA from U of I.

    • Stefan Sasse 15. Oktober 2020, 16:28

      This is…pretty much what I write in the article?

    • Ralf 15. Oktober 2020, 17:20

      The situation is not that rich people and large corporations are merely passive beneficiaries of Congress’ incompetence of writing a fair tax code. Instead they send armies of lobbyists to Washington who then instrumentalize Congress as a tool to write the desired loopholes into the tax code that they subsequently exploit. They also fund the politicians that are willing to play their role in this game; a game that benefits no one but the top 1% at the expense of everybody else.

  • Johnson 15. Oktober 2020, 19:09

    Not at all. Here is what I said:

    1. Trump may be a bad person, a bad businessman and a bad president. All that however has nothing to do with the validity of his tax returns which is evidenced and decided by the IRS and the courts (if it comes to that).
    2. Neither you nor I nor anyone except a handful of experts can decide at this point whether Trump paid less than he legally owed in taxes. Focusing on „he only paid $750“ or „he paid nothing“ is just inflammatory.
    3. Leaked documents via a newspaper do not provide nearly enough detail to make any determination really.
    4. Given this leak Trump may have actually been justified in hindsight in his resisting to hand over his tax returns. Remember, these were to be used as evidence in a court case only and therefore restricted. As a side note, while it is tradition for presidential candidates to publish tax returns and statements it is not a legal obligation. And I find a large part of this publication of those documents is just theatrics and serves no real purpose. Reason is that a candidate can easily have income via other means that are not covered by personal tax returns.

    • Stefan Sasse 15. Oktober 2020, 22:23

      1. I don’t care about the validity much. I can’t judge it.
      2. I KNOW that it is legal. That’s not the point.
      3. Trump could release his tax returns.
      4. „Only therefore“, sure.

      • Johnson 15. Oktober 2020, 23:34

        1. Then don’t make like you are passing judgment on this.
        2. What IS the point then? That you like to draw heavy handed lines around morality? That Trump is a very bad man (agreed btw)? That no one with any sanity should lend him money (also agreed)?
        3. He could and he chose not to. And he is and was within his rights to do so.
        4. „Therefore“ here means that these tax returns were restricted by 2 court orders, one from the Supreme Court, and one from whatever court in NY has that lawsuit going on where these tax returns were to be entered as evidence. The courts ordered Trump to release them to that court and he did (because he had no choice). But the courts also restricted those returns for the purposes of that particular lawsuit, and them someone promptly leaked them. Man, seriously…

        • Stefan Sasse 16. Oktober 2020, 06:45

          1) I do not. I’m stating that Trump seldom operates completely legal, and that some kind of litigation is likely. That’s all. And it’s hard to argue with that.
          2) The point is that this system is incredibly bad and harmful, and it has been before Trump came into power. Heavy-handed as the morality regarding income taxes might be, it’s such an obvious injustice that millionaires can pay basically no income tax, creating such atrociously unlevel playing field, that if this had been a major topic in 2015/16, Trump couldn’t have won.
          3) I don’t doubt his right, I doubt that it was wise to let it slide.

        • derwaechter 16. Oktober 2020, 09:19

          3) Apart from the fact that he many times said he will release them only to come up with bogus excuses why he can’t. He is of course within his rights to do that too. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do and that he shouldn’t be criticised for his choices.

      • derwaechter 16. Oktober 2020, 09:16

        2. Actually I don’t think you do. Both this reporting, earlier reports from the NTY and other sources (e.g. Michael Cohen) give reason to believe that it is not so clear cut.
        4. Nope, his „argument“ was that they are under audit.

        • Stefan Sasse 16. Oktober 2020, 09:31

          This was my understanding as well.

          • Johnson 16. Oktober 2020, 15:51

            4. Ok guys, one more time from the top: Trump did not release his tax returns in 2016 or at any point thereafter, and probably never would have released them had he not been ordered to do so by the courts. However, that court order was issued for one specific purpose only (a lawsuit), and the returns were restricted for that specific purpose, not by Trump but by the courts. So leaking those returns is likely a felony.

            Whether not releasing his tax returns was „not wise“ or „not the right thing to do“ – well, it seems that so far it has not hurt him substantially that he didn’t. That’s all I can say about that.

            Re his „bogus“ excuse that his tax returns are under review by the IRS – I would not dismiss this out of hand so quickly. And if that in fact is true it’s not good news for Trump. It means that one or several of those IRS auditor demons have sunk their pointy, shiny talons into the flank of Trump Corp and are starting to rip things apart.

            • derwaechter 16. Oktober 2020, 16:18

              It was bogus in the sense that the audit would not stop him from releasing his tax returns. There is no such rule.

              What probably stopped him from releasing them, was their content. The NYT reports underline that interpretation. Whether or not they were obtained in a lawful way is of course a different matter.

              I, to use a phrase politicians and pundits left and right love to use, think the American people had the right to know if a presidential candidate running is not a business-, but a con man.

              • Johnson 16. Oktober 2020, 18:45

                Mr. DerWaechter: “ I know this is bogus because I too watched The West Wing and went to the University of Internet…oh wait.“

                How do you know what’s bogus in regards to US tax returns? If those tax returns are in fact under review by the IRS Trump is in a narrow sense correct to call them incomplete and therefore not release them. It’s like DerWaechter Corp’s financial statements – unless and until they have been audited and signed off by a third party they are incomplete (and have to be treated as potentially erroneous), and could not be used for a legal filing for example.

                As already stated though that review is probably not a good thing for Trump. And having several years of tax returns under review by the IRS may point to a much larger problem, and also give you a hint to your vexing conundrum whether Trump is a business man or a con man.

                To that last point though – tax returns are not usually the best way to determine that. The financial statements of Trump Corp (of his various enterprises) would be much more useful in determining that question as they contain the raw financial data of those enterprises. A tax return is a result of a review of those statements and mainly contains „sanitized“ data as in processed financial data; and unless you have a lot of insight into those enterprises you won’t know how much of the original data got omitted, changed, added and re-added, or otherwise altered. To belabor that point one more time: That’s perfectly normal and legal and happens on almost every tax return, especially one by a (larger) corporation.

                • Stefan Sasse 16. Oktober 2020, 19:10

                  May I ask a personal question in between? How did you find the article, and why if you understand it do you write in English? No problem for me, just curious.

                  • Johnson 16. Oktober 2020, 21:59

                    Sure. I came across your blog quite a while ago (via another blog if I recall correctly), and you had a lot of coverage of US politics back then (outside of elections). I found it interesting to read what someone in Germany thought about those issues.

                    I could write my comments in German I guess, but that would require me to change the layout of my keyboard and change the language setting to German so my spellchecker doesn’t vomit red all over the place or starts auto correcting. Plus I can type ten times faster and with a lot fewer typos in English…so basically because I am lazy.

                    Figured if you follow US politics you’d be up on your English which it appears you are. 🙂

                    • Stefan Sasse 17. Oktober 2020, 13:04

                      Yeah, no problem at all. I cover US politics in the Vermischtes these days, since I can’t bring myself to do the same level of coverage I did in 2016. It’s just too exhausting most of the time, and too much bad faith going on. Migth be changing if Biden wins the election.

                • derwaechter 21. Oktober 2020, 10:50

                  Mr. DerWaechter: “ I know this is bogus because I too watched The West Wing and went to the University of Internet…oh wait.“

                  How charming.

            • Stefan Sasse 16. Oktober 2020, 16:52

              I never doubted that leaking them is a felony.

              That’s the problem. That it didn’t hurt him, I mean. Sets a very bad precedent.

              Let’s hope so!

              • Johnson 16. Oktober 2020, 21:30

                Right. You however do notice that there’s not only almost universal silence on that potential felony, the NY Times is being widely lauded for having published the returns (and seems to not be afraid of potential legal repercussions). On the other side the emails and files that may indicate that Hunter Biden may have been involved in something way more shady in the Ukraine than previously known or assumed, and that he may have involved his dad in this are being actively suppressed (by social media e.g.). Just saying.

                Maybe, regarding this being a very bad precedent. But then „Trump bad man. Real bad man“ (Stephen Hawking). So a) not surprising really isn’t it, and b) probably not a precedent that a lot, if any, other candidates are ever going to follow.

                • Ralf 16. Oktober 2020, 21:43

                  the NY Times is being widely lauded for having published the returns

                  And rightfully so. This is the very definition of investigative journalism. Americans may not have the legal right, but they do have the moral right to know whether their president is actively contributing to their communities by paying taxes, just like everybody else, or whether the president is a parasite on society exploiting those very communities. Americans also have moral right to know whether a candidate for the presidency is actually the successful businessman he claims he is. Or whether he is merely a blustering liar. The job of the press is to bring these things to light, so that voters have the information they need to judge the candidates and make a decision based on facts.

                  • Johnson 16. Oktober 2020, 22:18

                    Sorry Ralf, but that’s a hard no on your little expose. There are no „moral rights“, only legal rights and that’s for a good reason. Your morality may be a lot different than the next person’s and who’s to say which one is correct. And breaking the law is breaking the law, whether it involves Trump or someone else.

                    Also, we have already established that it’s not clear yet whether Trump paid (in taxes) what he legally owed or not. To call someone a „parasite“ because that person paid what was legally owed is way over the line. In addition, Trump has been and still is „contributing to communities“ by employing people and paying them salaries and benefits etc. Doesn’t release him from paying his taxes of course – before you go there.

                    Re a right to know whether Trump is a good businessman or a blustering liar, what else do you need to know to make that decision? And once again, that decision should not have to involve releasing restricted personal information to the public. I am sure you remember the entire sordid birther spectacle. Do you really think Barack Obama should have been required to release that infamous long form birth certificate just to satisfy some „moral right“ of the public to know whether he was born in the US?

                    • Ralf 16. Oktober 2020, 22:37

                      Obama’s citizenship was never in question, except in some hard-right conspiracy theory circles. So there was never something to prove in the first place.

                      Politicians make the laws that organize our communities and thereby set standards. It is of interest to the public to know whether they themselves live by those standards. In that, a candidate running for the presidency is under the moral obligation to provide more transparency than average Joe. The New York Times is not going to write about your taxes, your love affaires, or about whom you owe money. But the press has an obligation to investigate the president as well as other candidates that are running for high office. That is its very job. Good that it is doing it.

                      Regarding breaking the law, I throw your own argument about the potential tax evasion of Donald Trump right back at you: If the New York Times broke American laws, it will be charged with a crime and convicted. I am very relaxed while I am waiting whether a respective law suit is ever brought to court and whether it will be successful. Because – again going back to your own words – not you decide whether the New York Times committed a crime, but that’s the job of courts and judges.

                • Stefan Sasse 17. Oktober 2020, 13:03

                  The Guardian was universally lauded for publishing the Snowden files as well, and there were never repercussions for anyone discussing the DNC leaks in 2016. That’s journalism.

                  • Johnson 18. Oktober 2020, 21:07

                    „Obama’s citizenship was never in question, except in some hard-right conspiracy theory circles. So there was never something to prove in the first place.“

                    Dude, even Mitt Romney was on this for a while. Hard right conspiracy circles my a*s.

                    „…to know whether they themselves live by those standards.“

                    Oh boy. Like Al Gore and his 15,000 sqft mansion in TN you mean? I agree in principle btw, but you’ll have to be careful how far you go with this. Pretty soon almost no one will meet those lofty „moral“ standards. You may have seen that in terms of pulling down statues it is now down to old Abe Lincoln…

                    „…I throw your own argument about the potential tax evasion of Donald Trump right back at you…“

                    Oh no! [Bites fist]. You notice that little word „potential“ in your own sentence there? Trump’s tax evasion case is still a maybe; but it is crystal clear that someone broke the law by leaking those returns. That’s not in question.

                    „The Guardian was universally lauded for publishing the Snowden files as well, and there were never repercussions for anyone discussing the DNC leaks in 2016.“

                    Well, the Guardian is a UK paper – not much to go on here for a lawsuit in the US. And the DNC files were almost more private conversations than anything else. The actual leakers however did not fare so well as you may recall…Snowden was literally chased to the ends of the world, and we all know about Assange and Manning.

                    • Ralf 18. Oktober 2020, 21:16

                      Dude, even Mitt Romney was on this for a while.

                      Lol … For a minute, this almost looked as if you wanted to sell me Mitt Romney as an example for reason and moderation …

                      Pretty soon almost no one will meet those lofty „moral“ standards.

                      I am meeting them. And if I meet those standards, I can expect others to meet them, too.

                      but it is crystal clear that someone broke the law by leaking those returns

                      Yep, but very likely not the New York Times. If I am wrong, you will see a successful conviction of the newspaper at court. Let’s wait and see whether that happens.

                    • Johnson 18. Oktober 2020, 21:53

                      @ Ralf:

                      Well, I would at least like to sell Mitt Romney as not a „hard right conspiracy theorist“ to you.

                      Wonderful! You should run for office right away. Of course, you probably never ran a corporation or held public office, or both but hey…you are at least giving yourself a big thumbs up.

                      True. It won’t be the NY Times, it’ll be whoever leaked those returns. And if Biden wins this may go away quietly. However, these things often end up dangling from the rear end of the person/entity that originally thought of them. It was the Democrats that reduced the majority required for a Supreme Court confirmation in the Senate…see how that backfired? Biden will have to be careful here. These emails and files re Hunter Biden may have a barb in their tail.

                    • Ralf 18. Oktober 2020, 22:02

                      So far, I am not worrying about Joe Biden, as he is leading practically every single poll. I am worrying even less about Hunter Biden, who is not running for any office. I am also not worrying about the Supreme Court, because once elected with a trifecta, Biden will be packing the court. If he is not willing to do that or if he does not win a trifecta, the US is fucked anyway. So, then there is also no reason to worry anymore.

                    • Stefan Sasse 18. Oktober 2020, 22:07

                      My worry is the Senate. Trifecta is necessity.

                    • Stefan Sasse 18. Oktober 2020, 22:06

                      Romney went in bed with the hard right. That’s why I don’t have much respect for the guy.

                      You’re moving the goal posts. You’re argument was getting lauded for leaks, and I’m giving you examples that this is not Trump-exclusive. Doesn’t matter where the paper is based.

                    • Johnson 19. Oktober 2020, 01:56

                      It’s great you are not worried about so many things that weren’t even part of this discussion, like the Supreme Court. Am willing to bet you anything that Biden, who will almost certainly win this election and be President, will not pack the court. Unless he wishes to hand the Republicans a solid majority in whatever election comes next.

                      Nope. Goal posts are still where they were and have always been; you just missed with your kick :). I didn’t say it was „Trump-exclusive“, just that it is unfolding this way. It is a very worrisome trend that classified or private information is being leaked without any consequences for the media that publish it. All in the name of „investigative journalism“ for sure…

                    • Stefan Sasse 19. Oktober 2020, 06:41

                      If you’d force me to bet, I’d also put my money on him not expanding the court. However, I disagree that this would automatically lead to a Republican majority; he’s not do it for instutional reasons and those of personal preference.

                      I’ve come out as an opponent of Wikileaks, for example. However, leaks have always been a major part of investigative journalism. Think the muckrackers of the 1900s, or Watergate, or pretty much any scandal. They’re necessary.

                    • Johnson 19. Oktober 2020, 15:26

                      Ralf, do you actually read what I write? I didn’t say at the next presidential election, I said „at whatever election comes next“, so a Senate and/or House midterm or whatever. But it’s all just pure speculation re this court packing scheme so I’ll leave it at that.

                      I don’t think „the environment“ holds nearly as much mythical value to the vast majority of Americans as the Supreme Court. Just look at the recent passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Do you think when that time comes for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader they will garner one tenth of this attention?

                    • Ralf 19. Oktober 2020, 15:31

                      If history is any indication, at the next midterms, Republicans will win anyway control of (at least) the Senate, as it is almost always the party not currently controlling the presidency, who wins the midterms, and politics will be fully stalled until the lucky situation that one of the two parties once again wins a trifecta.

                    • Stefan Sasse 19. Oktober 2020, 17:14

                      Yep.

                  • Johnson 19. Oktober 2020, 07:41

                    „…he’s not do it for instutional reasons and those of personal preference.“

                    Sorry, what?

                    I think his reasons for packing the court would be irrelevant in any event. The Supreme Court has had 9 members for as long the the oldest Americans alive can remember. And any attempt at changing that will be painted as equivalent to taking a run at the Constitution.

                    I don’t deny the value of investigate journalism. But there ought to be limits. Let’s take Watergate: The Post interviewed people, recruited sources and followed the money trail. But to my knowledge they did not compel or incentivize anyone to leak classified information in the form of documents. Later Nixon was of course forced to hand over the tapes from the Oval Office/White House. But those came from a government facility and recorded people who were working for the government. Bit of a different scenario.

                    All I am saying is, put yourself in Trump’s shoes (yes I know….). There are private documents you would rather not publish and there’s no legal obligation for you to do so. But a court of law finds against you and compels you to hand them over to another court of law, but no worries, they’ll only be used as evidence in the proceedings there and remain restricted. And 24 hrs later you find those very documents in the press…and the justice system goes „that sucks for you man“. Whatever you (and I) may think of Trump, but that’s some dirty pool in my mind.

                    • Ralf 19. Oktober 2020, 07:49

                      The election in four years will be about whatever will be relevant in four years. Whether Biden, at the beginning of his term, packs the court or not will hardly matter. If he chooses not to pack the court, though, and his window of opportunity closes 2022 – as it almost certainly will – he and Democrats will be toast in 2024. Adding, in that case they would absolutely deserve to be toast.

                    • Stefan Sasse 19. Oktober 2020, 13:11

                      yep

                    • Stefan Sasse 19. Oktober 2020, 13:11

                      It will be painted as that, but then, introducing laws to protect the environment is also painted as that. They lost all credibility on the subject.

                      Sure, there need to be limits. Just think of Wikileaks stuff where secret contacts where accidentally revealed and stuff like that. But the tax returns?

  • Johnson 15. Oktober 2020, 19:53

    Ralf, please note that I did not say anything about incompetence of Congress when it comes to writing or altering tax laws. It’s just how the mechanism works, and many times there are unintended or unforeseen consequences to those laws or the changes to them. Rich people or large corporations may lobby Congress for sure but that also goes for the other side which may lobby Congress via NGO’s and other means. It is hard to imagine that some rich guy or large corporation is able to successfully lobby Congress in their favor with a Democrat in the White House and the Democrats also having control of one (not to mention two) chambers of Congress, if we subscribe to what I assume your slant is here – that this comes from the Republican side. Also, I think no one, rich or poor, large or small should just be a passive bystander and then recipient/beneficiary of whatever tax laws are being proposed and passed.

    • Ralf 15. Oktober 2020, 21:21

      Republican and Democratic politicians both face the same problem in the US that they cannot be elected unless they raise enormous, completely absurd amounts of money for their campaigns. This money will – obviously and easiest – in most cases come from those individuals who have a lot of money. And those individuals who have a lot of money have a crystal clear agenda. Otherwise they would not invest in politicians. Therefore, both parties have pushed tax laws that strongly benefit the tiny fraction of the wealthiest Americans and large corporations at the expense of regular people. That’s why inequality has risen under both Republican (somewhat more) and Democratic (somewhat less) administrations.

      These “other NGOs“ that you mention do not have slightest chance to compete in this game. While Amazon and Google or the remaining Koch brother can buy your election, if you are running for office or they can chose to buy the race for your opponent, Greenpeace or the Red Cross can do nothing else than invite you for a burger and a coke, and appeal to your conscience. Hence, if you want to keep your job, you better do what the rich want you to do. And that’s why there are all these loopholes in the tax code.

      • Johnson 15. Oktober 2020, 22:36

        Your first statement is hugely exaggerated. That may be true for a presidential election and maybe even for a Senate race at times, but it’s certainly not the norm. And let’s keep in mind that Ross Perot could not buy a presidential election back in the 90’s, and more recently Mike Bloomberg could not even buy a Democratic nomination. If you as the CEO and sole owner of billion dollar Destroido Corp were to „invest“ in politicians, you’d have to invest in dozens of them. Both at the federal and the state level btw. And I think you’d find your ROI will be pretty low.

        Re tax laws, taxes and inequality, you have to realize that tax laws and taxes are not a primary source of that (alleged) inequality. For taxes to influence your wealth you first have to have some income. Then you can start writing stuff off against that income and carry forward your losses and other exemptions etc to minimize your tax burden. The other question of course is what you need to declare as income and maybe you have revenue streams coming to you that you don’t have to declare as income at all. That’s pretty rare however. Money streams attract attention everywhere – in Congress, at the IRS and in State Legislatures. Inequality is about income generation, not how this income is being taxed after the fact.

        „Hence, if you want to keep your job, you better do what the rich want you to do.“ Really now? From Bernie Sanders to Nancy Pelosi to AOC and the „Squad“ all the way to Joe Biden – they all do what „the rich want them to do“? And in the case of Joe Biden for over 40 years now? Because otherwise he’d been out of his job a long time ago, right?

        • Ralf 15. Oktober 2020, 22:50

          And in the case of Joe Biden for over 40 years now? Because otherwise he’d been out of his job a long time ago, right?

          Basically, yes.

          Regarding the buying of elections, I agree it is not easy to safely buy a presidential election, but it is easy (though expensive) to buy significantly enhanced chances to win a presidential election (or Senate race or House race or local race in order of decreasing price), for instance by scaring off or side-lining competitors that may otherwise run against you in a primary.

          Bernie Sanders and AOC or the Squad are really the opposite of the typical Senate or House politician, all elected in pretty much the bluest possible district/states, and with highly unconventional campaigns targeting small donors, while benefitting from extremely high name recognition. They do not at all serve as a reasonable example for the “average politician” in the US.

          • derwaechter 16. Oktober 2020, 09:32

            „Bernie Sanders and AOC or the Squad are really the opposite of the typical Senate or House politician, all elected in pretty much the bluest possible district/states,“

            And that is btw the reason why their success really doesn’t tell you much about how the Democrats could win other elections, not least presidential ones.
            But that’s another topic…

            • Stefan Sasse 16. Oktober 2020, 10:41

              Yes.

            • TBeermann 16. Oktober 2020, 11:18

              They are very typical in that regard. Most Congresspeople are not from swing states. Some of them even ran unopposed.

              • derwaechter 16. Oktober 2020, 12:32

                Good point.

                I meant that they all are from very save seats, whereas elections are won in the not so save ones, where they probably wouldn’t have had a chance.

                • TBeermann 16. Oktober 2020, 13:33

                  True but the same could be said about a lot of Republicans that dominate their party’s approach to various topics.

                  At the end in comes down to the question wich votes one considers secure and which demographics have to be fought for.

Leave a Comment

I accept that my given data and my IP address is sent to a server in the USA only for the purpose of spam prevention through the Akismet program.More information on Akismet and GDPR.

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.