Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 05 2016, @05:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the perfectly-legal-loopholes dept.

Drew Harwell over at the Washington Post has an interesting story about a tax loophole that could allow Trump appointees to avoid paying millions in taxes.

President-elect Donald Trump's ultra-wealthy Cabinet nominees will be able to avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes in the coming weeks when they sell some of their holdings to avoid conflicts of interest in their new positions.

The tax advantage will allow Trump officials, forced by ethics laws to sell certain assets, to defer the weighty tax bills they would otherwise owe on the profits from selling stock and other holdings.

The benefit is one of the more subtle ways that the millionaires and billionaires of Trump's White House, which already will be the wealthiest administration in modern American history, could benefit financially from their transition into the nation's halls of power.

The legal tax maneuver, offered for years to executive-branch appointees and employees, was designed to help ease the sting of being forced to suddenly sell investments.

But the federal program, encoded in Section 2634 of federal ethics laws and known as a "certificate of divestiture," has never been tested quite like this. Trump's Cabinet picks have amassed assets worth billions of dollars from lifetimes in banking and investing, much of which they will be able to sell tax-free.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:03AM (#437066)

    Funny. When Wikileaks showed that CNN, NBC, and Politico all send stories to the Democrats for approval, nobody was very interested in that conflict of interest.

    George Stephanolopous works for the Clinton Foundation and also reports on them as Senior Political Anchor at ABC. The media couldn't give half a shit.

    75% of the ambassadors appointed by S.O.S. Clinton gave 500,000-2 million to her slush fund. 100% of Middle East dictatorships that got sweet arms deals from SOS Clinton gave millions to her slush fund. Democrats seriously expect you to believe that's a total coincidence. The media, as usual, doesn't notice a conflict of interest.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Offtopic=1, Troll=3, Insightful=2, Informative=3, Total=9
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:32AM (#437074)

    At the very least, the story could have been framed as an on-going issue affecting several administrations, how the law affected those appointees, and maybe, just maybe, pointed questions to both Obama and Trump as to whether there were plans to change the law.

    Instead we get how the law could be beneficial for Trump appointees without any narrative of how Trump went back in time to get the law passed, otherwise it is outrage concerning a law he had nothing to do with.

    This is why approval for the media is lower than congress, why the clucking over "fake news" was met with eyerolls, and why liberals can not be trusted at all.

    I'd also like to see where the media covered tax reform at all during the past 8 years (and I mean REFORM, not this half-assed may the rich pay a few percentage point more or less than the favored goon), which could have nipped this in bud in the first place.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday December 05 2016, @06:48AM

      by Whoever (4524) on Monday December 05 2016, @06:48AM (#437081) Journal

      It's more beneficial to Trump's appointees because they are, in general, much wealthier than any prior administration.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:56AM (#437085)

        So this isn't about any actual corruption, but a class issue, and heaven forbid that there are some extremely wealthy people out there (unless you are Musk, Clinton, or Soros).

        Given how many millionaires were appointed under Obama, you sure you want to make this a class issue? You know how the term limousine liberal came about?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @11:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @11:37AM (#437124)

          and heaven forbid that there are some extremely wealthy people out there

          The problem is that with much money, there comes much power. And too much power in too few hands is always problematic, especially if it is essentially uncontrolled.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @12:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @12:27PM (#437129)

            If you wanted to discuss too much money being in the hands of too few, we could start with a discussion of the Federal Reserve, and especially the relationship to war financing and parallels to how liberals reaction to Trump closely mirrors another candidate:

            http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html [nakedcapitalism.com]

            If you want to discuss too much power being in too few hands, explain to me again the outrage over the electoral college, the snubbing of states rights, or reducing the scope of the federal government?

            I don't think the issue is the concentration of power, as these other aspects don't seem to get much discussion, but more a question of who welds that power.

            And now it is the other side.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @01:32PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @01:32PM (#437140)

              If you wanted to discuss too much money being in the hands of too few, we could start with a discussion of the Federal Reserve,

              Sure we could. And who do you think controls the Federal Reserve? The poor people?

        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday December 05 2016, @12:41PM

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday December 05 2016, @12:41PM (#437133) Journal

          OK, firstly, wealth and class are two different things. It is entirely possible (as Trump has conclusively demonstrated) to have one without the other.

          Secondly, yeah, there is a class issue here. Be honest AC, if the US had just elected a latino woman, and she was busy filling the top governmental positions with other latino women with very similar views/life stories to her own, you'd be the first one jumping up and down shouting "how can a group of exclusively latino women represent all the different and diverse peoples of the US?" Same if you were staring at a cabinet chock-full of black transgendered dwarfs or one-legged pot-smoking californian gays. Do you really expect a crowd of people all from one very narrow and isolated demographic group who've never had to so much as wipe their own arses understand the needs and problems of the average working or struggling american?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @12:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @12:50PM (#437134)

            Sorry to burst your bubble, bub, but ain't none of these people resemble me. I'd be more concern with qualifications, with the understanding that there is a great deal leeway given to cabinet appointments.

            But nice of you to throw some identity politics into the mix.

            Moving on...

            • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday December 05 2016, @01:52PM

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday December 05 2016, @01:52PM (#437144) Journal

              > I'd be more concern with qualifications,
              Ha ha, please do so. I look forward to reading about how highly well qualified your new cabinet is.

              > identity politics

              Look, I'm really glad you all you independent-thinking alt-righters all abruptly stopped using the meaningless term "SJW" at exactly the same moment, but did you really have to immediately and simultaneously adopt this idiotic phrase instead? I mean I don't want to think of you all as some kind of glassy-eyed, borg-like, brainwashed collective all parroting the same stock phrases over and over, I really don't, but this kind of thing is not helping.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 05 2016, @02:40PM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday December 05 2016, @02:40PM (#437156) Journal

                Look, I'm really glad you all you independent-thinking alt-righters all abruptly stopped using the meaningless term "SJW" at exactly the same moment, but did you really have to immediately and simultaneously adopt this idiotic phrase instead? I mean I don't want to think of you all as some kind of glassy-eyed, borg-like, brainwashed collective all parroting the same stock phrases over and over, I really don't, but this kind of thing is not helping.

                They should do as you recommend, but people who identify as "Liberal" ought to do likewise. I live in the People's Republic of Park Slope, Brooklyn, and every neighbor, every parent at my kid's school, half my family, and many others are absolutely convinced the Klan has taken over the country. There's no question in their minds. My best friend, who's an observant Orthodox Jew, has started talking about emigrating to Israel to escape the coming calamity. It is textbook hysteria, fueled by an agenda-driven media.

                So can we all stop using these carefully crafted caricatures of each other?

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:40PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:40PM (#437341)

                  They should do as you recommend, but people who identify as "Liberal" ought to do likewise. I live in the People's Republic of Park Slope, Brooklyn, and every neighbor, every parent at my kid's school, half my family, and many others are absolutely convinced the Klan has taken over the country. There's no question in their minds. My best friend, who's an observant Orthodox Jew, has started talking about emigrating to Israel to escape the coming calamity. It is textbook hysteria, fueled by an agenda-driven media.

                  Just this past summer I renewed my passport because it was about to expire this coming April. I knew that regardless of who won the election I didn't want to be watching the antics unfold without a valid passport. While I am not yet planning on leaving the country, I am nervously eyeing the exits. I like to keep my options open you see, just in case. I don't consider that "hysteria". I consider it prudent. I am not doing these things because of "an agenda-driven media"; I'm doing them because I am taking the President-Elect and the team he has surrounded himself with at their word that they intend to follow through with what they said they were going to do. And, no, I'm not a liberal.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:38PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @07:38PM (#437336)

                Yes, because Latino women, black transgendered dwarfs, or one-legged pot-smoking Californian gays tells me anything at all about the politics of said people.

                Except that you think they belong to a particular political class, hence identity politics.

                Shocker!- there are black conservatives.

                • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday December 05 2016, @11:14PM

                  by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday December 05 2016, @11:14PM (#437454) Journal

                  Which is bullshit. Remind me, which side of the house is it that always points to their multi-ethnic communities when someone dares to suggest that what works in Scandinavia might work in America? "But but but we have so many black people here..."
                  Is it the left and the "identity politicians" complaining about a "gay agenda"? Labelling Mexicans rapists? Bitching about welfare and positive discrimination?

                  I know perfectly well that you can't define a person's politics by their skin colour or limb-count thanks very much, my post was to point out the hypocrisy of a thin-skinned alt-right that is all too happy to stereotype and compartmentalise "other" groups when they need someone to blame, but then flip around and try to claim the colour-blind moral high ground when they get called out on it. That's what pisses me off most about this "SJW" bogeyman - it's denial, projection and blame-shifting of the highest order.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @02:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @02:45PM (#437158)

        No you numb-skull, it "could" be more beneficial to his administration. But unless you have a fool-proof magic 8-ball to see the future you don't know shit now, do you? Don't talk about things that have not happened like they are history, that didn't exactly work out for one presidential candidate and her circus now did it?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:07PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @04:07PM (#437207)

          If you think his cabinet will voluntarily chose not to indulge in this loophole you are a damn fool.

          The only way they might possibly be convinced to do the right thing is if this information is widely publicized.

    • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday December 05 2016, @04:35PM

      by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Monday December 05 2016, @04:35PM (#437225) Journal

      without any narrative of how Trump went back in time to get the law passed

      Well, we already know that he's in possession of the Grays Sports Almanac from last year. I'm certain Temporal Investigations will uncover the evidence you need in due time, of which they have plenty. They're just busy trying to sort out the JJVerse at the moment, so it would be nice perhaps if there were an investigative journalist who's also a Journeyman [wikipedia.org].

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @06:55AM (#437084)

    Clinton lost, forget Clinton, Clinton doesnt matter.

    Whats important is what Trump does.

    This is about Trump and his failure to drain the swamp.

    Stop deflecting.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @08:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @08:05AM (#437095)

      He's not president yet.

      What the hell swamp could he drain?

      His so-called cabinet isn't even a cabinet yet.

      He's abiding by the rules. Wait, no, that can't be right ...

      HOLD THE PRESSES! TRUMP ABIDES BY RULES! CORRUPTION! REPUBLICAN PLOT UNMASKED!!!

      Stop hyperventilating. You're sounding as idiotically paranoid as those frothing alt-right trolls who think that everything is controlled by jewish freemason rosicrucians in the Bilderberg group.