I don't know what tax deduction he really got. Seen his tax return? And so what if he did get a big one. Isn't that a sign he made a great deal on the land in the first place? Also, the golf course would have been built if not for the dog owners in town. They got a nice dog park out of it.
I just watched the video from the Rachel Maddow show, a 10-minute segment. Without cable, I haven't watched her for years. She keeps repeating that the "park" (it's more like a dump, overgrown by bushes and high weeds you can't walk through) isn't maintained by the State. She shows the green freeway signs with the name "Donald J. Trump Park" plastered all over them. But she doesn't get it; she should take it to the next step: Those big green freeway signs, noticed by millions of drivers over the last 9 years, are free political (and TV show) advertising for Trump erected by Republican Gov. Pataki. Since the fake "park" is a dump no one would ever visit, the signs aren't there to direct visitors to a park. They exist only for the purpose of political advertising. Come on Rachel, make your point better. You need me to edit your copy. At the end, she weakly makes the other point, about Trump getting a deduction of all that he paid for the land, thus getting credit for a "donation" that cost him nothing.
So don't trust the story because you don't know the size of the deduction? But you believe there is a park, right? Show me where I had a problem with the deduction. Actually I said he would be dumb not to have taken one. You're the one with the trust issues. I play golf so golf courses are a dog park for me.
I don't trust newsmax as a source. I bet Trump would have made more than $100M from the course if it had been built.
If the government fucked him out of the use of and profit by his land, they should pay for it. Shouldn't you be out raking leaves in a short sleeved shirt?
Well, I drove to Fred Meyer and back since my last post. Does that count? The overnight snow melted so I grabbed my chance. The leaves are long gone. Anyway, So you say that President Trump shouldn't enforce the law. He should allow property owners to dump their dumps onto the state governments and deduct the market value on their Federal returns, even though the law says the maximum is acquisition value. Does this apply to all laws? This will be an interesting presidential term.
Yep. If the government won't allow him to build his golf course, he should get fair value for it. The state has effectively confiscated it.
So if I buy the house next door to yours and convert the property into a giant pond full of pig shit, that's ok with you? After all, as a property owner, I've got rights. barfo
This tread is down right bazaar. Westchester county is pretty dam neat. It is hard to imagine city people so citified they can't not appreciate the Westchester countryside. The assessments of what ever by sweet cheeks Rachel Maddow always seems bazaar to me. Ha! Reminds me a time I was in a school in Poughkeepsie NY, I wanted to visit Hyde Park, so I drove up there, not far away. I took along this classmate from Brooklyn. The guy couldn't get over being out in the boondocks. The motormouth bugger was rather entertaining though, but I am sure he wondered what lived on the West side of the river.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/trump-state-park-to-close-trump-displeased/?_r=0 Trump would get nowhere with the IRS by using your defense that the government "wouldn't let him build it." Apparently you think that whether to illegally deduct current market value instead of historical cost should be the taxpayer's decision. Do you think that President Trump will allow such anarchy?
The federal government doesn't zone the property, does it? So some progressive idiots in Kansas aren't fucking with people minding their own business in Oregon.
The government doesn't let you declare some value and write it off. You have to justify the value, and he must have.
If donald didn't open his mouth about mooslums and rapist mexicans, he'd probably be a decent candidate.
