• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How Donald Made a Fortune by Dumping His Debt on Other People

Tom Sawyer said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Interesting how they didn't file paperwork to be a charity. Makes you wonder if they even are? Anyone check to see if the Trump Foundation is incorporated?
Click to expand...

Well, that would get him off the hook in the Florida thing where he used his charity to pay off business fines. If it's not a charity and simply another branch of the Trump organization, then that's not really a problem. When people make charitable donations to it, is there any language which specifies that those donations will be used for charitable purposes or is the language ambiguous and the charitable uses of the donations are just kind of assumed?
Click to expand...

Tom Sawyer is the zen master of snark, but this one is so close to the line that it could be a legitimate question.

If they haven't properly set up the foundation as a charitable organization, it can't accept charitable donations....
 
It the weirdoes manage to get the Great Crook elected, what do they plan to do when he sells out the Country? There's real money in that!
 
jonatha said:
If they haven't properly set up the foundation as a charitable organization, it can't accept charitable donations....
Click to expand...
But if someone on the board of directors is named "Charity..."
That could make the company a Charity organization...

maybe SHE could accept Charity donations?
 
Trump didn't earn his fortune to begin with, he was born into wealth. Luck of having been born to the "right" (read rich) parents.
 
Trump Foundation - A private foundation, which typically means they make their own donations, but Trump hasn't donated to his own foundation since '08.
 
jonatha said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, that would get him off the hook in the Florida thing where he used his charity to pay off business fines. If it's not a charity and simply another branch of the Trump organization, then that's not really a problem. When people make charitable donations to it, is there any language which specifies that those donations will be used for charitable purposes or is the language ambiguous and the charitable uses of the donations are just kind of assumed?
Click to expand...

Tom Sawyer is the zen master of snark, but this one is so close to the line that it could be a legitimate question.

If they haven't properly set up the foundation as a charitable organization, it can't accept charitable donations....
Click to expand...

Which gets to the heart of my question. When they solicited donations for the Trump Foundation, what was the language used? Did they actually specify that this was a charity and the donations were going to be used as such or was the language more ambiguously worded and donors thought they were making charitable donations but nothing coming from the Trump Foundation actually said that?

Additionally, if they weren't registered as a charity, how did donors get tax receipts for their donations? Trump hasn't given a dime of his own money to the Foundation in almost a decade, so somebody was writing cheques.
 
Elixir said:
Tom Sawyer said:
how did donors get tax receipts for their donations?
Click to expand...

Great question. Odd that someone can't simply ask them and get a straight answer.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump’s charitable foundation — which has been sustained for years by donors outside the Trump family — has never obtained the certification that New York requires before charities can solicit money from the public, according to the state attorney general’s office.

Under the laws in New York, where the Donald J. Trump Foundation is based, any charity that solicits more than $25,000 a year from the public must obtain a special kind of registration beforehand. Charities as large as Trump’s must also submit to a rigorous annual audit that asks — among other things — whether the charity spent any money for the personal benefit of its officers.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ac6a68-8658-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html bolding mine

It sounds like he violated New York state registration and reporting laws, but the Trump Foundation is listed on the IRS database as a private "organization eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions (Pub. 78 data)"
 
Knowing Trump, this foundation was likely set up to benefit the Trumps.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Knowing Trump, this foundation was likely set up to benefit the Trumps.
Click to expand...

Of course it was :shrug:

I suspect it was initially set up to funnel his own money through as "tax deductible charitable contributions", but he discovered it worked so much better to use other people's money to pay off his own debts - just like he did in every other part of his life
 
Tom Sawyer said:
jonatha said:
Tom Sawyer is the zen master of snark, but this one is so close to the line that it could be a legitimate question.

If they haven't properly set up the foundation as a charitable organization, it can't accept charitable donations....
Click to expand...

Which gets to the heart of my question. When they solicited donations for the Trump Foundation, what was the language used? Did they actually specify that this was a charity and the donations were going to be used as such or was the language more ambiguously worded and donors thought they were making charitable donations but nothing coming from the Trump Foundation actually said that?

Additionally, if they weren't registered as a charity, how did donors get tax receipts for their donations? Trump hasn't given a dime of his own money to the Foundation in almost a decade, so somebody was writing cheques.
Click to expand...

The tax receipts would have come from the Foundation, which certainly thought itself a charity.

The fact that Trump used the money in ways that the charity shouldn't have (and possibly without the knowledge of the charity staff - they really should check such things, but who's going to argue too much with the charity's founder) is cause for legal action even though the charity isn't properly registered in New York. (The money he misappropriated was spent in Florida, and may not necessarily have come from New York).
 
jonatha said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Which gets to the heart of my question. When they solicited donations for the Trump Foundation, what was the language used? Did they actually specify that this was a charity and the donations were going to be used as such or was the language more ambiguously worded and donors thought they were making charitable donations but nothing coming from the Trump Foundation actually said that?

Additionally, if they weren't registered as a charity, how did donors get tax receipts for their donations? Trump hasn't given a dime of his own money to the Foundation in almost a decade, so somebody was writing cheques.
Click to expand...

The tax receipts would have come from the Foundation, which certainly thought itself a charity.

The fact that Trump used the money in ways that the charity shouldn't have (and possibly without the knowledge of the charity staff - they really should check such things, but who's going to argue too much with the charity's founder) is cause for legal action even though the charity isn't properly registered in New York. (The money he misappropriated was spent in Florida, and may not necessarily have come from New York).
Click to expand...

See, that's exactly what I was talking about in terms of assumptions. You're operating off of the premise that the Trump Foundation has a staff - as in there is a single person who is paid to work for it. That sort of false assumption leads to false conclusions about what it does or does not do. When dealing with the Trumps, one cannot just "assume" things that "logic" or "reason" would have apply in a normal circumstance.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
jonatha said:
Tom Sawyer is the zen master of snark, but this one is so close to the line that it could be a legitimate question.

If they haven't properly set up the foundation as a charitable organization, it can't accept charitable donations....
Click to expand...

Which gets to the heart of my question. When they solicited donations for the Trump Foundation, what was the language used? Did they actually specify that this was a charity and the donations were going to be used as such or was the language more ambiguously worded and donors thought they were making charitable donations but nothing coming from the Trump Foundation actually said that?

Additionally, if they weren't registered as a charity, how did donors get tax receipts for their donations? Trump hasn't given a dime of his own money to the Foundation in almost a decade, so somebody was writing cheques.
Click to expand...

They were registered as a charity (a private foundation) but not registered to be able to solicit donations totalling more than $25,000/year in the state of NY.
 
Bomb#20 said:
Which raises the question, does this thread have a point? Are people here seriously trying to prove Trump is a bad bad man? Are there any TFT members who weren't already aware that Trump is a bad bad man? Seems to me the evidence from the other threads heavily favors the hypothesis that the ostensible targets of such education attempts are voting against Clinton far more than they're voting for Trump. So what's the point of belaboring "Donald's Dirty Dealings"?
Click to expand...

Word of mouth is important. Things I learn here get spread to other conversations, both on-line and in real life. Information flow is always Good Thing (TM), even if it just confirms what is already suspected.
 
Bomb#20 said:
barbos said:
It's a clear case of fraud and insider trading. But then Donald was a friend of the President who happened to be Hillary's husband :)
Click to expand...
Which raises the question, does this thread have a point? Are people here seriously trying to prove Trump is a bad bad man? Are there any TFT members who weren't already aware that Trump is a bad bad man? Seems to me the evidence from the other threads heavily favors the hypothesis that the ostensible targets of such education attempts are voting against Clinton far more than they're voting for Trump. So what's the point of belaboring "Donald's Dirty Dealings"?
Click to expand...
This isn't merely dirty dealings. It was something I would have thought would have landed him in jail for years and am shocked that he didn't land in prison for defrauding so many people in this single instance.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Bomb#20 said:
Which raises the question, does this thread have a point? Are people here seriously trying to prove Trump is a bad bad man? Are there any TFT members who weren't already aware that Trump is a bad bad man? Seems to me the evidence from the other threads heavily favors the hypothesis that the ostensible targets of such education attempts are voting against Clinton far more than they're voting for Trump. So what's the point of belaboring "Donald's Dirty Dealings"?
Click to expand...
This isn't merely dirty dealings. It was something I would have thought would have landed him in jail for years and am shocked that he didn't land in prison for defrauding so many people in this single instance.
Click to expand...
I am shocked you are shocked about that. I mean after all these scandals and financial meltdowns you are still shocked that people with money and politically connected get away with crime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom