BERNIE SANDERS HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE INTENDS TO CLOSE THE TAX
LOOPHOLES THAT HAVE ALLOWED DONALD TRUMP AND OTHER PEOPLE
LIKE HIM TO EVADE NUMEROUS TAXES.
AND DONALD TRUMP'S CASE,
18 YEARS OF FEDERAL TAX AND BECAUSE OF WHAT IS LEGALLY
ALLOWED FOR HIM TO DO BUT SHOULD NOT ACTUALLY EXIST WHEN IT COMES
TO PAYING TAXES WHEN YOU ARE IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS.
WE
ARE GOING TO BREAK DOWN SPECIFICALLY WHAT HE INTENDS TO
CHANGE IN THE TAX CODE BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING
TO HAPPEN ONCE THE 2017 ADDITION OF CONGRESS ACTUALLY STARTS AND
HE ANNOUNCED THIS WITH THIS STATEMENT SAYING "SPECIAL TAX
BREAKS AND LOOPHOLES IN A CORRUPT TAX CODE ENABLE
BILLIONAIRES AND POWERFUL CORPORATIONS TO AVOID PAYING
THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES WHILE STICKING THE BURDEN ON THE
MIDDLE CLASS.
IT'S TIME TO CREATE A TAXES IN WHICH IS FAIR
AND WHICH ASKS THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE
OF TAXES."
WHAT I LOVE IS THAT THE WAY THINGS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY SET UP, WE KNOW WE ARE ONLY GOING TO GET MORE OF THAT
DONALD TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT BECAUSE HIS TAX PLAN WOULD
BENEFIT EXACTLY PEOPLE LIKE DONALD TRUMP.
HERE ARE A COUPLE
OF THE THINGS THAT BERNIE SANDERS INTENDS TO CHANGE. 2 OF
THE 4.
THE FIRST IS GETTING RID OF AN EXEMPTION FOR REAL ESTATE
FOR AT RISK RULES.
THIS IS A BIT IN-DEPTH BUT BACK IN 1986
WHICH HAS CHANGED, OUR TAX PAYERS FIRM CLAIMING LOSSES FOR
INVESTMENT BEYOND THE MONEY THAT THEY ACTUALLY PUT IN HER WERE
DIRECTLY LIABLE FOR.
REAL ESTATE WAS EXEMPTED FROM THIS
WHICH MEANS THAT TRUMP AND PEOPLE LIKE HIM COULD CLAIM
LAWSONS EXCEEDING WHAT THEY ACTUALLY INVESTED.
THAT IS
WHAT'S MOST AMAZING.
WHEN YOU DO SOME OF THESE BIG REAL ESTATE DEALS.
YOU WILL PUT IN A TINY FRACTION OF THE TOTAL MONEY THAT A
PROJECT A MAN'S.
BANKS PUT IN THE VAST MAJORITY.
BUT IF THE PROJECT GOES UNDER, YOU GET THE CLAIM LAWSONS
ON ALL OF THAT MONEY EVEN IF THE MONEY THAT YOU ARE PERSONAL
LIABLE FOR WAS 1% OR .1% OF ALL OF THE MONEY.
THAT IS LEGAL TO DO EVEN THOUGH IT MAKES NO SENSE
WHATSOEVER TO ANY REGULAR PERSON ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THAT.
SOME OF THESE RULES DO MAKE SENSE.
IF YOU LOSE MONEY IN ONE
YEAR, YOU GET TO TRANSFER SOME OF THAT LOSS ON TO THE NEXT YEAR
BECAUSE YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO DIG YOURSELF OUT OF THAT HOLE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT A CAP ON THAT BUT
THAT IS A REASONABLE THING TO DO.
THERE IS ONE RULE HERE AND
MY FAMILY WORKS IN REAL ESTATE SO MAYBE I AM BIASED, BUT I
THINK IT MAKES SENSE.
YOU ARE BUYING A PROPERTY THAT IS OF
LESSER VALUE THAN THE ONE YOU ARE SELLING.
INSTEAD OF HAVING
TO PAY TAXES IMMEDIATELY AND THEN BY THE NEXT REAL
ESTATE WITH LESS MONEY BECAUSE YOU PAY TAXES ON IT, YOU CAN
JUST BUY THE OTHER REAL ESTATE AND NOT PAY TAXES IN THE MIDDLE.
YOU CAN ARGUE ABOUT THAT ONE.
BERNIE SANDERS A LOT OF TIMES THAT IS MANIPULATED WHERE THEY
ARE DOING THESE SWAPS NOT BECAUSE THEY GENERALLY GENUINELY
WANT THE PROPERTY OR THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER
BUT SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID TAXES.
THEY CAN PROBABLY BE USED HONESTLY AND DISHONESTLY
DEPENDING ON THE PERSON.
THERE SO MANY LOOPHOLES THAT NO ONE CAN DEFEND.
INCLUDING
THE ONE WHERE, BY THE WAY REAL ESTATE IS NORMAL YOU PUT IN 20%
AND YOU KNOW THIS IF YOU A HOUSE, YOU PUT AN EXPERT IN AND
IN BIG REAL ESTATE DEALS IT MIGHT BE LESS THAN 20% OR LESS
ANY OF THE PAID-IN FOR YOUR MORTGAGE, BUT YOU PUT IN SOME
PERCENTAGE AND A BANK PUTS IN THE REST AND THEN
THEY SET OUT
THE RIGGED SYSTEM, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING THAT
HAPPENS IN A CLOSED ROOM BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THE OPEN WHERE THEY SAY OKAY WE WILL
WRITE THE LAWS TO BENEFIT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GIVEN US
CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.
YOU CANNOT AFFORD THEM.
SINCE YOU CAN'T
GIVE BIG DONATIONS THAT GRABS ANYONE'S ATTENTION, THAT IS WHY
YOU HAVE NO LOOPHOLES.
THAT IS WAY HAD TO PAY HER TAXES AND IF
YOU DON'T YOU CAN GO TO JAIL.
THESE GUYS THINK JAIL, NO.
LET'S JUST REWRITE THE LAW SO WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY THEM IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
WE JUST TAKE WHAT WAS ILLEGAL PREVIOUSLY AND MAKE
IT LEGAL.
BY THE WAY, WE'RE NOT BEING UNREASONABLE HERE.
IN MY
OPINION THERE ARE PLENTY OF TAX LAWS THAT MAKES SENSE AND WHERE
YOU SAY I LOST MONEY AND SO THIS HERE WHEN I MAKE MONEY I
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU WIN MONEY GAMBLING
EARLIER IN THE YEAR YOU LOST EVEN MORE MONEY.
YOU DON'T HAVE
TO PAY MONEY ON THE MONEY THAT YOU WANT AT THE END WHEN HE LOST
SO MUCH MORE EARLIER IN THE YEAR.
THAT WILL MAKE SENSE TO
ME, ESPECIALLY ME THAT.
YOU SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL IN THE FUTURE.
BUT I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT.
THERE SOME LAWS THAT ARE CLEARLY UNFAIR.
THEY ARE MEANT TO BE.
I HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.
YOU TALK ALL THE TIME ABOUT THE INCENTIVES THAT WE SET UP.
THERE IS A REFERENCE TO ONE OF THE ARTICLES I WAS READING
TO A PARTICULAR DEAL THAT TRUMP HAD DONE WHERE HE HAD TO PUT IN
$300,000 ON A PROJECT THAT BANKS PUT IN MORE THAN $30 MILLION ON.
IN THE END, THE PROJECT GOES DOWN AND SO HE GETS TO CLAIM
$30 MILLION OF LOSSES.
THERE WAS NO WAY THAT HE WAS GOING TO MAKE $30
MILLION OR $15 MILLION ON THAT PROJECT IF IT SUCCEEDED I
ENDED UP BEING FAR MORE VALUABLE TO HIM THAT THE PROJECT
FAILED AND WHEN YOU SET UP THE INCENTIVES WERE REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPERS WOULD RATHER THAT THEIR PROJECT GOES UNDER THAN
SUCCEED WILDLY, YOU MIGHT HAVE A SYSTEM THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE
IN THE LONG RUN AND THAT IS WHAT WE SAW MANY TIMES OVER.
THAT WAS JUST ONE OF THESE DEALS THAT HE WAS ABLE TO EVADE
18 YEARS OF FEDERAL TAXES BASED ON.
LET'S DO THE MATH ON THIS REAL QUICK.
GIVES YOU A GOOD
SENSE OF WHY THEY WANT THESE THINGS.
YOU PUT IN $300,000.
IF
THINGS GO GREAT, MAYBE YOU MAKE $3 MILLION, BUT IF YOU LOSE THAT
INVESTMENT COMPLETELY AND YOU GET THE CALL IT A $30 MILLION
LOSS, LET'S SAY YOUR TAXES ARE IN THE BALLPARK OF 33%.
IF YOU
ARE IN TERMS SUPPOSE IT BRACKET THERE ACTUALLY MUCH HIGHER THAN
THAT BUT TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, THAT MEANS YOU GET TO CLAIM $10
MILLION IN LOSSES � OR SAVE $10 MILLION BECAUSE YOU ARE CLAIMING
30 MILLION IN LOSSES.
THAT IS $10 MILLION YOU SAVED IN TAXES
FOR A $300,000 INVESTMENT.
IF IT HAD GONE WELL, YOU MAKE 3
MILLION, IF IT GOES POORLY, YOU MAKE 10 MILLION.
THAT IS THE
RIGGED SYSTEM.
THAT IS A SYSTEM WHERE THE RICH GIVE CAMPAIGN
DONATIONS TO THE POLITICIANS AND WROTE LAWS WHERE THEY CAN'T LOSE
AND YOU CAN'T WHEN.
THE IDEA THAT DONALD TRUMP WOULD CHANGE
THE SYSTEM IS HILARIOUS.
HE IS THE CORRUPTER.
HE IS THE ONE
WHO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
HE KNOWS HOW TO FIX IT.
HE DOESN'T EVEN SAY HE WILL FIX IT.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS?
NOT A SINGLE
PLAN.
NEVER TALKS ABOUT IT.
NEVER SAID HE WAS GOING TO DIE
HOW ARE WE GOING TO FIX THIS CHANCE TAX SYSTEM?
NO PLAN AND HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY HE WOULD.
KNOW HE WANTS TO MAKE IT WORSE.
YOU'RE PUTTING THE GUY IN CHARGE WHO CREATED THE PROBLEM
IN THE FIRST PLACE AND HE DOESN'T TELL YOU THAT HE IS
GOING TO FIX IT.
HE IS NO INTENTION OF DOING IT.
THAT IS
HOW YOU GOT EVERYTHING.
YOU KNOW IN NEW YORK CITY ALONE HE
GOT $885 MILLION IN TAX BREAKS THAT TAX SUBSIDIES.
IF I GAVE YOU $200 BILLION WHICH IS WHAT HIS DAD GAVE HIM
AND THEN I GAVE YOU $885 MILLION IN TAX BREAKS BECAUSE YOU PAID
OFF A COUPLE OF POLITICIANS, YOU WOULD HAVE A LOT OF MONEY
TO DOT AND FACT YOU HAVE A LOT MORE THAN DONALD TRUMP.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIS NEXT YEARS WHEN BERNIE
SANDERS PUTS THIS FORWARD LET'S SEE HOW MANY REPUBLICANS
AND ALSO HOW MANY DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY BACK IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HILLARY CLINTON COME ON FAVOR OF THIS
DIE SEEMS LIKE AN EASY WIN FOR HER TO COME OUT DURING ELECTION.
WAS ACTUALLY DO THAT?
WE'LL SEE.
THAT'S SUCH A GREAT POINT THAT WE KNOW BERNIE IS GOING TO
DO THE RIGHT THING� WE BACKED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THIS
IS A LAYUP.
WATCH.
THIS LAYUP WILL LOSE.
THE REPUBLICANS WHO
CLAIM THAT THEY ARE AGAINST CRONY CAPITALISM WILL IN UNISON
VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.
NO, IT INCREASES TAXES.
WHAT THEY
ARE SAYING IS IT RIGHTFULLY INCREASES TAXES THAT THEY SHOULD
BE PAYING ON OUR DONORS WHO SUPPORT OUR PARTY.
THEY WILL
NOT BACK THIS PROPOSAL FOR ONE KNOWING IT SCREWS YOU.
YOU'LL
HAVE TO PAY HIGHER TAXES TO MAKE UP FOR THE TAXES THAT THEY ARE
NOT PAYING.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL HUFF AND PUFF AND AT
LEAST HALF OF THEM WILL VOTE NO.
AND IT WON'T PASS.
WE COULD BE
WRONG.
LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
MAYBE HILLARY CLINTON IS A REAL
PROGRESSIVE AND AFTER SHE WENT SHE TAKES UP THE SCOOBY DOO
MASK AND GOES REAL LIBERAL.
WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS AND I'M
GOING TO ASSIST ON IT.
WE'LL SEE.
I WOULDN'T BET THE HOUSE
ON IT.