Capital losses can help cut your tax bill


#1

Plummeting stock prices can cast a dark cloud over anyone’s finances. However, at tax time, these capital losses can produce a ray of write-off sunshine.
When you sell any pharmaceutical flops or banking blunders, you can use them to offset gains from more successful ventures – or even a portion of your everyday income.
A capital loss is the result of selling an investment at less than the purchase price or adjusted basis. Any expenses from the sale are deducted from the proceeds and added to the loss.
The key point is that capital losses are losses only after you sell them. A stock sitting in your portfolio with a deflated price may cause you distress, but it doesn’t do you any tax good until you dump it. (The sale of personal-use property, such as a car, doesn’t get this favored tax treatment. Such losses can’t be deducted as capital losses.)

Read more: Capital Losses Can Help Cut Your Tax Bill | Bankrate.com

Here folks is those Trump losses the left is bellyaching about and deducting them is perfectly legal.


#2

YEP!


#3

I’m really not sure what the ruckus is all about. I never doubted for a second what Trump did was legal. I’m certain when he did it, it was a great idea given his massive, massive loss.

However, it kinda reminds me of Hillary and her emails. Regardless of whether or not it was illegal (something I’m really not interested in debating), she should have known she’d be tried in the court of public opinion and for that reason alone it was incredibly stupid. For Trump, he should have known that when he decided to run for President these kinds of things would catch up to him and he’d also get tried in the court of public opinion.

For my part, if he didn’t break the law, I’d say he was being a shrewd business man, but that doesn’t make me think of him any better (or any worse) than it did before I found out about his taxes.

However, there is the rather important issue that no one seems to have focused on. He ran a business('s?) that lost almost $1 billion dollars? That does not inspire me with confidence when it comes to his business acumen, something he seems to claim is an area of expertise.


#4

What do you think of Amazon.com as a company? Did you know that it has very little net income over the last 20 years.

General Electric Corporation has paid little on no Federal income taxes for years. Yet it is a highly regarded company.


#5

The CEO’s of those companies aren’t running for President.

As far as Amazon. I’ve heard that floated around a few times, but it’s very misleading. Little to no “net income” simply means Amazon is spending that income back into their lines of business. Look at Capex growth and operating cash flow and I’ll show you a highly successful company.


#6

Not by people who’ve bought their appliances.


#7

What idiot has lost billions of dollars.


#8

oh…this idiot.

Ooooops…

State Dept. misplaced $6B under Hillary Clinton: IG report

The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a “significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions,” according to the report.

The alert, originally sent on March 20 and just released this week, warns that the missing contracting funds “could expose the department to substantial financial losses.”

The report centered on State Department contracts worth “more than $6 billion in which contract files were incomplete or could not be located at all,” according to the alert.

State Dept. misplaced $6B under Hillary Clinton: IG report - Washington Times


#9

That’s interesting. I had them years ago and had few problems. I once had a Jenn Air microwave that wasn’t worth a darn. We replaced it and gave it away.


#10

Lost it? No. Cannot or does not want to account for it? That’s my guess.

Either way, it’s false equivalence. Trump runs a private corporation that brings in $326 million with 22,000 employees that lost (as in made bad decisions) $900+ million, and Hillary was head of the Dept of State, a government organization with a $65 billion dollar budget and 60,000 employees that cannot account for $6 billion (over how many years?). Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all about accountability, I’m just making sure we really put these things in perspective. Trump lost almost $1 billion in a year. The State department cannot account for $6 billion on paper…


#11

that means that 6 billion landed in peoples’ accounts who are not entitled to it. Like the Clintons, like her associates…and then the muslim brotherhood, her friends, Chelsea and her hubby.


#12

Forgive me, Caroline, I’m sure you’re an honest and trustworthy person, so when I ask for evidence, I hope you don’t think I’m questioning your integrity.

Evidence please?


#13

past Clinton behavior. I think it is highly likely. And even if they didn’t take it for themselves…that is our money. Shouldn’t they have to account for this slovenliness?


#14

Forgive me if I’m not convinced based purely on your speculative musings. However, I agree that the State department should be accountable for its finances.

However, I think it’s just as likely that most of not all of that spending were spent credibly, but I’m also open to the idea that it’s possible that some of that money was directed to covert operations the government doesn’t with to account for. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just speculating on possible explanations.

What I don’t think is that any of that money was directed to directly benefit the Clinton’s (aAt the secretary’s direction). Could that money have ended up directly or indirectly in the hands of those we call our enemies, like the Muslim Brotherhood? I’m not nieve. Wouldn’t be the first time. I wouldn’t be shocked to find out something like that is true (Iran-Contra comes to mind), but I’d like to think that if that was the case, like Iran-Contra, that there might be a case to be made, right or wrong, that US interests were being pursued.


#15

I respect your opinion even if I find it naïve and I don’t mean that to be insulting to you. The STate department has been infiltrated by leftists and they do not pursue the interests of the United states. I will hold to my opinion based on the reality of what is going on in this country in our government and the type of people infesting congress and the senate.

Time will tell. The truth will come out eventually. I expect to be vindicated. Meanwhile…here’s something to ponder.

and this:

EXTORTION! John Kerry’s State Dept Funneling MILLIONS Of Tax Payer’s Money To Daughter’s Nonprofit! | John Hawkins’ Right Wing News


#16

Thanks for the civil reply. If your right, heads should roll, and I’ll be the first one to admit you were right. Let’s hope that time will tell.


#17

The only way that “heads roll” at the State Department or any other government agency is that they roll from one part of the government to another. There used to be two silly women who the spokespersons for the State Department. My wife and I called them “Blondie and the Red Head.” They made stupid statements; they lied; and they generally made the State Department look bad.

A few months ago, both of them disappeared, and a more authoritative looking man and an older women have taken their places. Recently I found out that at least one them, the red head, I think, now have a job at the White House.

A month or so ago a story leaked that over 99% of Federal Government employees had received superior job ratings. If you have ever worked in a large corporation, you know that is impossible. There are low and average performers in every organization. The Federal Government is not perfect in their hiring. But they are really playing with other people’s money, they are lax in the ways they spend it.


#18

> However, there is the rather important issue that no one seems to have focused on. He ran a business('s?) that lost almost $1 billion dollars? That does not inspire me with confidence when it comes to his business acumen, something he seems to claim is an area of expertise.

One of the problems with accounting is that it takes snap shots at defined periods of time. For public reporting that is usually a year, although quarterly results are also scrutinized. Sometimes when you are in a start-up situation or when you are in a cyclical industry, like real estate development, you are going to have boom and bust years.

I give the tax code credit for recognizing that taxable income should not be measured strictly on a year to year basis. You might have bad years when you are getting started with a new line or project or a whole business. Later, when the business is up and running, those prior losses should be considered in reviewing the overall success of the project. Accounting even makes allowances for that with “start up costs” which are amortized over the life of the project or a period of years. This is reflected in the tax code by the loss carryover provisions.

It is tough to be successful in real estate development. You can gather statistics which point to whether or not a project will be successful, but it’s always risky. When you get it right, you can make a lot of money. When you get it wrong, the results can be devastating.

Just look at the millions of people who bought homes who ended up owing more on their mortgage than the property is worth. Look at the many banks that have gone under because of bad real estate loans.

I grew up in Delaware when the DuPont family was once the family of kings. They set up a bank, The Wilmington Trust Company, which was the primer bank in the state. My father had stock it. So did my grandmother. It was considered to be the bluest of blue chip banking investments in Delaware.

About five years ago it went under. Why? Bad real estate loans sank it during “the great recession.” This is only one example. There are many.

The fact that Trump lost 1 billion dollars in 1995 is of interest. But the real question is, what did he do after that? It seems like he’s done quite well and has survived the “great recession” of 2008.

Politicians earn salaries, and in Hillary Clinton’s case, bribes on top of that. So long as you don’t get caught taking bribes or are allowed to get away with it, which has happened in Hillary’s case, you look like a financial champ. But when you are betting you money on a business project, some work out; others don’t.

Ford made the Edsel but they also made the Mustang. That’s the way business works.


#19

I agree. I think there are way too many people drawing silly conclusions based on very little evidence and even less real knowledge. I didn’t mean to suggest that I think Trump has been a failure, just that I was surprised how few people are even looking at his losses in order to make the kind of determination.


#20

No debate needed. The Director of the FBI made it clear that if anyone else had done what she had they would be thrown in jail for breaking the law.