Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • 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 LOSSESOR 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 THINGWE 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.

BERNIE SANDERS HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE INTENDS TO CLOSE THE TAX

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it