Trump's Tax Return: Who Is Mailbox-Man?

Rachel Maddow has deservedly taken a lot of heat since over-hyping the release of two summary pages from Donald Trump's 2005 tax return.  Some say the release actually benefited Trump by showing that he paid $38 million in taxes that year.  Because of this, some have even concluded that Trump himself, released the information.

What I find more interesting however, is why a relatively unknown economics/business writer by the name of David Cay Johnston would wind up with these copies that were supposedly and conveniently, slipped into his "mailbox".  Thus, the unknown delivery man can't be prosecuted for illegally obtaining and distributing Trump's tax return. Still, why Johnston; when there are so many other better-known media types, better able to make the contents of Trump's return known publicly?  Well, the answer to that question is that Johnston is essentially a Trump and rich people hater.

In 2016, Johnston published a book titled "The Making of Donald Trump".  A book reviewer at the Boston Globe said it was: "a chronicle of mobsters and mistresses, shady construction deals and financial shenanigans, monumental projects and miserable (and possibly illegal) business practices".   In fact, when Johnston first met Trump in 1988, he negatively referred to him as "P.T. Barnum"; the man most associated with the phrase: "There is a sucker is born every minute."  However, a better insight as to why Trump's return would be so relevant to Johnston comes from two other books he authored:

• "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With The Bill"
• "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich—and Cheat Everybody Else"

So, when you look at the numbers in that return, they perfectly fit the type of individual that Johnston portrays in those two books.  Trump actually made a quarter of a billion dollars in 2005, but only paid taxes on $153 million of it because of deductions that favored himself and his business. Deductions that, in Johnston's eyes, are only available to a very rich person.  That's the real story behind the release of Trump's tax return and why Johnston had access to it.  But, understand, those deductions were all legal.  Things that the political left constantly and falsely claims as being loopholes.

Johnston's "paper trail" of writings convinces me that, perhaps he had something to do with the illegal acquisition of those two-pages.  I have no proof of that, and conveniently, Johnston's claim that he found them in his mailbox lets him off the hook legally.  Still, something doesn't smell right about it.

References:

Trump DID pay tax: White House fury as Donald Trump's tax returns are leaked showing that President made $150million and paid $38million to the government in 2005: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4314620/Maddow-reveals-Trump-s-tax-returns-White-House-furious.html

Rachel Maddow’s Trump ‘bombshell’ completely backfired: http://nypost.com/2017/03/16/rachel-maddows-trump-bombshell-completely-backfired/

Trump: It's 'fake news' that a reporter just opened his mailbox and found my tax returns: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/15/trump-its-fake-news-that-a-reporter-just-opened-his-mailbox/21894402/

David Cay Johnston: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cay_Johnston

The Making of Donald Trump: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_Donald_Trump

A sucker is born every minute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute

Here's one curious thing about the Donald Trump tax leak: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/14/trump-may-have-leaked-his-own-tax-return-award-winning-journalist-says.html

Is it illegal for the media to publish Donald Trump’s leaked tax return? http://www.today.com/video/is-it-illegal-for-the-media-to-publish-donald-trump-s-leaked-tax-return-898310723900

Democrats Attack Romney's 2011 Tax Return

Within minutes of Romney's release of his 2011 tax return, Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, said this his about that return:

"confirms what we already knew - that people like Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than many middle-class families because of a set of complex loopholes and tax shelters only available to those at the top."

Of course the tone of that statement is intended to imply that the Romney's were getting away with murder when it comes to paying taxes.  But, what Ms. Cutter (and many liberals) don't seem to understand is that Romney does not have a salary.  Most all of his income comes from investments from which he receives dividends, capital gains, and interest income; and the tax rate for those types of income is much lower. The reason for the lower rate is that we want people like Romney to invest in America's stocks and bonds in order to grow the economy and support municipal building activity.  That's what investment income is all about.  At the same time, charitable giving gave the Romney's a lower rate.  Do we now want America's wealthy to stop giving money away the needy?

The fact is that the Romney's paid an effective 2011 tax rate of 13.9%.  According to the Tax Foundation's latest federal analysis from 2009, the lower 50% of all taxpayers with a positive tax burden* only pay an effective tax rate of 1.85%.  The average for all taxpayers is 11.06%; which is very near the 11.0% that the average middle-class family pays.   The average tax rate from the top 1% -- people like Romney -- is actually 24.01%.

This not paying "your fair share" class-warfare crap is really getting tiring.  People like Obama and Cutter want you and I to think that the rich aren't pulling this nation's wagon when, in fact, 50% of those at the bottom are riding in the wagon without hardly paying anything.  The top 1% of this country's taxpayers actually pay 36.7% of all taxes collected by the federal government while the 50% at the bottom only contribute 2.3%.  The top 25% of all taxpayers actually pay 87.3% of all taxes. How fair is that?

*Note: Some low income tax filers actually get more money back after taking credits than what they paid  due to something called Investment Tax Credit.  Therefore, these filers are considered to have a negative tax burden; and, in essence, this is another form of welfare.  But, this welfare is for people who are actually working and who do have some amount of income.

References:

Tax Foundation's Summary of Taxes Paid: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table1

Associated Press: "Democrats: Political slant marks Romney tax return": http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-political-slant-marks-romney-tax-return-070444703--election.html