- Position‹2 of 2
- Corruption allegations against Donald Trump
Donald Trump has not released his tax returns, contrary to presidential tradition. It is reported that Trump paid only $750 in federal taxes in 2016 and 2017, far less than he paid in other nations where his businesses operate.
The argument
Donald Trump paid only $750 in federal taxes in 2016 and 2017, the year he ran for president and his first year in office. While in office, Barack Obama and George W. Bush often paid over $100,000 each year in taxes. In contrast, between 2013 and 2015, Trump paid nearly $200,000 in taxes to China, where he held a bank account. Trump has also paid more than $750 in taxes to other countries where he has business operations, such as Panama, India and the Philippines. There have also been suggestions that Trump has paid gifts disguised as consultancy fees to his daughter Ivanka in order to avoid taxes. In the last 20 years, Trump has paid $400 million less in federal income taxes than the average for individuals of his wealth. Trump has refused to publish his tax returns, contrary to presidential practice - Joe Biden has released his tax returns for the last 22 years. A wealthy businessman avoiding tax is one thing, but a wealthy businessman who is also president avoiding tax is another. The president acting so clearly acting against the spirit of government and the interests of the American is highly problematic.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Trump has defended his tax history, arguing that the allegations are ‘fake news’ and evidence of a “witch hunt”. He has also argued he is guilty of no wrongdoing and has paid millions of dollars to the Inland Revenue Service, and has received tax cuts like everyone else. His taxes are under audit and he will release them once the audit is complete.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The figures come from reporting on tax records rather than released returns, and the premise does not separate avoidance from a low bill produced lawfully by carried-forward losses and depreciation — which is the distinction on which a charge of corruption turns. Comparing a businessman's return with two salaried predecessors' is not like for like, and tax paid abroad is generally creditable rather than evidence of favouring another jurisdiction. [Rejecting P2] Refusing to publish returns breaks a norm rather than a law, and the consultancy-fee claim is introduced as a "suggestion" — the premise marks it as unconfirmed itself. The conclusion also runs two charges together: lawful minimisation of tax and corruption in office are different things, and the argument's own closing line concedes as much in saying a businessman avoiding tax "is one thing", without then establishing what makes the second thing corrupt beyond the office being held.