| sundin13 said: Rhe source I posted earlier did say that Trump was making $8mil per yea, but it wasn't clear whether that was now or when the contract was first penned. Regardless, it sets up a ballpark for how much these deals are worth annually. And as I've stated, the financial disclosure form is far from all encompasing. Due to the fact that Donald Trump also operates his business, some things were left out of the report because all that was required to disclose were Trump's personal finances, not his business's finances. That means that money flowing through Trump Organization is handled differently than money flowing directly to Trump himself and it also means that some money is being unaccounted for. Not saying that is illegal, just that the form wasn't designed to be used for someone like Trump. As for the other stuff...I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Clinton Foundation is a charity any way you slice it. An IRS investigation doesn't make the Clinton Foundation not a charity (especially when the investigation is not concluded) and the Clinton Foundation donating money to another charity run by someone they know also doesn't say anything about whether or not they are a charity. Not sure what you are trying to prove. As for how likely it would be to break the low double digit barrier, I don't know and I really don't think it matters. We are still talking about values in the tens of millions per year for a single deal, and that is if the Trump business has absolutely no stake whatsoever in the properties which really depends on how the contracts are ironed out (according to the WSJ, Trump typically does get a management contract or a portion of future sales which wouldn't be counted in the "licensing" category of his finances). We lack the information to determine exactly how much Trump stands to make off of each of these deals, but we do know that the properties involved are typically worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. Licensing is a big part of the expansion of Trump's business and his business plan for the last few years. I don't see any sane way to deny that this creates a conflict of interest. EDIT: According to this ( http://www.newsday.com/news/world/donald-trump-s-company-fired-by-panama-city-development-1.10947710 ), Trump was expected to take in $75.4 million in licensing fees for one property back in 2007 but due to bankruptcy, he "only" got $32-55million instead and that is ignoring any addition stake contingent on the contract. We aren't talking pocket change here. |
As far as I'm concerned, Trump owns his organization so his licensing fees will get disclosed one way or another on his financial disclosure form ...
Wrong! Bill Clinton did not donate to another charity, he donated the money from the Clinton Foundation to a FOR-PROFIT COMPANY so I ask how can the Clinton Foundation be a charity if it does not adhere to STRICTLY benefiting for the PUBLIC according to IRS regulations ? What Bill Clinton did is a textbook example of EMBEZZLEMENT!
You can't buy his interests if he already owns the property or a part of it. You say "big" but I say exaggeration on your part since licensing fees are a miniscule portion of his revenue. His MAIN profit/revenue driver is REAL ESTATE, not licensing!
