If Bill Gates declared a billion dollars in losses, I'd question whether or not he was a genius at business. Trump's primary argument is that his skill at business is why he should be President.
Don't know that there's anything more to add on this. Already said declaring him a genius is silly.
Has everyone's benefit from the tax code (which seems to imply tax breaks are a privilege to be granted rather than taxes being a burden to justify) equaled over $100 million? Or more, depending on what rate the billion or so of income would be taxed at?
No. Has everyone had a potential burden of over $100 million in taxes to pay? Willing to bet, no matter what the actual number is, that Trump's paid more taxes than everyone discussing it here. Congress intentionally set different rates for different types of income.
If you are part of the over 40% of the population that pays no federal tax, and in fact may receive a refund greater than your withholdings did you not expressly benefit from the tax code? Are negative tax liabilities not a real benefit?
If you are middle class and can afford to own a home because of the tax break is that not a benefit?
The tax code is riddled with special interests provisions, and there are in fact an awful lot of them that benefit people at the bottom end of the scale and specifically phase out when you make more money.
Does everyone's prescription for reforming the tax code include closing loopholes they personally benefit from (and that almost everyone else is denied)?
What do you think everyone else is denied? As far as I'm aware, capital losses are usable by anyone, and most small business owners have benefitted from them at one time or another. It's small compensation for taking a risk in creating a business that fails or has a big set back.
Not sure which provisions you object to. Lowering corporate taxes, and killing the penalty for returning capital to the US should be on
everyone's agenda. The only reason they are not is because its easier to paint corporate taxes as taxes on evil corporations than to explain the truth that they are regressive taxes disproportionately borne by the poor and middle class.
Trump has millions of dollars invested in other countries. How can he avoid the appearance of impropriety if his decisions affect those investments? He can't exactly turn the Trump brand into a blind trust.
He can't avoid the appearance of impropriety. It's not possible, not anymore than it was for Dick Cheney with Halliburton. No matter the firewalls, no matter the facts, he can't avoid the appearance. Whether he actual acts improperly, on the other hand, is a different matter.
But if you care about this issue at all, why would you think Clinton is your candidate, when not only has she made no effort to avoid the appearance, her actual set up would facilitate bribes? Would you be okay, with Trump having White House staffers who were still working for Trump enterprises in a dual hat role (which is exactly, what Clinton did with foundation staff at State), would you be okay, with Trump integrating his government communications on a single server with his business ones and only turning over the ones he deems to be "official government" ones and not those that are personal or related to his businesses? Would you be okay, with his appointment calendar materially overlapping with business counterparties from Trump enterprises?
Every concern you could possibly have here, has already been done by Clinton. I'm not seeing how this is a real issue.