Jump to content

Talk:Wealth of Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Trump has also downplayed his wealth.

[edit]

"The president also insisted that he has lost anywhere between $3 and $5 billion by becoming president" https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-make-money-2020-summit-hosted-miami-resort/story?id=65197278 Keith McClary (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mazars and Coronavirus

[edit]

There should be a link to the Mazars article where it is mentioned and there should be a section talking how the Coronavirus pandemic has affected his wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.9.255 (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

remove "and no obvious way to repay them."

[edit]

Not only is this connected to a conspiracy theory it's also purely editorializing on top of being idiotic. Anyone with billions has many ways to pay off loans for millions. 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Trump actually possesses that much wealth (which can only be estimated), payment of loans generally requires liquid capital, i.e. cash, not just fixed assets. The statement is cited to a reliable source; there's no obvious reason to remove it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a hit piece

[edit]

The tone of this article is ultra negative in general, I think the information present could be displayed in a much more factual tone, and have less “failed businessman” statements. 69.121.1.205 (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A large amount of reliable sources refer to him as a failed businessman. Neutrality is reporting what sources say, good or bad, not omitting it for the sake of peoples feelings. Would you rather it be a lie and say that he is a successful businessman? PRAXIDICAE💕 14:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it said he inherited less than 500 million dollars from his father, yet he is a billionaire now. I guess that's a failed businessman? 108.17.84.45 (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC). Basically, the take home of this article is "Trump is quite rich, but dis but Dat."[reply]
Heh? He's a billionare. 67.175.162.219 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of this response all but conforms the negative bias and quite spiteful nature of its mods. 2003:F2:9F0B:7800:CCC3:EC21:618F:D172 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The article reads like a special project of the DNC or Biden campaign. Even for wiki it's bad. 2603:6080:E00:4F67:DD2D:FFEC:97D8:6FDA (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


And many conservative sources refer to him as a successful businessman. How about we lose the partisan language and deal with the facts rather than conjecture. You know, facts instead of feelings. Mecurian (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't currently contain the words "fail" or "succeed" in the sense of judging Trump's businesses, except for one quote from the Washington Post, which wrote in 2016 that Trump has both "business failures, and real success." That seems a both-sides statement.
"Failed businessman" is not a term that appears in this article. If there is specific language that you are concerned about, please flag it and suggest what it should be changed to. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ABSOLUTELY. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be “OBJECTIVE?” How do you get off saying “With Trump making much higher claims?” That’s your liberal dumbacrook OPINION. I don’t care about your highly delusional opinion. It’s the job of the banking appraisers, Realtors etc to estimate property worth, not the property owner. That being said, if the bank gives the loan, the appraiser appraises and the buyer is “Ready & Willing” then nobody has done a darn thing wrong. Please for the good of all the read Wikipedia, don’t ruin a great business that YOUR BOSS conjured up by adding your subjective ill described OPINION , either that Or go work for CNN. Trump is by FAR the BEST PRESIDENT this country has EVER SEEN. That is my opinion & I can say that because I don’t WORK for someone that OWNS this great business. Don’t ruin it for someone else that had a GREAT IDEA for a site AND selflessly CHOSE to go nonprofit which is a Christ like choice. You’re a typical RENTER. Someone that doesn’t respect the SPACE that they’re RENTING for a period of time because it’s SOMEONE ELSES. Show some respect! Jflav1 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read all the other comments after I posted my comment… PLUS the retort of the “wiki writer”…wow! biased much!?? Would you call Abraham Lincoln a “failed president?” Albert Einstein a “failed scientist?” Michael Jordan a “failed basketball player?” Thomas Edison a “failed scientist/inventor?” Jerry Seinfeld a “failed actor?” Oprah Winfrey a “failed talk show host?” Is Steve Jobs a “failure?” Shall I go on??? Hopefully you shall go on to do better things because you should ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY chalk this article up to a COMPLETE & UTTER FAILURE.
Have you never heard the phrase that “Failure often precedes success???”
To call someone, a human being, which I think people often forget that Donald J Trump is, a failure, is just pure ignorance, wrong, lacking of empathy and compassion, jealously and delusion. Jflav1 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WOW! It gets better and better “Money received through political fundraisers is used to pay for guest stays at properties owned by the Trump Organization and to pay his and his allies' lawyers”… like what do you NOT GET about bias and objectivity???
mom HOPING these are Troll Edits and NOT the subjective views of the Wiki Writer???
PLEASE TELL ME THAT?! Jflav1 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...with Trump chronically making much higher claims."

[edit]

Unbiased source? 47.12.161.150 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is substantiated and discussed in the article. For example, the section "Trump on his own net worth" cites seven sources. The lede summarizes what the article says and does not need to repeat all the references. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please inline

[edit]

Make America Great Again Inc. to MAGA Inc. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A9EA:14C3:9BA8:A24B (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Color commentary

[edit]

> He described both of these amounts as "small" and emphasized that he repaid both loans "with interest." These amounts are indeed small fractions of the entire amount he received from his father. The facts may affect his public image.


The italicized sentence, while true, reads as sarcasm. Would it be appropriate to reword this in a less colorful way? I hesitate to make the change muself given the sensitive nature of the topic. 2603:90D8:C3E:9472:1C13:1E72:2FD1:2592 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News

[edit]

What Real Estate Does Trump Own in NYC Anyway? - February 23, 2024 article 98.164.1.101 (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New networth

[edit]

New net worth

[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/article/the-definitive-networth-of-donaldtrump/ 86.114.221.114 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of public domain images in book

[edit]

In the post-presidency section it says "In November 2021, Trump released a coffee table book, Our Journey Together, that sold for $75 per copy and had gross sales of $20 million within two months. The book used public domain images taken by taxpayer-funded White House photographers. He did not credit the source for any of the images."

Is the mention of the use of public domain images noteworthy enough to be included? The images were in the public domain were well within his right to use. In addition to that, the photographers were credited by name, just not alongside the individual photographs. It just seems like one instance of many unnecessary negative lines attached as bite against Trump. Does the citation of that fact give the reader a more accurate view of Trump's wealth or does it only serve to give them a negative impression of him? BCPI (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economist citation

[edit]

A citation from the Economist is misleading because it is not a real magazine its really just a DNC tool 2601:447:C901:B050:197A:5E85:41A9:CDC3 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since British newspapers are thrown around so loosely to allegeadly substantiate even the most biased and outlandish claims made, then I wonder why the following article , which also happens to be a British source, has not been used anywhere in the article yet.
Its content deals exactly with the broader topic about Mr. Trump‘s portfolio and value of real estate which he owns.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12566635/Donald-Trump-Mar-Lago-estate.html 2003:F2:9F0B:7800:CCC3:EC21:618F:D172 (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

history of trump wealth reported in NY Times not cited

[edit]

98.248.161.240 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example of why Wikipedia lost reputation for being unbiased

[edit]

Written as if an intended hit piece by political opposition team. Needs editing asap 195.252.198.100 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

„had he,….it would have been“

[edit]

It certainly has been criticized before, but sections of this article do indeed read like a political hit piece and outright smear, rather than simply an encyclopedic informational piece.

In particular the claim about the New York real estate market, the cited source, an article from a British newspaper is all but tongue in cheek, and cannot possibly be taken seriously, to warrant any mention whatsoever.

It is an absurd case of coulda,woulda,shoulda, besides, there is absolutely no trace of methodology as to how exactly an alleged investment (as suggested in said newspaper article) would have eventually resulted in the valuation that is given in the article. Now, we all know why this is done and included, simply to slander him, as the term „loser“ is literally applied in it.

Wikipedia is open source, which of course comes with a number of issues, such as for example russian vatnik or chinese wumao disinformation and manipulation, which is well known at this point. Further, it must not ever, become a playground for political cyber assassins and blatant bias for or against any one entity. 2003:F2:9F33:3000:98FD:F8ED:BCD0:687F (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree - that exists solely for the purpose of making him look bad. If that’s included, why not include the supposed outcomes of other possible investments? Crypto? Stock Market? Bonds? 212.250.203.149 (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit current wording

[edit]

After winning the US Election, we should reflect it here, Donald Trump's and on Joe Biden's related pages, changing 'Previous' and related words to 'Current' and related words, and vice versa.

EG: Former president Joe Biden from Current president Joe Biden. 91.125.48.100 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skip the BS

[edit]

‘Had he invested that money passively in Manhattan real estate, it would have been worth over $80 billion by 2017 instead of the $2.5 billion that Forbes estimated. Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig argue that Trump was quite lucky due to factors like the Manhattan real estate boom and narrowly escaping the multiple occasions that "ought to have sunk him into total and irrevocable bankruptcy"’

This is irrelevant information - should we include how much it would have been worth if he invested in stocks? Crypto maybe? This is an encyclopaedia for factual unbiased information and this is categorically incompatible language for Wikipedia. Furthermore the source is a single article from a left-wing newspaper which exists solely to criticise him. Nvagda (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mar-a-Lago

[edit]

The highly dubious and ill-fated NY-State litigation against Mr. Trump that was based on claims that he allegedly had intentionally inflated his wealth, i.e. valuations of several of his properties to effectively defraud investors and credit lenders, has long since been exposed as politically motivated with little to no actual substance at all.

NY State judge Engoron (whose exact year of birth is not even given in his wiki article) and his estimated valuation of the Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida which was one of the primary subjects of said lawsuit was outright pathetically absurd. Engoron gave the real estate a valuation of about $ 18 million total, meanwhile actual experts on the matter at hand and realtors were left quite dumbfounded by Engoron‘s valuation and have since weighed in and given their accounts and valuation estimates.

Since British newspaper article and media sources seem favored in this article, I will provide the following which, for any objective minded observer, should absolutely clear all the „Engoron et.-al. smoke“ on the subject matter.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12566635/Donald-Trump-Mar-Lago-estate.html 2003:F2:9F0B:7800:CCC3:EC21:618F:D172 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wealth_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=1258679407"