Would you support a law that requires presidential candidates release tax returns?

[jeffk]

Would you support a law that requires a presidential candidate release his/her tax returns before he can be put on a ballot?

Would it be legal to create such a law?

I don't see why there isn't a push for such a law.

 

[panamaican]

No I wouldn't support such a law. I'd consider it an invasion of privacy. However, I would be concerned about anyone seeking public office at a high level who objects to voluntarily releasing such information to the public.

 

[HomerThompson]

Yes, yes I would.

 

[MeatheadMike]

No I wouldn't support such a law. I'd consider it an invasion of privacy. However, I would be concerned about anyone seeking public office at a high level who objects to voluntarily releasing such information to the public.

They'd still have the option not to run if privacy was a big concern.

 

[panamaican]

They'd still have the option not to run if privacy was a big concern.

I don't think that information is required for someone to seek civil service nor should it be.

 

[MeatheadMike]

I don't think that information is required for someone to seek civil service nor should it be.

There are many lower federal positions, (like some cabinet nominees) that are required to have their taxes reviewed by Senate committees.

IMO, there's no reason why the president shouldn't at least be held to the same standard of accountability as subordinate federal officials.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

I don't think we're going to face this problem again for a while.

 

[JDragon]

No I wouldn't support such a law. I'd consider it an invasion of privacy. However, I would be concerned about anyone seeking public office at a high level who objects to voluntarily releasing such information to the public.

What would you think about the Nordic model?


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-panama-tax-nordics-idUSKCN0X91QE

 

[JosephDredd]

I feel like once it's apparent that the altnerative is an expensive and catastrophic special council investigation, more people will think it reasonable to hold the presidency to the same scrutiny that other federal employees face.

 

[deltapapha]

NO.

Because frankly it would just add to the litany of things that would become a pointless side show. Plus you'd have a chorus of squealing voices made up of people who if all their private minutiae was made public would be dropping their stones to the ground and slinking away like they never said anything.

 

[Boxiana]

Kinda misses the point - the corruption is in the lobbying system, party donations, superpacs, think tanks, “foundations” and the like.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

What would you think about the Nordic model?


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-panama-tax-nordics-idUSKCN0X91QE

Yeah let's just let @Revolver know exactly how poor everyone is. That will go over well.

This would be the collapse of Sherdog as we know it.

What's next, verified Height measurements and bench-press videos.

 

[Teppodama]

If you require it of the President it should be required for All government positions above a certain level. Mayors, governors, senators, judges, etc and it should be provided yearly.

 

[ManCityFC9]

Nope,

What is the value?
More fuel for the MSM's frivolous critique machine?
-I'd need justification as to the significance to a candidate/president's leadership qualities and plans of the subsequent 4 year term.

 

[panamaican]

There are many lower federal positions, (like some cabinet nominees) that are required to have their taxes reviewed by Senate committees.

IMO, there's no reason why the president shouldn't at least be held to the same standard of accountability as subordinate federal officials.

Reviewed by the Senate is very different, imo, than released to the public. What about all of the candidates that don't win, have to return to private life but with their personal tax information now permanently out in the world?

 

[panamaican]

What would you think about the Nordic model?


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-panama-tax-nordics-idUSKCN0X91QE

I think it has a lot of pros based on how the article is written, especially in regards to wage negotiation and keeping people honest...imagine the dating world where you can just find out the other person's tax burden. A lot less bs'ing would take place.

I wouldn't support it here though because it runs counter to my ideas on privacy.

 

[HomerThompson]

Reviewed by the Senate is very different, imo, than released to the public. What about all of the candidates that don't win, have to return to private life but with their personal tax information now permanently out in the world?

I think that's a fair burden for someone seeking high office. It's not like they release their SSN to everyone or something. People are too worried about keeping financial information secret.

"Oh no, we know how much money someone made in a given set of years. How will they ever move forward with their lives?!"

 

[MeatheadMike]

Reviewed by the Senate is very different, imo, than released to the public. What about all of the candidates that don't win, have to return to private life but with their personal tax information now permanently out in the world?

Fair enough, but its still more than is required for the president. I wouldn't be opposed to the to the president having a greater standard of accountability.

I really don't see any major issue with losing candidates having their tax information out in the public. Pretty much all candidates in the modern era before Trump have released their taxes, including the losers and as far as I know, there haven't been any big problems for them as a result.

 

[My Spot]

No.

 

[curryjunkie]

Reviewed by the Senate is very different, imo, than released to the public. What about all of the candidates that don't win, have to return to private life but with their personal tax information now permanently out in the world?

thats assuming the senate isnt full of crooked partisans