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

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


  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
if you are running for president then you should have a very deep thorough background check.

if they can test your credit history then they can test your tax returns.

not for the average person but for potus..then yes.
 
The current piece of shit pres is proof we need all presidential election finalists to not only disclose their tax returns, but also be subjected to a full financial examination to determine conflicts of interest. We don't want our pres to be the puppet of some enemy dictator.
 
if you are running for president then you should have a very deep thorough background check.

if they can test your credit history then they can test your tax returns.

not for the average person but for potus..then yes.
This
 
It's not like everything is already critiqued with the people who run. I see no issue with it being a requirement.
 
I'd have a big issue and so should you if someone lies about how much they make. I know the last two examples are how people attack Trump but they aren't without merit and people like you who marginalize the issue don't realize what precedents you are allowing.

I think the real issue is the complexity of the tax code and most people's absolute lack of comprehension of how it all works and especially so for someone like Trump with so much moving around all the time. We have the IRS for a reason so why should normal citizens be concerned over such matters when most of them have no real capacity for comprehending them?

The real reason people want this, and at this particular moment, is because it's trendy to hate on rich people and Trump in particular.
 

What a bunch of piss-poor "journalism." LMAO So basically he followed every single tax law and utilized all known legal tax loopholes. But lets make sure the headlines are super ominous and make it sound like he's hiding money everywhere and not being taxed on it. What a joke and I agree this is why it makes no sense for anybody to publicly release their tax returns. The IRS handles all this stuff for a reason and the average everyday person would have little capability of making heads or tails of most of this stuff.
 
I think the real issue is the complexity of the tax code and most people's absolute lack of comprehension of how it all works and especially so for someone like Trump with so much moving around all the time. We have the IRS for a reason so why should normal citizens be concerned over such matters when most of them have no real capacity for comprehending them?

The real reason people want this, and at this particular moment, is because it's trendy to hate on rich people and Trump in particular.

I might be behind on this conversation but a person can properly file their taxes correctly and still be doing questionable things which a voter might find important to note for or against the person. Easy example with these is charitable giving. A candidate doesn't have to give to file a correct return but some voters consider the fact they donated 1% or less of their income, etc. I'm not saying its sound thinking necessarily but it's a decent example.
 
What a bunch of piss-poor "journalism." LMAO So basically he followed every single tax law and utilized all known legal tax loopholes. But lets make sure the headlines are super ominous and make it sound like he's hiding money everywhere and not being taxed on it. What a joke and I agree this is why it makes no sense for anybody to publicly release their tax returns. The IRS handles all this stuff for a reason and the average everyday person would have little capability of making heads or tails of most of this stuff.

One of the thing I found misleading last year with the return of Trump's that got leaked was people were acting like loses shouldn't be offset in future years for taxes which is fairly ridiculous on it's face.
For example, our system does this:
Year 1- I lose 100k, I owe nothing
Year 2- I make 200k, I owe taxes on 100k (200-100)

People were acting like it should be
Year 1- I lose 100k, I owe nothing (which even some would still demonize the idea of a millionaire/billionaire possibly having no income in a year)
Year 2- I make 200k, I owe taxes on 200k (the loses in the previous year can't be carried over.

Tax policy like that would be absurd and would make people/companies work harder on timing rather than their actual business if you set it up this way. But most of the people knew what they were doing with those headlines. There were far more real issues that were addressed with what part of those loses were considered deductible but the point on it's face was wrong.
 
I might be behind on this conversation but a person can properly file their taxes correctly and still be doing questionable things which a voter might find important to note for or against the person. Easy example with these is charitable giving. A candidate doesn't have to give to file a correct return but some voters consider the fact they donated 1% or less of their income, etc. I'm not saying its sound thinking necessarily but it's a decent example.

I think peoples finances are their own personal affairs in regards to the general public; peoples finances are already handled by the government via the IRS. If people want to ask questions then the candidates can either answer them or not. Again, most people aren't going to peruse these tax returns and instead they will leave it to "journalists" to figure things out and report. As we all know reporting is kind of a dying art and people are more than happy to publish false / fake / misleading stories and then write or Tweet a reaction days or weeks later after the outrage has already caused issues.
Its already been posted in this thread with 3 very misleading stories about Romney's tax returns which were 100% legal, but the reporting on it made it sound like he was doing a ton of shady shit.
 
I think peoples finances are their own personal affairs in regards to the general public; peoples finances are already handled by the government via the IRS. If people want to ask questions then the candidates can either answer them or not. Again, most people aren't going to peruse these tax returns and instead they will leave it to "journalists" to figure things out and report. As we all know reporting is kind of a dying art and people are more than happy to publish false / fake / misleading stories and then write or Tweet a reaction days or weeks later after the outrage has already caused issues.
Its already been posted in this thread with 3 very misleading stories about Romney's tax returns which were 100% legal, but the reporting on it made it sound like he was doing a ton of shady shit.

I mean, it's just the way I'm taking the question on it's face. If I had the option, I'd prefer they have to because I want as much information as possible when determining who I vote for. In reality, I could only see there being disqualifying information in there. There wouldn't be a return that would make me want to suddenly vote for a candidate.

But once again to the bottom, regardless of the reporting which I mentioned in the post before this one, a return can be 100% legal and have very seemingly immoral aspects to it. Legality does not equal morality which is why people would want to see the return. Not to try to play IRS rep (although some journalists do try to) but to weigh some of the actions the return reveals about the candidate.
 
One of the thing I found misleading last year with the return of Trump's that got leaked was people were acting like loses shouldn't be offset in future years for taxes which is fairly ridiculous on it's face.
For example, our system does this:
Year 1- I lose 100k, I owe nothing
Year 2- I make 200k, I owe taxes on 100k (200-100)

People were acting like it should be
Year 1- I lose 100k, I owe nothing (which even some would still demonize the idea of a millionaire/billionaire possibly having no income in a year)
Year 2- I make 200k, I owe taxes on 200k (the loses in the previous year can't be carried over.

Tax policy like that would be absurd and would make people/companies work harder on timing rather than their actual business if you set it up this way. But most of the people knew what they were doing with those headlines. There were far more real issues that were addressed with what part of those loses were considered deductible but the point on it's face was wrong.

This is pretty much my argument in the sense that most people don't know shit about high-level finances and following the tax code. I remember Warren Buffet making a big stink that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. Problem with that is he was talking a particular instance where he was taking a nominal "salary" for tax purposes. Most people would see this and flip a lid thinking it's all corrupt and horrible, but the reality is different.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/

I just don't see what kind of good would come from the general public having access to the presidents finances. Either you trust the IRS to do their job, or you don't. If you don't then that's something you can work on in terms of changing things in that manner.
 
I mean, it's just the way I'm taking the question on it's face. If I had the option, I'd prefer they have to because I want as much information as possible when determining who I vote for. In reality, I could only see there being disqualifying information in there. There wouldn't be a return that would make me want to suddenly vote for a candidate.

But once again to the bottom, regardless of the reporting which I mentioned in the post before this one, a return can be 100% legal and have very seemingly immoral aspects to it. Legality does not equal morality which is why people would want to see the return. Not to try to play IRS rep (although some journalists do try to) but to weigh some of the actions the return reveals about the candidate.

This is my point... lets talk about Trump. How many normal, everyday people are going to be able to look at his tax returns and understand what they're seeing? I'm not saying people are stupid but many are naive and have no concept of the tax code. So those tax returns could be misunderstood in so many ways. Most people can't even figure out their own tax returns and have to have someone else (person or software) help them.

I guess I'm trying to say the morality will be lost because most people won't understand what they're seeing. The better reality here is to ask Trump about his philanthropy and I guarantee he will bring up causes to which he has donated or allotted money already. Just like he did during the campaign ; much easier than hiring a forensic accountant to try and comprehend his tax returns.
 
This is pretty much my argument in the sense that most people don't know shit about high-level finances and following the tax code. I remember Warren Buffet making a big stink that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary. Problem with that is he was talking a particular instance where he was taking a nominal "salary" for tax purposes. Most people would see this and flip a lid thinking it's all corrupt and horrible, but the reality is different.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/

I just don't see what kind of good would come from the general public having access to the presidents finances. Either you trust the IRS to do their job, or you don't. If you don't then that's something you can work on in terms of changing things in that manner.

I agree the narrative that gets pushed during these elections usually is toxic and not accurate. It definitely would be more useful to a democratic candidate than a republican because of how they can play into tax reform. Yes, tax strategy becomes very complicated for wealthier people and a lot of the regulations in place are well-thought but take quite awhile to explain to an average Joe and that would never work on a debate stage to try to defend yourself.

With that said, this current tax debate does have me concerned that despite being characterized, most GOP candidates want certain things removed that massively impact the rich more than anyone else. For example, I see no reason in needing to raise the inheritance exception from where it's at let alone removing the cap completely and making everything tax free. Also, I think removing AMT is very very reckless to the issue you voiced above where a certain loophole could get a very rich person out of something. AMT serves to make sure that doesn't happen.
 
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.

Not sure why it matters. Hillary election was over a billion but she was stealing shit out the whitehouse after Bill was done.

Suddenly she's worth over a shit ton.
 
This is my point... lets talk about Trump. How many normal, everyday people are going to be able to look at his tax returns and understand what they're seeing? I'm not saying people are stupid but many are naive and have no concept of the tax code. So those tax returns could be misunderstood in so many ways. Most people can't even figure out their own tax returns and have to have someone else (person or software) help them.

Of course they wouldn't understand it on their own. Hardly anyone actually looks at the return themselves when these are released. They look at what the press says which is why you are being so cautious with the idea because of how critical and misleading some of the press can be with these returns. With that said, I think there are outlets which are fair on what they reviewed if a person truly wants to know the details of the return and come up with an informed opinion on it.

I guess I'm trying to say the morality will be lost because most people won't understand what they're seeing. The better reality here is to ask Trump about his philanthropy and I guarantee he will bring up causes to which he has donated or allotted money already. Just like he did during the campaign ; much easier than hiring a forensic accountant to try and comprehend his tax returns.

This is actually an awful point though because a person that isn't held to a legal standard is going to BS on their givings easily. This is the part of the 100% legality of a return that's an advantage. If a person puts down a large amount of donations, they likely have a strong confidence that it's accurate in case they are audited on it. Compare that to a candidate on the road trying to get people to like him that has very little legal consequences. It's just not the same there.
 
I agree the narrative that gets pushed during these elections usually is toxic and not accurate. It definitely would be more useful to a democratic candidate than a republican because of how they can play into tax reform. Yes, tax strategy becomes very complicated for wealthier people and a lot of the regulations in place are well-thought but take quite awhile to explain to an average Joe and that would never work on a debate stage to try to defend yourself.

With that said, this current tax debate does have me concerned that despite being characterized, most GOP candidates want certain things removed that massively impact the rich more than anyone else. For example, I see no reason in needing to raise the inheritance exception from where it's at let alone removing the cap completely and making everything tax free. Also, I think removing AMT is very very reckless to the issue you voiced above where a certain loophole could get a very rich person out of something. AMT serves to make sure that doesn't happen.

Agree with your first paragraph, and the 2nd paragraph has nothing to do with presidents releasing their taxes, but instead is has to do with your personal issues on the tax code. I have no issues with anybody wanting changes to taxes and trying to do so through legislation, but a presidents tax returns has nothing to do with it.

I'm finished up in here and good "back and forth."
 
I agree the narrative that gets pushed during these elections usually is toxic and not accurate. It definitely would be more useful to a democratic candidate than a republican because of how they can play into tax reform. Yes, tax strategy becomes very complicated for wealthier people and a lot of the regulations in place are well-thought but take quite awhile to explain to an average Joe and that would never work on a debate stage to try to defend yourself.

With that said, this current tax debate does have me concerned that despite being characterized, most GOP candidates want certain things removed that massively impact the rich more than anyone else. For example, I see no reason in needing to raise the inheritance exception from where it's at let alone removing the cap completely and making everything tax free. Also, I think removing AMT is very very reckless to the issue you voiced above where a certain loophole could get a very rich person out of something. AMT serves to make sure that doesn't happen.

And yet, the average Joe is suddenly making bank.
 
Agree with your first paragraph, and the 2nd paragraph has nothing to do with presidents releasing their taxes, but instead is has to do with your personal issues on the tax code. I have no issues with anybody wanting changes to taxes and trying to do so through legislation, but a presidents tax returns has nothing to do with it.

I'm finished up in here and good "back and forth."

Yea, the second paragraph was a bit of rambling/OT from where we were. Good talk
 
Back
Top