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

[Orgasmo]

I don't support a public release, but it should be scrutinized by an oversight committee. In fact, I think all cabinet, congress and senate positions should be subjected to the same requirement. In addition, they must fully disclose their campaign funding sources.

 

[usmctanker242]

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.

You'd better believe if Trump said he donated $100K to March of Dimes, and it wasn't true, within 24 hours that would be on every single news network. You'd also see the CFO from March of Dimes getting involved because no way in hell would they allow a political candidate to falsely claim such a contribution.

 

[MacDuffle]

I don't support a public release

Why

 

[Lead]

You'd better believe if Trump said he donated $100K to March of Dimes, and it wasn't true, within 24 hours that would be on every single news network. You'd also see the CFO from March of Dimes getting involved because no way in hell would they allow a political candidate to falsely claim such a contribution.

Obviously it would be more generic to avoid that. Instances like that actually did happen. There was that one debate he skipped and did a rally for wounded veterans or something and reporters contacted them about the proceeds. There were actually a few different occasions with it. The reporters who attack it though usually are from sources that aren't going to carry much weight compared to his initial statement saying he did it so even that could be a net win.

 

[usmctanker242]

Obviously it would be more generic to avoid that. Instances like that actually did happen. There was that one debate he skipped and did a rally for wounded veterans or something and reporters contacted them about the proceeds. There were actually a few different occasions with it. The reporters who attack it though usually are from sources that aren't going to carry much weight compared to his initial statement saying he did it so even that could be a net win.

I remember this with Trump saying he was donating a certain amount of money to veterans. And what happened is exactly what stated would happen : all veterans organizations came out and said nothing had been donated. So Trump very quickly made sure it got taken care of and he named a particular veterans charity (with which he had contributed to before, many times, over the years) and there we have it. So this is better than some "Joe the Plumber" trying to figure this stuff out from looking at Trump's tax returns.

 

[Trotsky]

Yes.

I think it speaks to the very nature of privacy within our government. Our personal financial information has never been public information. I just don't see how knowing that Candidate X made $50k and Candidate Y made $500k better informs the voting public enough to outweigh the individual's financial privacy.

If that was the extent of what the tax returns contained, there would be no point.

But you know that's not the case.

 

[spin]

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.

heh, ya that'd be so stupid.











we're not, like, we're not doing that, right?

 

[7437]

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.

add? every candidate in recent history did until this one.

 

[Bald1]

This puts two important values at odds for me - my high regard for privacy vs the need for transparency in government. Begs the question of how much privacy you're entitled to while on the public payroll, when that particular bit of privacy can hide whether or not outside influences are compromising your performance of said job. I'll agree that at higher levels of public office transparency should win out over privacy.

 

[JosephDredd]

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.

 

[phipps66]

If there's nothing nefarious going on there should no issue with sharing tax returns.

 

[Hitmandn]

This wasn't a problem until Trump came along basically.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

do Mayors and Governors normally submit their taxes?

 

[TSO]

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.

That isn't what's being discussed here. People are asking that the taxes/returns be made public, not to be reviewed by the Senate. Under no circumstances should this be demanded of anyone.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't support a public release, but it should be scrutinized by an oversight committee.

And then what?

 

[HIMBOB]

No.

I would support an audit carried out in private but not publicly.


Only reason I have issue with Trump not doing it is because he said he would. My bet is his lawyers and accountants were horrified of the idea as it would expose many of his lies. Better to irrefutably lie once than be caught in dozens of lies.

 

[HIMBOB]

And then what?

Maybe just a comparison to what they say vs what their books say, unless the uncover law breaking.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Maybe just a comparison to what they say vs what their books say, unless the uncover law breaking.

And then what? Will the oversight committee disqualify the candidate without revealing the reasoning to the public? Can't imagine that going over well.

 

[HIMBOB]

And then what? Will the oversight committee disqualify the candidate without revealing the reasoning to the public? Can't imagine that going over well.

Just release that publicly unless the candidate is willing to correct his statements.

Ie candidate X says he donates millions to charities. Tax return shows nothing like that. X can either publicly correct his statements or an ethics committee can publicly label those comments as demonstrably false.

 

[oldshadow]

No.

Should you be required to give them on all job applications.