This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Sorry, are you making the argument that if a law is not enforced there's no point to it? Or something else?
No. I think releasing tax returns is sort of an odd thing to do. People who run for president already get two years of public vetting -- and a lot of good that did us this time around -- so I don't see much value added in prying into their personal affairs even further.
I think that if this law were in effect there would never have been a Candidate Trump
sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face. I will say that in theory that's what I think would be ideal but that shipped sailed a LONG time ago and this election cycle we decided to blow the ship up.
Because we once had a President who was being audited while embroiled in another scandal.
Brought Al Capone down. Maybe there's such a fear of the IRS, that people feel they would be the great equalizer.
Whether a candidate releases his tax returns has nothing to do with whether the IRS can audit them. I am assuming that Trump has been audited a bunch of times -- that would be pretty normal for somebody in his financial situation.
No, that is not all. For me that's probably the least insightful part of the tax return. I do think that knowing what percentage of their income people pay (especially "public servants") serves to highlight the flaws in our tax code that allow someone like Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, for example.
I think it's safe to assume, when push comes to shove, people will more than likely put themselves before anything/anyone else, especially when it comes to finances. I don't need tax returns to tell me that. I already know that our tax code is ###### and that loopholes abound. Reading a candidate's tax returns isn't going to make that a new revelation.
I would have sworn that an SSBI required detailed financial disclosures, but after looking it up, I see that the only financial piece that is clearly required is a Credit Check.
You have to provide that for a simple bank loan because they are loaning you money, not to determine whether or not you're qualified to lead.
Or, contrarily, we would only get people who were willing to share every single detail of their lives. i.e. people who haven't been successful at anything.
I don't think you and I agree on much. But I appreciate your viewpoint.
I'm confused. Are you saying all employees in the IC were unsuccessful people prior to joining?
That's a good idea though....keep the info private, public just knows they passed the audit or not
All you'd need to do is make sure you were okay for 6 years in a row; you'd likely be prepping to run for longer than that.
I would never vote for someone who didn't release their tax returns because I consider transparency part of the job. But this is a free country to each their own.
There is something we definitely do agree on.
