ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd January 2019, 06:23 PM   #81
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,919
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Easily solved by voters at the polls.


Easily solved by voters at the polls.

Yes, such as voting for representatives that would codify a long-standing best practice into law.

So, your solution is in process.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 07:45 PM   #82
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Presumably corporations file taxes also. At least they're supposed to. Let corporations owned by a candidate also have their taxes published.
How much ownership?

1%? 10%? a single share of stock?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 07:55 PM   #83
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,219
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
How much ownership?

1%? 10%? a single share of stock?
If you are the sole proprietor or partner of an LLC.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 08:00 PM   #84
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I note again Trump is NOT a corporation. All of his various LLCs etc. would be reflected on his personal returns, which is why they would be so revealing.
Nope. Trumps Corporation was founded in 1923. Everything Trump does is likely funneled through the Trump Organization. Wikipedia states there are 250 to 500 sub corps in the trump organization.

I really do doubt that his 1040 and assorted schedules will hold that silver bullet people are looking for.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 08:03 PM   #85
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If you are the sole proprietor or partner of an LLC.
They could file all their ill gotten booty in a C corp. Appoint some family members as the board and give them some stock. Kinda like the current Trump Organization.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:36 PM   #86
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Nope. Trumps Corporation was founded in 1923. Everything Trump does is likely funneled through the Trump Organization. Wikipedia states there are 250 to 500 sub corps in the trump organization.
....
No, there is a Trump Corporation, but it is just one of hundreds of entities, mostly LLCs, that are owned by the Trump Organization LLC, a private holding company. Those are the returns that would be the keys to everything else.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/s...ivcapId=344985
https://www.investopedia.com/updates...ump-companies/
https://www.scribd.com/doc/272297762...losures#scribd
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-don...sts-1481193002
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 05:06 AM   #87
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,219
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Nope. Trumps Corporation was founded in 1923. Everything Trump does is likely funneled through the Trump Organization. Wikipedia states there are 250 to 500 sub corps in the trump organization.

I really do doubt that his 1040 and assorted schedules will hold that silver bullet people are looking for.
Have you ever heard the expression 'the perfect is the enemy of the good'? We don't refrain from implementing desirable practices solely because we can't guarantee absolutely perfect results. We don't rip out all the stoplights because it's physically possible to run the reds. We don't abandon medicine because all patients will eventually die anyway.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 05:16 AM   #88
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,181
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why shouldn't it apply to all public offices? They're basically applying to work for the public, why shouldn't the public know their past history of how they acted to fulfill their duty to the public?

I've long been of the view that those who wish to serve in public office should have much, much less expectation of privacy than a private citizen.

I would go even further and state that, in order to be removed from office for corrupt acts, the standard should be 'Balance of probabilities', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'

Those that don't wish to be less private and more prosecutable then need not apply for public office.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 06:31 AM   #89
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,219
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I've long been of the view that those who wish to serve in public office should have much, much less expectation of privacy than a private citizen.

I would go even further and state that, in order to be removed from office for corrupt acts, the standard should be 'Balance of probabilities', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'

Those that don't wish to be less private and more prosecutable then need not apply for public office.
I think we should do as some of the ancient Greek states did: those in office surrender all their property and wealth to be held in trust until their term of office is up, then it is returned. No making of money permitted while in office, they are kept by a state allowance. The idea was to prevent corruption making it impossible to turn a profit while in office. But the Greeks thought office was about serving the state, not feathering one's nest, so it'll never take on here.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 07:07 AM   #90
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,667
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Nope. Trumps Corporation was founded in 1923. Everything Trump does is likely funneled through the Trump Organization. Wikipedia states there are 250 to 500 sub corps in the trump organization.

I really do doubt that his 1040 and assorted schedules will hold that silver bullet people are looking for.
Trump's desperate efforts to avoid publishing his tax returns suggests otherwise. I suspect if this law had been in place prior to 2016 he would never have run for office.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 07:17 AM   #91
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,333
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Trump's desperate efforts to avoid publishing his tax returns suggests otherwise. I suspect if this law had been in place prior to 2016 he would never have run for office.
Desperate effort? He simply never released them. Hardly an act of desperation. It seems he was able to do it without having to resort to desperation.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 09:38 AM   #92
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Have you ever heard the expression 'the perfect is the enemy of the good'? We don't refrain from implementing desirable practices solely because we can't guarantee absolutely perfect results. We don't rip out all the stoplights because it's physically possible to run the reds. We don't abandon medicine because all patients will eventually die anyway.
Have you ever heard the expression that not all change is progress? We should only implement laws and policies that will effect the change we are actually seeking.

I also don't see why we need to violate the privacy of third parties, spouses, business partners as a matter of law to satisfy some sort of voyeuristic needs of a subset of the general public.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 09:46 AM   #93
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,005
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I think we should do as some of the ancient Greek states did: those in office surrender all their property and wealth to be held in trust until their term of office is up, then it is returned. No making of money permitted while in office, they are kept by a state allowance. The idea was to prevent corruption making it impossible to turn a profit while in office. But the Greeks thought office was about serving the state, not feathering one's nest, so it'll never take on here.
The problem is people aren't trying to make money in office, they are setting themselves up to make money in cushy "adviser" and "board member" jobs after office and you can't make networking illegal.

Sure we can take Senator John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt's assets while he's in office, but nothing we can do can stop him from getting on the Umbrella Corporation's Board of Directors after he leaves in exchange for looking the other way on their T-Virus Research now.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 09:47 AM   #94
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Quote:
Trump's desperate efforts to avoid publishing his tax returns suggests otherwise. I suspect if this law had been in place prior to 2016 he would never have run for office.
Desperate effort? He simply never released them. Hardly an act of desperation. It seems he was able to do it without having to resort to desperation.
Trump's failure to release his tax returns likely affected his campaign in a negative way. (It distracted people from Trump's regular racist message that his base so loved, and re-enforced to people that he was dishonest.) Even if his actions themselves weren't "desperate", that was more a function of a lack of mechanism to make the returns public.

Had there been mechanisms in place to make the returns public (e.g. something like wikileaks, or some court challenge) then you would have seen Trump truly act desperate.

I'm sure he would have been a lot more desprarate
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 09:51 AM   #95
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,181
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The problem is people aren't trying to make money in office, they are setting themselves up to make money in cushy "adviser" and "board member" jobs after office and you can't make networking illegal.

Sure we can take Senator John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt's assets while he's in office, but nothing we can do can stop him from getting on the Umbrella Corporation's Board of Directors after he leaves in exchange for looking the other way on their T-Virus Research now.
Ah yes, the Vodafone gambit.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 09:55 AM   #96
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Quote:
Have you ever heard the expression 'the perfect is the enemy of the good'? We don't refrain from implementing desirable practices solely because we can't guarantee absolutely perfect results.
Have you ever heard the expression that not all change is progress? We should only implement laws and policies that will effect the change we are actually seeking.
And that's exactly what a law requiring tax disclosure is doing.

We want transparency for presidential candidates. Seeing tax forms goes at least part of the way towards that goal. Even if some of a candidates financial history will still be hidden, partial transparency is better than none.

I really don't see how you can think that is a bad thing.
Quote:
I also don't see why we need to violate the privacy of third parties, spouses, business partners as a matter of law to satisfy some sort of voyeuristic needs of a subset of the general public.
I don't think the laws (as proposed) do anything to violate the privacy of third parties. I think it addresses just the personal tax returns of the candidate themselves.

Now, perhaps it may be beneficial to expand the law to include businesses with sole ownership. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting the private returns of business partners be released.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 09:58 AM   #97
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,333
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
And that's exactly what a law requiring tax disclosure is doing.

We want transparency for presidential candidates. Seeing tax forms goes at least part of the way towards that goal. Even if some of a candidates financial history will still be hidden, partial transparency is better than none.

I really don't see how you can think that is a bad thing.

I don't think the laws (as proposed) do anything to violate the privacy of third parties. I think it addresses just the personal tax returns of the candidate themselves.

Now, perhaps it may be beneficial to expand the law to include businesses with sole ownership. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting the private returns of business partners be released.
If you personally want to require a candidate to show tax returns before voting, then don't vote for them. The other people who don't care can vote. Everyone gets what they want.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 10:03 AM   #98
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,349
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I've long been of the view that those who wish to serve in public office should have much, much less expectation of privacy than a private citizen.



I would go even further and state that, in order to be removed from office for corrupt acts, the standard should be 'Balance of probabilities', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'



Those that don't wish to be less private and more prosecutable then need not apply for public office.
Hang on that would mean you'd only get honest people in government!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 10:08 AM   #99
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,219
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The problem is people aren't trying to make money in office, they are setting themselves up to make money in cushy "adviser" and "board member" jobs after office and you can't make networking illegal.

Sure we can take Senator John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt's assets while he's in office, but nothing we can do can stop him from getting on the Umbrella Corporation's Board of Directors after he leaves in exchange for looking the other way on their T-Virus Research now.
The possibility of post-office enrichment makes attempts to prevent in-office corruption undesirable?

Do you brush your teeth? It's pointless to do so because you are mortal and will one day die.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 10:08 AM   #100
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,181
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Hang on that would mean you'd only get honest people in government!
I know! Bloody outrageous.

I'd also ban lobbying.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 10:10 AM   #101
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If you personally want to require a candidate to show tax returns before voting, then don't vote for them. The other people who don't care can vote. Everyone gets what they want.
If candidates are required to show their tax returns, and they don't want to, then they don't run.

Everyone gets what they wants.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 10:12 AM   #102
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,005
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
If candidates are required to show their tax returns, and they don't want to, then they don't run.

Everyone gets what they wants.
"Listen when I said 'everybody gets what they want' I was really saying I should get what I want." - Every Person Who's Used the Phrase "Everybody Gets What They Want" Ever.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 10:19 AM   #103
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,333
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
If candidates are required to show their tax returns, and they don't want to, then they don't run.

Everyone gets what they wants.
Not at all. The people who wanted to vote for that person cant. Without the law, the people who don't want to vote for that person don't have to. No one loses an opportunity to vote for the candidate they want.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 11:20 AM   #104
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,414
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Not at all. The people who wanted to vote for that person cant. Without the law, the people who don't want to vote for that person don't have to. No one loses an opportunity to vote for the candidate they want.
There's always the option of write-in votes for those that don't want to play ball. The voters can vote for whoever they like that way.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 11:24 AM   #105
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,379
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Democrats to ask for 10 years of presidential tax returns in new bill
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/polit...ats/index.html


No way this becomes law in this climate.


Anyone know what this IRS rule is?

Ranb
First let the representatives pass a bill requiring 10 years of congressional members tax returns also.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 11:35 AM   #106
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,333
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
There's always the option of write-in votes for those that don't want to play ball. The voters can vote for whoever they like that way.
You just gave me an idea...


...all ballots all write in only. Everyone on equal footing. The ballot would be exceptionally shorter.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 12:05 PM   #107
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
First let the representatives pass a bill requiring 10 years of congressional members tax returns also.
Why would that have to be done first?

The office of the president is a much more powerful position than that of any congress-critter (having veto power, the ability to select judges, etc.) It seems to me that if you were to worry about possibly preventing corruption, you might want to start with the position where the most damage can be done by any single person.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 12:08 PM   #108
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Quote:
If candidates are required to show their tax returns, and they don't want to, then they don't run.

Everyone gets what they wants.
Not at all. The people who wanted to vote for that person cant. Without the law, the people who don't want to vote for that person don't have to. No one loses an opportunity to vote for the candidate they want.
But without a law requiring tax form disclosure, people who want candidates to be completely transparent are not getting what they want either.

Its not just "who do I vote for", its "who is in charge". A large number of people in the U.S. were happy voting for a con artist because they liked his bigotry. Many people want to know just what type of con artist he is (whether or not they were going to vote for him) because they may need to plan their lives accordingly.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 12:12 PM   #109
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,991
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Desperate effort? He simply never released them. Hardly an act of desperation. It seems he was able to do it without having to resort to desperation.

He repeatedly lied about releasing them. He first stated he would absolutely release them but then shifted his position during the campaign to giving vague times, conditions, the audit excuse, etc. but still saying he would release them. As recently as Nov, Trump has used the false "audit excuse".

May 2014:
"If I decide to run for office, I'll produce my tax returns, absolutely. And I would love to do that."

Feb. 2015:
"I would certainly show tax returns if it was necessary."
(Notice the subtle change only five months before declaring his candidacy)

Oct. 2015:
"I'm thinking about maybe when we find out the true story on Hillary's emails."
(Now becoming conditional on HRC's emails)

Jan. 2016:
"I have very big returns, as you know, and I have everything all approved and very beautiful and we'll be working that over in the next period of time, Chuck. Absolutely."
(Back to absolutely releasing them, but giving a vague time to do so.)

Feb. 2016:
"We'll get them out at some point, probably."
(Probably?)

and

"We'll make a determination over the next couple of months. It's very complicated."
(No, it's not complicated.)

and

"I've had it for years. I get audited. And obviously if I'm being audited, I'm not going to release a return. As soon as the audit is done, I love it."
(Now the "audit" excuse is used but only used for a temporary hold)

and

"Tax experts throughout the media agree that no sane person would give their tax returns during an audit. After the audit, no problem!"

May 2016:
"I would release my tax returns when audit is complete, not after election!"
(It's complete. Where are they?)

Sept. 2016:
"I don't mind releasing. I'm under a routine audit, and it will be released. As soon as the audit's finished, it will be released."
(Still waiting...)

This audit excuse is still be used by Trump, as lame as it is. There is something in his tax returns that he is desperate not be revealed. If not, he would stop lying and just release them...as has EVERY candidate and president for decades. What is he hiding?

All quotes above are from https://money.cnn.com/2017/04/17/new...rns/index.html
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 01:01 PM   #110
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,583
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
They should do the Wall Deal on the condition he releases his tax returns.
For the wall deal, I would prefer it be on the condition that Mexico agrees to reimburse all costs.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 01:04 PM   #111
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,117
This is a non-starter but it feels good for some
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 01:04 PM   #112
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
We want transparency for presidential candidates. Seeing tax forms goes at least part of the way towards that goal. Even if some of a candidates financial history will still be hidden, partial transparency is better than none.

I really don't see how you can think that is a bad thing.
I've spent years reviewing tax information as a collections agent. I don't think I ever used a 1040 in that process. Bank records, information returns are far more informative.

One of the core components of our tax system, as screwed up as it is, is privacy. Making laws that chip away at that basic tenant because 1 jerk didn't follow the social customs I have a problem with.

Seriously, you'd be better off getting bank records than 1040s.

Quote:
I don't think the laws (as proposed) do anything to violate the privacy of third parties. I think it addresses just the personal tax returns of the candidate themselves.

Now, perhaps it may be beneficial to expand the law to include businesses with sole ownership. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting the private returns of business partners be released.
If you are asking for 1040s, you are getting the income information for the spouse (and children in some cases) as well. They aren't the ones being elected. If you are getting the 1120s, you are going to collect data about who is getting paid what, as well as other data. So yes, people are asking for information on 3rd party even if they don't realize it.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 01:06 PM   #113
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,117
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Apparently these lawmakers don't think so.
Ftfy
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 01:09 PM   #114
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,991
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
They should do the Wall Deal on the condition he releases his tax returns.
No need. His returns can be demanded by the new Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep (D) Richard Neal under 26 U.S. Code 6103. I believe he is already preparing to do so.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 03:38 PM   #115
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Quote:
We want transparency for presidential candidates. Seeing tax forms goes at least part of the way towards that goal. Even if some of a candidates financial history will still be hidden, partial transparency is better than none.

I really don't see how you can think that is a bad thing.
I've spent years reviewing tax information as a collections agent. I don't think I ever used a 1040 in that process.
I have no idea what your job entailed. But the fact that you didn't use a 1040 "in that process" doesn't necessarily mean others won't find it useful in doing their work. After all, the work of a collections agent is not the same as someone who's goal is to evaluate the suitability of a candidate for political office. You'll be looking for different things.
Quote:
Bank records, information returns are far more informative.
Yes, I'm sure it would also be great to have bank records.

But tax returns (as imperfect as they are) are government forms, which puts them in a different category than bank records.

And has been explained to you before, "perfect is the enemy of the good".
Quote:
One of the core components of our tax system, as screwed up as it is, is privacy. Making laws that chip away at that basic tenant because 1 jerk didn't follow the social customs I have a problem with.
You're not talking about making the tax returns of every individual public. You're talking about the tax returns of a tiny handful of individuals who just happen to be candidates for the presidency. (A job, should I add, that they are voluntarily trying to obtain.) Don't want your tax information released? Stick to whatever your old job was.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 03:40 PM   #116
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,379
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Why would that have to be done first?
Because what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The congress is interested in transparency but not when it comes to them. Of course some are willing to release. I suspect you would find a lot of interesting things in those returns.

Quote:
The office of the president is a much more powerful position than that of any congress-critter (having veto power, the ability to select judges, etc.) It seems to me that if you were to worry about possibly preventing corruption, you might want to start with the position where the most damage can be done by any single person.
If I am worried about corruption the financial disclosures already required have much more information.
Personally I don't care if any president releases their returns except as an accountant I do enjoy looking at them.
Personally I believe he didn't release his returns because of small charitable deductions but I have no factual basis for that belief.

Last edited by eeyore1954; 4th January 2019 at 03:46 PM.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 03:42 PM   #117
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,379
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I have no idea what your job entailed. But the fact that you didn't use a 1040 "in that process" doesn't necessarily mean others won't find it useful in doing their work. After all, the work of a collections agent is not the same as someone who's goal is to evaluate the suitability of a candidate for political office. You'll be looking for different things.

Yes, I'm sure it would also be great to have bank records.

But tax returns (as imperfect as they are) are government forms, which puts them in a different category than bank records.

And has been explained to you before, "perfect is the enemy of the good".

You're not talking about making the tax returns of every individual public. You're talking about the tax returns of a tiny handful of individuals who just happen to be candidates for the presidency. (A job, should I add, that they are voluntarily trying to obtain.) Don't want your tax information released? Stick to whatever your old job was.
Pretty much every job is voluntary. (aside from conscription maybe)
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 03:45 PM   #118
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,714
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Forcing individuals who seek to be elected to public office to disclose their financial interests is not just about preventing them from acting in their personal financial interests in secret it's also about trying to prevent perfectly reasonable decisions from appearing suspicious and tainted.

Informal political conventions might work for conventional politicans but clearly are worthless when someone like Trump comes along and not only breaks them but unwittingly acts completely suspicious and incredibly questionable.
I'm convinced. Yes, this should be a law. It also should have been passed decades ago. I don't like the circumstances surrounded the creation of such a law at the present time, but that's neither here nor there.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 04:10 PM   #119
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,349
Why not just make all tax records public?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 04:12 PM   #120
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,067
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I have no idea what your job entailed. But the fact that you didn't use a 1040 "in that process" doesn't necessarily mean others won't find it useful in doing their work. After all, the work of a collections agent is not the same as someone who's goal is to evaluate the suitability of a candidate for political office. You'll be looking for different things.
It was for the IRS. I evaluated tax compliance, both in filing and payment. I know what's on there and what you actually need to make certain determinations. In short, I have a better working knowledge of what can and can not be gleaned looking at a paper return.

Quote:
Yes, I'm sure it would also be great to have bank records.

But tax returns (as imperfect as they are) are government forms, which puts them in a different category than bank records.

And has been explained to you before, "perfect is the enemy of the good".
Here is Clintons 2015 tax return: https://www.npr.org/2016/08/12/48977...eases-tax-rate

From that can you tell me if that was the return that was actually filed?
Was the tax actually paid?
Was it filed late or timely?
Was there an amended return?

Information that is actually important is not contained on the paper form.

For all I know, everything on there is accurate. But there is no way of knowing. This is why banks don't base their decisions on the 1040 you send them but your tax transcripts as processed by the IRS.

And, has been explained to you before, not all change is progress. Even if you forced candidates to provide copies of the returns they filed, it's not going to be the whole story. There are much better options.

Candidate could provide the 1040 they filed on Feb 11, being non-descript, and them send in the 1040x on April 15th, thus being fully compliant. But you got the 1040 and are blissfully ignorant of the change. Candidate would be fully complaint of the law as well, it's just what he wanted to cover up has been covered up.

Quote:
You're not talking about making the tax returns of every individual public. You're talking about the tax returns of a tiny handful of individuals who just happen to be candidates for the presidency. (A job, should I add, that they are voluntarily trying to obtain.) Don't want your tax information released? Stick to whatever your old job was.
How far down should it go? President, VP, Speaker of the house, every member of Congress? I mean, if they are going to create the tax code, shouldn't we be assured that those who make the rules are also complying with them?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.