• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presidential candidates releasing income tax returns?

Presidential candidates releasing income tax returns?

  • Yes, it's necessary, and it should continue.

    Votes: 6 37.5%

  • Usually meaningless, but sometimes useful information is revealed.

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • No. Please make it stop.

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Other.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Presidential candidates releasing income tax returns?

Of course, it is not legally required, it is only done as a matter of... tradition? Expectation? A game of "chicken"? A game of "Got'cha!"? It all started with Richard Nixon as the VP candidate in 1952. Since then, it's become expected. It changed the unwritten rules, one might say.

But... in YOUR opinion... is it really necessary?
 
No, I don't think it is necessary.
 
The vast majority of the time it is meaningless, but important information does come out occasionally. However, I'd still prefer that it just stop.
 
I think it's stupid insofar that people will use them for negative attacks. Apparently these days it's a sin to have capital gains because it's not taxed as normal income. In addition, what I write off and my charitable donations are nobody else's business.

On a side note, as an accountant, I'm against it because people think they know crap about taxes and how they work. It's borderline insulting. It's something akin to self-diagnosing your illness through the internet and going to your local doctor so you can tell him what you have.
 
I think it can occasionally provide some insight into the mind and character of the person running for office. And I'm not just talking about scandals; I think that ANY wealthy person is going to have some questionable stuff on their tax returns if one were to dig deeply enough, so I'm generally not interested in the "OMG can you believe Senator Jones claimed this deduction! Scandal! Impeachment!" type of coverage that they usually generate. I'm more interested in what it says about the candidate's lifestyle and his or her priorities.

But no, it's not NECESSARY, persay. I don't expect them to be bombshell news coverage. But since I see no reason why it's a bad idea, I think they should keep releasing them, barring a very good reason.
 
Last edited:
On one hand, I find the whole situation annoying because it promotes mudslinging over irrelevant details. However, I think that also illustrates the primary benefit of the system: there hasn't been a presidential candidate in the last 50 years who didn't have squeaky clean financials. The mere existence of the tradition means that anyone who engages in shady behavior doesn't even consider running. Overall, it probably cuts down on the number of corrupt weasels by a considerable margin.
 
rathi said:
However, I think that also illustrates the primary benefit of the system: there hasn't been a presidential candidate in the last 50 years who didn't have squeaky clean financials.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. Usually people who are rich and powerful enough to consider Presidential candidacy get their taxes done by CPAs and CPA firms. This is a very good method of transparency. A CPA has stringent ethical boundaries they cannot cross at the risk of license forfeiture, much like lawyers who face disbarment or doctors with a pitfall of license revocation. The AICPA retains the power and right to basically say that you're not one of them anymore if they find someone who engages in illegal or fraudulent behavior.

Nobody is going to risk their career and livelihood to muck up a few numbers, I promise you that.
 
Usually pointless, but this year it showed that Obama was a hypocrite. He spends a lot of time talking about how little Buffet pays in taxes, that he pays less of an effective rate than his secretary, then this year, shows that he, himself, paid less than the 30% that he wants millionaires to pay.

No surprise there.
 
Cephus said:
Usually pointless, but this year it showed that Obama was a hypocrite. He spends a lot of time talking about how little Buffet pays in taxes, that he pays less of an effective rate than his secretary, then this year, shows that he, himself, paid less than the 30% that he wants millionaires to pay.

No surprise there.
Click to expand...

You have a strange definition of hypocrisy. This isn't evidence of hypocrisy. It's just evidence of how the current tax code works.
 
Cephus said:
Usually pointless, but this year it showed that Obama was a hypocrite. He spends a lot of time talking about how little Buffet pays in taxes, that he pays less of an effective rate than his secretary, then this year, shows that he, himself, paid less than the 30% that he wants millionaires to pay.

No surprise there.
Click to expand...

:confused:
Umm what is hypocritical about that? He thinks that wealthy people, like Buffett and himself, should pay more than they currently do.
 
Cephus said:
Usually pointless, but this year it showed that Obama was a hypocrite. He spends a lot of time talking about how little Buffet pays in taxes, that he pays less of an effective rate than his secretary, then this year, shows that he, himself, paid less than the 30% that he wants millionaires to pay.
Click to expand...
Obama came in well under the million dollar mark yet his effective rate is much higher than the millionaire's rate as Romney has shown. Seems like a perfect demonstration of the issue.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
:confused:
Umm what is hypocritical about that? He thinks that wealthy people, like Buffett and himself, should pay more than they currently do.
Click to expand...

So what stopped him from giving the rest to the government? After all, if anyone can just hand over cash, it's him, and he knows he's going to release his tax documents to the public anyhow.
 
Cephus said:
So what stopped him from giving the rest to the government? After all, if anyone can just hand over cash, it's him, and he knows he's going to release his tax documents to the public anyhow.
Click to expand...

Oh please. This has to be one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. If voluntary contributions were enough to fund the government, then we wouldn't need any taxes at all. Let me ask you this: Do you support any taxes whatsoever? If so, why haven't you donated your entire paycheck to the government before you ask others to chip in too? Does not doing so make you a "hypocrite"? :roll:
 
Kandahar said:
Oh please. This has to be one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard. If voluntary contributions were enough to fund the government, then we wouldn't need any taxes at all. Let me ask you this: Do you support any taxes whatsoever? If so, why haven't you donated your entire paycheck to the government before you ask others to chip in too? Does not doing so make you a "hypocrite"? :roll:
Click to expand...

This is the guy who is pushing specifically for higher taxes on the wealthy. He thinks they should be required to pay at least 30% of their income in taxes, yet his own income is only taxed at 27%. If he and Buffet both want this so much, why are they not donating the difference to the IRS so they can do all the wonderful social programs that they seem to want to happen? But neither of them are doing it until they are forced by the tax code. Funny, that.
 
Cephus said:
This is the guy who is pushing specifically for higher taxes on the wealthy. He thinks they should be required to pay at least 30% of their income in taxes, yet his own income is only taxed at 27%. If he and Buffet both want this so much, why are they not donating the difference to the IRS so they can do all the wonderful social programs that they seem to want to happen? But neither of them are doing it until they are forced by the tax code. Funny, that.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Do you support any taxes at all? If you were legally obligated to pay $0, would you voluntarily give the government a dime? I thought not. Guess that makes you a hypocrite. :roll:

Of course Obama and Buffett aren't going to voluntarily pay money "until they are forced by the tax code." They don't want to be suckers, nor should they be expected to be; no one should be expected to pay more than they are legally required to pay. The whole idea of taxes is to force people to pay up, because voluntary contributions are not enough and never will be. This is such an asinine argument.
 
Kandahar said:
You didn't answer my question. Do you support any taxes at all? If you were legally obligated to pay $0, would you voluntarily give the government a dime? I thought not. Guess that makes you a hypocrite. :roll:
Click to expand...

Absolutely, taxes are a necessity. But if I was going around holding news conferences telling everyone that people need to pay more in taxes, you'd be damn sure I'd be paying those taxes up front, especially if I was releasing my tax returns to the public.
 
Cephus said:
Absolutely, taxes are a necessity. But if I was going around holding news conferences telling everyone that people need to pay more in taxes, you'd be damn sure I'd be paying those taxes up front, especially if I was releasing my tax returns to the public.
Click to expand...

He did pay his taxes up front. I really don't get what your beef is.
 
It's a good way to complain about how rich someone is.
 
Fiddytree said:
It's a good way to complain about how rich someone is.
Click to expand...

There is, there must be some envy and jealousy of the rich, its human nature.
The point is obvious...the tax rate for the rich is too low...at one time, 60 years ago , it was 90% !
Of course, no millionaire back then paid that amount.
But, now its far too low...Why can't we get this right ???
Reason - the millionaires write the tax code ??
We need a better people.
 
radcen said:
But... in YOUR opinion... is it really necessary?
Click to expand...

Yes its necessary.It ensures to the public that the candidate is honest to a certain degree.
 
I think their personal income is of far less relevance or interest than the finances of their campaigns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom