• 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!

Washington state passes bill mandating political candidates release tax returns in order to appear o

MauiMan said:
Nude inspections of candidates will soon follow.

I believe what they’re smoking is called...pakalolo.
Click to expand...
Oh God let's hope not . The thought of Nancy Pelosi in the buff. :doh Now AOC on the other hand might be OK.
 
What is next will some state require that all candidates be blue eyed? The law is clearly unconstitutional and will be swatted down by the SCOTUS. We cannot have the states setting 50 different requirements for Federal office. That is ridiculous and unworkable.
 
Refusing to show your income taxes to the public, should have ended the Trump campaign. But it didnt, showing that an honor system is not good enough.

But we also need to realize that there truly should not be any honor systems in our government.

Say someone releases their taxes to run for president. Then in this hyper partisan hackery Washington, some assholes make accusations about said candidates taxes. Then we are going back and forth about what it all means.
Instead of requiring the release of taxes just have the candidates sign a paper under oath that states that they are not doing A,B,C,D etc. And if at anytime that it is discovered that they lied under oath in the paper that they signed, they will be impeached without the need of the Senate to decide anything. Once elected then every bit of that paper signed will then be gone over. If it all checks out then fine that person will actually become President if it doesn't then they will not.
 
Cardinal said:
Nobody is arguing that federal returns aren't confidential, but you still need to provide them for other things, such as a mortgage loan, and nobody is arguing that that's Unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The lending institutions are required by law to keep a person's tax returns fully confidential as well.


So there is a huge difference.
 
Cardinal said:
Everyone has a right to keep their age private, too. But you have to demonstrate that you're 35 or above to run for President.
Click to expand...
But that is covered by the Constitution This isn't. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you want to see 5 years of Tax Return for all Presidential candidates FINE make a Constitutional amendment. Its just that simple.
 
SLC said:
But that is covered by the Constitution This isn't. BIG DIFFERENCE. If you want to see 5 years of Tax Return for all Presidential candidates FINE make a Constitutional amendment. Its just that simple.
Click to expand...

Waitaminit, what? Isn't that the opposite argument you're making in the Census thread?
 
RetiredUSN said:
The lending institutions are required by law to keep a person's tax returns fully confidential as well.


So there is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we'll all keep his returns confidential, when we make our confidential vote in the election booth. Running for office is a voluntary thing. Other "private activities" are fair game when evaluating our representatives. It's less intrusive than a security clearance. Maybe that should be part of our evaluation, too!
 
danarhea said:
Even a Trump basher like me knows that it would be unconstitutional to deprive citizens of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice. WTF are they smoking in the Washington State Senate?

Washington state passes bill mandating political candidates release tax returns in order to appear on ballot - CBS News
Click to expand...

States deprive citizens of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice every election year. State rules mandate that to be on the ballot, one has to get a certain number of signatures, be a certain age, etc. Adding the requirement that to be on the ballot one has to have released X number of tax returns is consistent with precedent.
 
Kind of a pointless law, if you ask me. On the issue of Trump, the media already dug up his tax payments and returns. It was found that he overpaid on his taxes by several million dollars. And a little fun fact, Crazy Bernie WAAAAAAYYYYY under pays on his taxes. So this is beating a dead horse and this won't stop Trump from winning reelection, which you guys on the Left and you Never Trump people on the Right and Middle are just upping his chances every time you open your mouths on issues like this. But please, keep talking.
 
Herkamer63 said:
Kind of a pointless law, if you ask me. On the issue of Trump, the media already dug up his tax payments and returns. It was found that he overpaid on his taxes by several million dollars. And a little fun fact, Crazy Bernie WAAAAAAYYYYY under pays on his taxes. So this is beating a dead horse and this won't stop Trump from winning reelection, which you guys on the Left and you Never Trump people on the Right and Middle are just upping his chances every time you open your mouths on issues like this. But please, keep talking.
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence of this statement, especially where Trump's tax returns have come out, been exposed by anyone, particularly the part where you claim he overpaid.
 
Well...at a minimum Trump has done one good thing for our country.
 
SLC said:
We cannot have the states setting 50 different requirements for Federal office. That is ridiculous and unworkable.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There should be one FEDERAL standard for ALL Federal offices, and all Federal elections should be organized by, and run under rules established by, one Federal office.

Not only that, but there should NOT be 50 different standards for "redistricting" and/or "electoral district boundaries" and those should all be conducted/determined under a single Federal standard and under the supervision of a single Federal authority.

Other countries that are even larger in extent than the US manage it so the US should have absolutely no difficulty at all in doing it.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Refusing to show your income taxes to the public, should have ended the Trump campaign. But it didnt, showing that an honor system is not good enough.

But we also need to realize that there truly should not be any honor systems in our government.

Say someone releases their taxes to run for president. Then in this hyper partisan hackery Washington, some assholes make accusations about said candidates taxes. Then we are going back and forth about what it all means.
Instead of requiring the release of taxes just have the candidates sign a paper under oath that states that they are not doing A,B,C,D etc. And if at anytime that it is discovered that they lied under oath in the paper that they signed, they will be impeached without the need of the Senate to decide anything. Once elected then every bit of that paper signed will then be gone over. If it all checks out then fine that person will actually become President if it doesn't then they will not.
Click to expand...

As someone once remarked about "The Honour System" at the US Military Academy, "Yes we have the 'Honour System'. The staff have the honour and the students have the system.".
 
Herkamer63 said:
Kind of a pointless law, if you ask me. On the issue of Trump, the media already dug up his tax payments and returns. It was found that he overpaid on his taxes by several million dollars.
Click to expand...

Those things are sort of funny. I had my accountant re-do my own income tax returns after a change in circumstances that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either "income earned" or "allowed deductions" and ended up receiving a refund of 100% of the income tax that I had paid in the three years previously.

So, I guess you could say that I had "overpaid on my taxes" (the fact that I got it all back is totally irrelevant to the fact that I had paid more than I actually had to pay [once we had done some "accounting adjustments"]).

Mr. Trump received back all of the money that he had "overpaid" and, also ended up not paying any income tax for the next 10 years or so.

I have some difficulty is classing "getting back every dime of an over payment PLUS 10+ years of paying taxes as 0.000%" as "over payment of taxes", but I guess that I simply don't have the same sense of humour as my accountant did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom