Democrats to ask for 10 years of presidential tax returns in new bill

[Chomsky]

Post reminds me of a naval analogy and an aircraft carrier........

That's not a bad analogy ...

 

[yankintx]

Just a big democratic game!! :sword: You know what they will be doing for the next two years.
They want Trumps tax returns while not funding border security? Pitiful conduct.

The Dems have offered over 1 Billion in border protection funding. As for the 5 billion wanted for a wall, Trump is waiting for Mexicos check to clear.

Now back on topic, are you not a supporter of transperancy? If it were Hilldogs tax returns would you feel differently?

 

[Anthony60]

Yes, that's the path for getting Trump's returns specifically. Thank you for providing it.

But I suspect Luther was referring to promulgating legislation requiring all future candidates to bare their tax returns. It's possible there may be Constitutional concerns with this. I really don't know.

This seems like a violation of separation of powers.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, that's the path for getting Trump's returns specifically. Thank you for providing it.

But I suspect Luther was referring to promulgating legislation requiring all future candidates to bare their tax returns. It's possible there may be Constitutional concerns with this. I really don't know.

Ah, I see.

Laurence Tribe, Richard Painter and Norman Eisen tackle this:

As state legislators have worked on these measures to ensure that future candidates for president, whoever they might be, provide this important information to the state's voters, opponents of the measures have claimed that they would be unconstitutional.

These critics have largely relied on a 1995 Supreme Court decision striking down a law that sought to use ballot access to impose term limits on U.S. senators and representatives. In that case, the court said, the state was wrongly using its power over ballot access to add something new to the list of qualifications for office: that the person not have previously served over a certain number of years in the office already.

We have studied the recent round of state proposals requiring presidential candidates to release tax return information carefully and have concluded that they would be constitutional.

Our federal Constitution allows states to create ballot access requirements that ensure that the ballots for every office, including the office of presidential elector, are comprehensible and informative.

A line must of course be drawn between permissible ballot access laws and impermissible attempts to add qualifications to those specified in the federal Constitution. But our research and analysis lead us to conclude that tax return disclosure laws such as the one proposed in California resemble ballot access laws in structure, impact, and purpose much more closely than they resemble laws imposing additional qualifications for presidential office.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/opin...sclosure-legal-tribe-painter-eisen/index.html

Personally, I would like to see the if the folks at Lawfare have delved into this. Those guys really get into the legal nitty gritty.

 

[Cardinal]

Perhaps. But I do expect Trump to refuse, both en total and writ large.

Of course he'll refuse. Nobody thinks he's going to receive the subpoena on Monday and say, "Sheesh, all you guys had to do was ask" and hand over his tax returns.

 

[Athanasius68]

Make it effective for president 46 and it shouldn't be a problem for the Senate.

 

[Cardinal]

If the Democrats do this there will be hell to pay. While half of you guys will fell like you just won the lottery the rest of the country will understand the ploy as a nuke on the Constitution. They'll see it as an egregious violation of personal privacy because if Congress can do that to Trump they can do it to anybody for any reason. It will be a bright and shining example of how government tends to work for their own ends without regard for how their actions effect the fundamental principles of freedom that people expect their government to protect.

If the Democrats do this it will generally be seen as an act of political hatred directed at Trump done expressly for political purposes in in direct opposition to all the principles of individual liberty this nation was founded on. The sad part is, I kind of doubt that many Democrats will feel like that until it happens to them some day.

What are you guys so afraid of? Everybody's been showing their tax returns for, what, forty years now? What could possibly be so awful in Trump's returns?

Make it effective for president 46 and it shouldn't be a problem for the Senate.

Er...yes, that's the point. The bill is aimed at making it a legal requirement...period...for all Presidential candidates.

 

[Xelor]

No. Npr describes how we can expect to see the coming fight:


1. For the party in control of the House or Senate, making the request is easy. It would come from the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee (the House panel that writes tax law), Senate Finance Committee or Joint Committee on Taxation. Democrats have been badgering the Republican chairs of those panels to act since February 2017 without success.

2. Once a request is made, no floor action is necessary. The request would go to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who oversees the IRS — not to the taxpayer in the Oval Office, who would officially be out of the loop. Yin said the 1924 law "gave the tax committees the unqualified right to request the tax returns of any taxpayer."

3. What would happen next is uncharted territory. Based on recent events, Trump might deploy Justice Department lawyers, and perhaps private lawyers, to fight the request in court. The process might resemble the not-infrequent legal battles over congressional subpoenas for executive branch documents. But the committee access provision has never been before a federal judge.

4. Were Congress to get access to Trump's returns, it would be easy for lawmakers to disclose the information, despite various privacy protections that exist for taxpayers. The chair or committee with Trump's tax returns could submit them to the full House or Senate if there's a legitimate legislative purpose. At that point, the returns would very likely quickly become available for the public to see on the Internet.

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/11/6566...-demand-and-get-trumps-tax-returns-here-s-how

Red:
Most folks among the public, as it were, won't know what to do with or look for in a tax return like Trump's. The stuff to look at/for will be in the supporting schedules/forms, not in the main forms.

That said, that's no reason not to release them. Members of the public who've been party to certain kinds of transactions with Trump would be able to see whether they were properly reported. Similarly, people who didn't have certain kinds of transactions with him will likely be able to tell whether he's falsely alleged he did.

 

[jimbo]

While nobody has any expectation that such a bill could pass the Senate in its current makeup, the onus will be on Republicans to argue against the rationale for such a bill. Their argument for why Trump shouldn't release their tax returns, "It's none of your business," wasn't especially compelling when it was first made in 2016. However, in light of the President's insistence on repeating Russian propaganda, taking the side of Putin over our own intelligence community, and the revelation that he lied throughout 2016 about his Moscow Tower deal all the while denying he had any business dealings with Russia, revealing a candidate's tax returns demonstrates the importance of showing the American people that he isn't financially compromised in any way that would lead to him act in the best interests of a foreign government (as just one example).



https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/trump-tax-returns-democrats/index.html

Feelgood Trump gotcha legislation with less than zero chance of passing. For one thing, legislation won't get it done. 35, natural born, 14 year resident. An amendment is needed to overturn an amendment. For another, even an amendment will not affect any current or past President.

Why does the left continue down this road? It's a loser. You won't get them, you couldn't read them if you did. They will reveal nothing. Especially something Russia. They've all been audited and passed by the professionals at IRS. The left would better off using the time finding someone who can beat President Trump. So far I see no one, nor any platform other than last election's loser + Trump really bad.

 

[Cardinal]

Red:
Most folks among the public, as it were, won't know what to do with or look for in a tax return like Trump's. The stuff to look at/for will be in the supporting schedules/forms, not in the main forms.

That said, that's no reason not to release them. Members of the public who've been party to certain kinds of transactions with Trump would be able to see whether they were properly reported. Similarly, people who didn't have certain kinds of transactions with him will likely be able to tell whether he's falsely alleged he did.

I'm not sure what your point here is. Lots of people don't know what they're looking at every time they open a newspaper and read about some court motion that just happened within the DOJ. That's why we have analysts to break it down for the rest of the schmucks.

 

[Cardinal]

They will reveal nothing. Especially something Russia.

That remains to be seen.

 

[Chomsky]

This seems like a violation of separation of powers.

Trump's returns, specifically? Or, the generic legislation?

The former is legit. I really have no idea of the latter.

 

[Athanasius68]

Er...yes, that's the point. The bill is aimed at making it a legal requirement...period...for all Presidential candidates.

Make it effective 2024 election. Otherwise it will be seen as just another political hit directed toward Trump.

 

[jimbo]

Yep, that's definitely happening. More civics/legal lessons we'll all be learning in the coming months: what are the tools that Trump can deploy in order to fight the House's attempts to subpoena his returns? I guess we'll all find out as it unfolds.

Trump needs no tools. By law tax returns are not public information.

 

[Chomsky]

The rationale is that someones tax returns are none of the public's business unless that person decides its in their interest to give out that information. I cant remember ever caring about this.

Then how do the voters make an informed decision, as to whether the prospective candidate has any financial conflicts of interest?

 

[Chomsky]

Make it effective 2024 election. Otherwise it will be seen as just another political hit directed toward Trump.

Great point!

 

[Lursa]

Make it effective 2024 election. Otherwise it will be seen as just another political hit directed toward Trump.

Make it 2020. That way there's no action against him during his current presidency but if they would affect his eligibility, then good chance he wouldnt run in 2020. And if he's not eligible, he shouldnt run. Or if there is alot of dishonest crap in there, the people SHOULD know that before voting.

 

[Cardinal]

Make it effective 2024 election. Otherwise it will be seen as just another political hit directed toward Trump.

It's a moot point. Trump will most likely lose court battles to prevent his tax returns from being subpoenaed by the House.

 

[Lursa]

Trump needs no tools. By law tax returns are not public information.

Trump needs no tools, he is a tool :lol:



Sorry, couldnt resist.

 

[tres borrachos]

Make it effective 2024 election. Otherwise it will be seen as just another political hit directed toward Trump.

It will only be seen as that by people whose skin is thin when it comes to Trump.

 

[Lutherf]

What are you guys so afraid of? Everybody's been showing their tax returns for, what, forty years now? What could possibly be so awful in Trump's returns?



Er...yes, that's the point. The bill is aimed at making it a legal requirement...period...for all Presidential candidates.

Those people all did so willingly. Trump is unwilling to do so. There is no current law or Constitutional provision which would compel him to release his returns and there is no good reason for him to do so. Democrats in congress, however, want to see them and want to release them to the public so they are hellbent on creating a new law...likely unconstitutional...for the express purpose of FORCING him to release the returns.

This is the essence of Socialism. It's the whole concept of "we believe this is good for you and we will force you to accept it whether you believe it's good or not".

 

[Irwin Corey]

Democrats to ask for 10 years of presidential tax returns in new bill

…..

 

[tres borrachos]

Those people all did so willingly. Trump is unwilling to do so. There is no current law or Constitutional provision which would compel him to release his returns and there is no good reason for him to do so. Democrats in congress, however, want to see them and want to release them to the public so they are hellbent on creating a new law...likely unconstitutional...for the express purpose of FORCING him to release the returns.

This is the essence of Socialism. It's the whole concept of "we believe this is good for you and we will force you to accept it whether you believe it's good or not".

How exactly is the vetting of a Presidential candidate to see if there is any conflict of interest in his financial ties "socialism"?

 

[Xelor]

I'm not sure what your point here is. Lots of people don't know what they're looking at every time they open a newspaper and read about some court motion that just happened within the DOJ. That's why we have analysts to break it down for the rest of the schmucks.

My point is that although releasing the returns for public consumption is "doing the right thing," pragmatically speaking, it's little more than a gesture. I don't deny, however, that doing so will afford IRS with "tons" of help, particularly from tax strategists adept in the machinations of ultra-wealthy folks' tax avoidance schemes and familiar with the firms that abet such maneuvers, in reviewing his returns.

 

[Chomsky]

Make it 2020. That way there's no action against him during his current presidency but if they would affect his eligibility, then good chance he wouldnt run in 2020. And if he's not eligible, he shouldnt run. Or if there is alot of dishonest crap in there, the people SHOULD know that before voting.

I disagree. If it's put out to 2024, it then effects no one currently in office. Consequently, it appears far less partisan. That's what I would do (2024).