(08-13-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 12:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, there is not a single line item that says "net worth" but there's a significant amount of information that a best guess can be made - certainly not one down to a dollar.

Just shows your ignorance of accounting. What is the net worth of an individual who shows $800K of income? what is the net worth of an individual who shows $30K of income? Both of those individuals are me in the last five years - and my net worth has not changed much in that period.

But you are right, there will be guesses made, and they will be biased and baseless. Hardly "best".

This. Not trying to be rude Lad, but your response is exactly what most people think (because they don't know) and it exactly why he wouldn't want to release them. You can't even get the direction of the net worth change, much less down to dollars.

As to 'unsavory'... I've seen people upset (they find it unsavory) when companies pay no taxes on millions of revenue this year... ignoring (or ignorant of the fact) that part of the reason they paid no taxes this year because they lost millions in the previous years... and many of those same people would use those losses in previous years to claim the 'unsavory' quality that he's a bad businessman because he lost money. Those are both 'unsavory', and neither is remotely illegal, unethical or wrong.

When you make an investment, you typically lose lots of money up front and make it back later. That is how most accounting for investors work. Often their net worth is increasing as they are reporting losses, especially if the rationale for the investment were to 'increase value of the asset' (like developing a raw property) as opposed to generating revenue from it (by leasing it out). Now throw in having perhaps dozens of projects at various stages of their development, not to mention a dozen different 'participations' and you have something that only a few people (like the IRS) would even begin to be able to unravel.

I DO find it funny that you seem to think Biden ignores the question because the answer wouldn't make the questions stop, but Trump ignores the questions because he has something to hide.

If there was a precedent of POTUS nominees taking mental evals, I would have the same opinion of Biden. Same if he doesn’t release tax returns.

Edit: the crux of the issue is going against the norms. If you go against norms, there must be a perceived net positive - to me, the most logical reason that Trump went against norms is that he felt keeping that information out of public eye was worth the consternation from the public. And it makes sense to me that it was because he actually wanted to hide something or didn’t want people to know something (subtle difference I can explain if you need me to).

Biden is sticking with the norm by not taking a cognition test, so I don’t see that as him wanting to hide something. Taking a cognition test, against the norm, would be done to prove something, and I don’t buy the idea that it would sway anyone.

But like I said, in a perfect world, we would have some mental and physical evaluations done. And I don’t think questioning either candidate about their age or cognitive ability is off limits.

Norms change, and the first is the pathfinder. Nixon was the pathfinder for publishing tax returns. Interesting you want Trump to emulate Nixon.

It used to be the norm for Presidential candidates to be white males. It used to the norm for Hollywood executives to make liberal use of the casting couch. Be cafeful of quoting "norms".

I wonder who was the first candidate to take a physical and have their doctor certify them healthy and fit for service?

One thing is sure - if ever a candidate takes a mental test and then wins, it will become the new norm.

(08-13-2020 12:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 12:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, there is not a single line item that says "net worth" but there's a significant amount of information that a best guess can be made - certainly not one down to a dollar.

Just shows your ignorance of accounting. What is the net worth of an individual who shows $800K of income? what is the net worth of an individual who shows $30K of income? Both of those individuals are me in the last five years - and my net worth has not changed much in that period.

But you are right, there will be guesses made, and they will be biased and baseless. Hardly "best".

This. Not trying to be rude Lad, but your response is exactly what most people think (because they don't know) and it exactly why he wouldn't want to release them. You can't even get the direction of the net worth change, much less down to dollars.

As to 'unsavory'... I've seen people upset (they find it unsavory) when companies pay no taxes on millions of revenue this year... ignoring (or ignorant of the fact) that part of the reason they paid no taxes this year because they lost millions in the previous years... and many of those same people would use those losses in previous years to claim the 'unsavory' quality that he's a bad businessman because he lost money. Those are both 'unsavory', and neither is remotely illegal, unethical or wrong.

When you make an investment, you typically lose lots of money up front and make it back later. That is how most accounting for investors work. Often their net worth is increasing as they are reporting losses, especially if the rationale for the investment were to 'increase value of the asset' (like developing a raw property) as opposed to generating revenue from it (by leasing it out). Now throw in having perhaps dozens of projects at various stages of their development, not to mention a dozen different 'participations' and you have something that only a few people (like the IRS) would even begin to be able to unravel.

I DO find it funny that you seem to think Biden ignores the question because the answer wouldn't make the questions stop, but Trump ignores the questions because he has something to hide.

If there was a precedent of POTUS nominees taking mental evals, I would have the same opinion of Biden. Same if he doesn’t release tax returns.

Edit: the crux of the issue is going against the norms. If you go against norms, there must be a perceived net positive - to me, the most logical reason that Trump went against norms is that he felt keeping that information out of public eye was worth the consternation from the public. And it makes sense to me that it was because he actually wanted to hide something or didn’t want people to know something (subtle difference I can explain if you need me to).

Biden is sticking with the norm by not taking a cognition test, so I don’t see that as him wanting to hide something. Taking a cognition test, against the norm, would be done to prove something, and I don’t buy the idea that it would sway anyone.

But like I said, in a perfect world, we would have some mental and physical evaluations done. And I don’t think questioning either candidate about their age or cognitive ability is off limits.

Norms change, and the first is the pathfinder. Nixon was the pathfinder for publishing tax returns. Interesting you want Trump to emulate Nixon.

It used to be the norm for Presidential candidates to be white males. It used to the norm for Hollywood executives to make liberal use of the casting couch. Be cafeful of quoting "norms".

I wonder who was the first candidate to take a physical and have their doctor certify them healthy and fit for service?

One thing is sure - if ever a candidate takes a mental test and then wins, it will become the new norm.

Lol, yeah, in this case I do want Trump to emulate Nixon.

I believe the more open and honest that a candidate can be with the American public, the better. And going a against an established norm that does that, should raise questions.

Would it be better if Biden and Trump basically shared their medical records? You betcha.

Am I going to get up in arms if they don’t share a mental health evaluation? Nope.

(08-13-2020 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 12:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 12:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just shows your ignorance of accounting. What is the net worth of an individual who shows $800K of income? what is the net worth of an individual who shows $30K of income? Both of those individuals are me in the last five years - and my net worth has not changed much in that period.

But you are right, there will be guesses made, and they will be biased and baseless. Hardly "best".

This. Not trying to be rude Lad, but your response is exactly what most people think (because they don't know) and it exactly why he wouldn't want to release them. You can't even get the direction of the net worth change, much less down to dollars.

As to 'unsavory'... I've seen people upset (they find it unsavory) when companies pay no taxes on millions of revenue this year... ignoring (or ignorant of the fact) that part of the reason they paid no taxes this year because they lost millions in the previous years... and many of those same people would use those losses in previous years to claim the 'unsavory' quality that he's a bad businessman because he lost money. Those are both 'unsavory', and neither is remotely illegal, unethical or wrong.

When you make an investment, you typically lose lots of money up front and make it back later. That is how most accounting for investors work. Often their net worth is increasing as they are reporting losses, especially if the rationale for the investment were to 'increase value of the asset' (like developing a raw property) as opposed to generating revenue from it (by leasing it out). Now throw in having perhaps dozens of projects at various stages of their development, not to mention a dozen different 'participations' and you have something that only a few people (like the IRS) would even begin to be able to unravel.

I DO find it funny that you seem to think Biden ignores the question because the answer wouldn't make the questions stop, but Trump ignores the questions because he has something to hide.

If there was a precedent of POTUS nominees taking mental evals, I would have the same opinion of Biden. Same if he doesn’t release tax returns.

Edit: the crux of the issue is going against the norms. If you go against norms, there must be a perceived net positive - to me, the most logical reason that Trump went against norms is that he felt keeping that information out of public eye was worth the consternation from the public. And it makes sense to me that it was because he actually wanted to hide something or didn’t want people to know something (subtle difference I can explain if you need me to).

Biden is sticking with the norm by not taking a cognition test, so I don’t see that as him wanting to hide something. Taking a cognition test, against the norm, would be done to prove something, and I don’t buy the idea that it would sway anyone.

But like I said, in a perfect world, we would have some mental and physical evaluations done. And I don’t think questioning either candidate about their age or cognitive ability is off limits.

Norms change, and the first is the pathfinder. Nixon was the pathfinder for publishing tax returns. Interesting you want Trump to emulate Nixon.

It used to be the norm for Presidential candidates to be white males. It used to the norm for Hollywood executives to make liberal use of the casting couch. Be cafeful of quoting "norms".

I wonder who was the first candidate to take a physical and have their doctor certify them healthy and fit for service?

One thing is sure - if ever a candidate takes a mental test and then wins, it will become the new norm.

Lol, yeah, in this case I do want Trump to emulate Nixon.

I believe the more open and honest that a candidate can be with the American public, the better. And going a against an established norm that does that, should raise questions.

Would it be better if Biden and Trump basically shared their medical records? You betcha.

Am I going to get up in arms if they don’t share a mental health evaluation? Nope.

At this point, I just hope they share a debate stage. I don't care about Biden's tax
returns. Every politician shapes their incomes and deductions to fit, and makes sure that other things are not on there. I did not expect Hillary's or Biden's returns to disclose bribes paid to charities or family members. Just worthless trash as for as I can know.

I would be much more interested in Hunter's tax returns. Now those would interesting.

As for the mental test, I would presume it is on a pass/fail basis. Mot much to learn there. I bet my crazy sister could pass, as long as they did not ask about the man living in he walls.

If it were graded on a 0-100 basis, what the hell would an 82 mean, or a 91? That is where the nitpickers would descend. Oh he is only rational 82% if the time? One out of eleven days he is crazy?

No I really don't want to make it a requirement for any candidate to take these tests OR to disclose his returns. But for now at least, disclosure of tax returns and other financial information is voluntary. If your side wants to make it mandatory, they can do so. But I think even if they had 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen they would not. These things have a way of coming back to bite the creators in the ass sometime in the future. Just ask Harry Reid. . Much better for the party to just harp on it when convenient, keep quiet when not.

I don't think wondering about the mental and physical health of an older person is an invalid concern. I don't think questions about how they made whatever money they made is an invalid question. Whether or how they choose to address those concerns is a different question.

The problem with 'norms' is that they often simply encourage the status quo and discourage innovation and 'new blood'. How do you keep 'different' people out of your club? Norms



Just as an aside, it's been the norm for a while for President's physicians to comment on their health.

(08-13-2020 01:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think wondering about the mental and physical health of an older person is an invalid concern. I don't think questions about how they made whatever money they made is an invalid question. Whether or how they choose to address those concerns is a different question.

The problem with 'norms' is that they often simply encourage the status quo and discourage innovation and 'new blood'. How do you keep 'different' people out of your club? Norms

I agree to an extent.

Norms exist for a reason - we as :insert group here: have decided that this is appropriate behavior. At times that can do exactly what you say, keep people who are different in the outgroup, and do so unjustly. So yes, one problem with norms CAN be that.

But let's be honest, that is not the case here. That is not a reasonable justification for a supposed billionaire from being more secretive about their personal, financial interests than those who served in the highest office of the land before. IMO, Trump deserves all criticisms for not providing his tax returns because it keeps how he has made his money and what financial interests he personally has, more opaque than they should be for someone in his position of power.

We should hold public office holders to a high standard, and I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why Trump shouldn't have released his tax returns.

(08-13-2020 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 01:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think wondering about the mental and physical health of an older person is an invalid concern. I don't think questions about how they made whatever money they made is an invalid question. Whether or how they choose to address those concerns is a different question.

The problem with 'norms' is that they often simply encourage the status quo and discourage innovation and 'new blood'. How do you keep 'different' people out of your club? Norms

I agree to an extent.

Norms exist for a reason - we as :insert group here: have decided that this is appropriate behavior. At times that can do exactly what you say, keep people who are different in the outgroup, and do so unjustly. So yes, one problem with norms CAN be that.

But let's be honest, that is not the case here. That is not a reasonable justification for a supposed billionaire from being more secretive about their personal, financial interests than those who served in the highest office of the land before. IMO, Trump deserves all criticisms for not providing his tax returns because it keeps how he has made his money and what financial interests he personally has, more opaque than they should be for someone in his position of power.

We should hold public office holders to a high standard, and I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why Trump shouldn't have released his tax returns.

I see it as just the opposite. Billionaires have tax returns that would be as undecipherable to most people as hieroglyphics before the Rosetta Stone. Anybody can see a return that shows one W-2 and a few exemptions and a standard deduction and more or less understand it. But I don't think even I or Numbers could make heads or tails of Trump's returns, and he is a CPA and I have 40 years experience with all sorts of business returns.

OTOH, when you are a professional politician, you know your returns will be made public and you can take steps to sanitize them.

I would be just as happy if nobody published their tax returns. They are a bunch of toilet paper anyway. What is NOT shown is always more important than what IS.

(08-13-2020 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree to an extent.

Norms exist for a reason - we as :insert group here: have decided that this is appropriate behavior. At times that can do exactly what you say, keep people who are different in the outgroup, and do so unjustly. So yes, one problem with norms CAN be that.

When did 'we' decide that this was appropriate? If by 'we' you mean 'career politicians starting with Nixon', that only demonstrates that they know that the things they might be doing that are 'unsavory' don't appear in a tax form.

I haven't looked at one single Presidential candidates tax form in my lifetime.... because if they're doing something that actually IS 'unsavory' as opposed to merely appearing so to the average person, it certainly won't be in their tax form.

The only 'we' that matter here are voters.

Quote:But let's be honest, that is not the case here. That is not a reasonable justification for a supposed billionaire from being more secretive about their personal, financial interests than those who served in the highest office of the land before. IMO, Trump deserves all criticisms for not providing his tax returns because it keeps how he has made his money and what financial interests he personally has, more opaque than they should be for someone in his position of power.

We should hold public office holders to a high standard, and I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why Trump shouldn't have released his tax returns.

So if it's so telling and important, why is it just 'common'? Why not add this to the requirements for office? If 'we the voters' were in such strong support for this, why wouldn't we simply add this?

Yes, lets DO be honest. The key here is that YOU haven't found the arguments compelling. Color me shocked at that. Trump has declined, so you think he's hiding something and the primary evidence to support that claim is that he declined. When Biden declines to do something though... that's because it's apparently not the 'norm' for a candidate to demonstrate that they're mentally competent. I'll grant you that... Mental health has made a lot of advancements. I guess we shouldn't add any new 'norms' though.... oh, other than 'this' one of course.

There is zero upside for Trump to release his taxes. "Norm' or not, it is not a legal requirement for office and sure didn't keep him from getting elected last time. If you choose to try and make hay of that (again), feel free.

(08-13-2020 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Trump has declined, so you think he's hiding something and the primary evidence to support that claim is that he declined.

Sounds like those witch hunts of half a millennium ago.

(08-13-2020 05:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Trump has declined, so you think he's hiding something and the primary evidence to support that claim is that he declined.

Sounds like those witch hunts of half a millennium ago.

Kudos for catching that. I thought about making more of a joke about Presidential Candidates not needing to demonstrate their mental competency... but because of Dad, I struggle a bit with jokes about that

(08-13-2020 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree to an extent.

Norms exist for a reason - we as :insert group here: have decided that this is appropriate behavior. At times that can do exactly what you say, keep people who are different in the outgroup, and do so unjustly. So yes, one problem with norms CAN be that.

When did 'we' decide that this was appropriate? If by 'we' you mean 'career politicians starting with Nixon', that only demonstrates that they know that the things they might be doing that are 'unsavory' don't appear in a tax form.

I haven't looked at one single Presidential candidates tax form in my lifetime.... because if they're doing something that actually IS 'unsavory' as opposed to merely appearing so to the average person, it certainly won't be in their tax form.

The only 'we' that matter here are voters.

Quote:But let's be honest, that is not the case here. That is not a reasonable justification for a supposed billionaire from being more secretive about their personal, financial interests than those who served in the highest office of the land before. IMO, Trump deserves all criticisms for not providing his tax returns because it keeps how he has made his money and what financial interests he personally has, more opaque than they should be for someone in his position of power.

We should hold public office holders to a high standard, and I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why Trump shouldn't have released his tax returns.

So if it's so telling and important, why is it just 'common'? Why not add this to the requirements for office? If 'we the voters' were in such strong support for this, why wouldn't we simply add this?

Yes, lets DO be honest. The key here is that YOU haven't found the arguments compelling. Color me shocked at that. Trump has declined, so you think he's hiding something and the primary evidence to support that claim is that he declined. When Biden declines to do something though... that's because it's apparently not the 'norm' for a candidate to demonstrate that they're mentally competent. I'll grant you that... Mental health has made a lot of advancements. I guess we shouldn't add any new 'norms' though.... oh, other than 'this' one of course.

There is zero upside for Trump to release his taxes. "Norm' or not, it is not a legal requirement for office and sure didn't keep him from getting elected last time. If you choose to try and make hay of that (again), feel free.

Shouldn’t be added as a requirement for the same reason a physical or mental test shouldn’t be, IMO - potential for abuse. Our current requirements for holding office are sufficient from a legal perspective, IMO.

(08-13-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree to an extent.

Norms exist for a reason - we as :insert group here: have decided that this is appropriate behavior. At times that can do exactly what you say, keep people who are different in the outgroup, and do so unjustly. So yes, one problem with norms CAN be that.

When did 'we' decide that this was appropriate? If by 'we' you mean 'career politicians starting with Nixon', that only demonstrates that they know that the things they might be doing that are 'unsavory' don't appear in a tax form.

I haven't looked at one single Presidential candidates tax form in my lifetime.... because if they're doing something that actually IS 'unsavory' as opposed to merely appearing so to the average person, it certainly won't be in their tax form.

The only 'we' that matter here are voters.

Quote:But let's be honest, that is not the case here. That is not a reasonable justification for a supposed billionaire from being more secretive about their personal, financial interests than those who served in the highest office of the land before. IMO, Trump deserves all criticisms for not providing his tax returns because it keeps how he has made his money and what financial interests he personally has, more opaque than they should be for someone in his position of power.

We should hold public office holders to a high standard, and I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why Trump shouldn't have released his tax returns.

So if it's so telling and important, why is it just 'common'? Why not add this to the requirements for office? If 'we the voters' were in such strong support for this, why wouldn't we simply add this?

Yes, lets DO be honest. The key here is that YOU haven't found the arguments compelling. Color me shocked at that. Trump has declined, so you think he's hiding something and the primary evidence to support that claim is that he declined. When Biden declines to do something though... that's because it's apparently not the 'norm' for a candidate to demonstrate that they're mentally competent. I'll grant you that... Mental health has made a lot of advancements. I guess we shouldn't add any new 'norms' though.... oh, other than 'this' one of course.

There is zero upside for Trump to release his taxes. "Norm' or not, it is not a legal requirement for office and sure didn't keep him from getting elected last time. If you choose to try and make hay of that (again), feel free.

Shouldn’t be added as a requirement for the same reason a physical or mental test shouldn’t be, IMO - potential for abuse. Our current requirements for holding office are sufficient from a legal perspective, IMO.

A minimum age and a natural born citizen, I believe. Are there others?

(08-13-2020 08:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A minimum age and a natural born citizen, I believe. Are there others?

Majority of electoral votes.

(08-13-2020 08:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  [quote='RiceLad15' pid='16945368' dateline='1597345515']

I agree to an extent.

Norms exist for a reason - we as :insert group here: have decided that this is appropriate behavior. At times that can do exactly what you say, keep people who are different in the outgroup, and do so unjustly. So yes, one problem with norms CAN be that.

When did 'we' decide that this was appropriate? If by 'we' you mean 'career politicians starting with Nixon', that only demonstrates that they know that the things they might be doing that are 'unsavory' don't appear in a tax form.

I haven't looked at one single Presidential candidates tax form in my lifetime.... because if they're doing something that actually IS 'unsavory' as opposed to merely appearing so to the average person, it certainly won't be in their tax form.

The only 'we' that matter here are voters.

Quote:But let's be honest, that is not the case here. That is not a reasonable justification for a supposed billionaire from being more secretive about their personal, financial interests than those who served in the highest office of the land before. IMO, Trump deserves all criticisms for not providing his tax returns because it keeps how he has made his money and what financial interests he personally has, more opaque than they should be for someone in his position of power.

We should hold public office holders to a high standard, and I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why Trump shouldn't have released his tax returns.

So if it's so telling and important, why is it just 'common'? Why not add this to the requirements for office? If 'we the voters' were in such strong support for this, why wouldn't we simply add this?

Yes, lets DO be honest. The key here is that YOU haven't found the arguments compelling. Color me shocked at that. Trump has declined, so you think he's hiding something and the primary evidence to support that claim is that he declined. When Biden declines to do something though... that's because it's apparently not the 'norm' for a candidate to demonstrate that they're mentally competent. I'll grant you that... Mental health has made a lot of advancements. I guess we shouldn't add any new 'norms' though.... oh, other than 'this' one of course.

There is zero upside for Trump to release his taxes. "Norm' or not, it is not a legal requirement for office and sure didn't keep him from getting elected last time. If you choose to try and make hay of that (again), feel free.

Shouldn’t be added as a requirement for the same reason a physical or mental test shouldn’t be, IMO - potential for abuse. Our current requirements for holding office are sufficient from a legal perspective, IMO.
[/quo te]

A minimum age and a natural born citizen, I believe. Are there others?

Being a resident of the US for 14 years is the other, basic eligibility requirement.

We have had back and forths numerous times about this issue when discussing whether or not Trump was fit for office. From an eligibility standpoint, I find our current rules to be more than sufficient - IMO, the more hurdles to being able to run for POTUS, the greater chance for abuse. But personal opinions about whether or not someone is fit (mentally or physically) is left up to each individual voter.

(08-14-2020 06:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Being a resident of the US for 14 years is the other, basic eligibility requirement.

We have had back and forths numerous times about this issue when discussing whether or not Trump was fit for office. From an eligibility standpoint, I find our current rules to be more than sufficient - IMO, the more hurdles to being able to run for POTUS, the greater chance for abuse. But personal opinions about whether or not someone is fit (mentally or physically) is left up to each individual voter.

And this is precisely the point we are making about 'tax forms'.

They will not remotely show what you claim to want to see. What they WILL show is someone playing by rules not written by him, but written by the people he is running against. When both people are politicians, it is at least a 'level' playing field. When one person is a politician and the other a businessman with a large portfolio of business assets, the potential for abuse is extremely high... especially in that the release of complex tax forms will only beg for more more releases of information because again, they won't show what you think they will.

It's been a few years so my info is dated, but I suspect it is still pretty close... Before Clinton made large adjustments to the gains rate, and then Bush lowered them even more... the mix between gains and income for the wealthy (the 1%) was around 70/30. Once the rates were reduced, the mix went to about 92/8. The only gains reported on income taxes are 'realized' gains... which means that you only report those gains when you sell them.... but net worth does not depend on such reporting... so even your most recent 'the supposed billionaire' comment demonstrates my point. The wealthy have the ability to use trusts and other vehicles to avoid reporting any income they don't choose to report for (potentially) generations... which is why so many of us are against income taxes (because W-2 employees can't defer much of anything) and in favor of VAT... because people like Trump (and let's be honest, Biden) can borrow against their net worth to spend, but not report it as income.

Trump didn't make these rules. Biden did. Trump merely (and by all indications, including an audit) LEGALLY played by them.... so why would any negative from this fall on the guy who played by the rules and NOT on the guy who wrote them?

Of course I don't really blame Biden personally, but all politicians... and it is too bad that the 'test case' for this is someone as distasteful as Trump and not some highly respected businessman.... but this is one of the reasons why I have never looked at politicians tax forms and why I don't care if Trump releases them... I think you want him to because it may help accomplish your goal of seeing him defeated... and you assume that I don't want him to because I want him to win... That's not it for me. The reason I don't want him to is because I want to see us move to a VAT as opposed to higher 'income' taxes, which only makes people like Trump wealthier... They will simply go from 92/8 to 99/1.... and if you move gains, to other tax havens (trusts or nations).... and more importantly in the long run, I want to see more (and better) successful businessmen run for President and fewer career politicians. IF he were to release them, whether he won or not... I am 100% convinced that politicians would use the info in there to argue for higher 'income' tax rates... especially on the wealthy....

Ignoring the TRUTH that you also missed, that they are wealthy because of their WEALTH, not their income.... so raising income taxes only keeps high wage (w-2) earners from becoming wealthy... and does not hurt or tax the wealthy at all.

Back in the day, Lee Iacocca was seen as someone who could have become President after turning around Chrysler.... and like many other successful businessmen, he declined. Interestingly, this was shortly after politicians like Nixon began releasing their tax forms.... and of course in the 70's and early 80's, there were MANY more deductions.

Things that matter, matter. I think someone's policies. intelligence, ability to function under pressure and personality matter. I don't think their taxes, so long as they are filed and in order according to the rules, do.... and I think the potential for abuse here is obvious and significant.

(08-14-2020 06:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 08:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 07:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  [quote='RiceLad15' pid='16945368' dateline='1597345515']

I agree to an extent.

Norms exist for a reason - we as :insert group here: have decided that this is appropriate behavior. At times that can do exactly what you say, keep people who are different in the outgroup, and do so unjustly. So yes, one problem with norms CAN be that.

When did 'we' decide that this was appropriate? If by 'we' you mean 'career politicians starting with Nixon', that only demonstrates that they know that the things they might be doing that are 'unsavory' don't appear in a tax form.

I haven't looked at one single Presidential candidates tax form in my lifetime.... because if they're doing something that actually IS 'unsavory' as opposed to merely appearing so to the average person, it certainly won't be in their tax form.

The only 'we' that matter here are voters.

Quote:But let's be honest, that is not the case here. That is not a reasonable justification for a supposed billionaire from being more secretive about their personal, financial interests than those who served in the highest office of the land before. IMO, Trump deserves all criticisms for not providing his tax returns because it keeps how he has made his money and what financial interests he personally has, more opaque than they should be for someone in his position of power.

We should hold public office holders to a high standard, and I've yet to see a compelling argument as to why Trump shouldn't have released his tax returns.

So if it's so telling and important, why is it just 'common'? Why not add this to the requirements for office? If 'we the voters' were in such strong support for this, why wouldn't we simply add this?

Yes, lets DO be honest. The key here is that YOU haven't found the arguments compelling. Color me shocked at that. Trump has declined, so you think he's hiding something and the primary evidence to support that claim is that he declined. When Biden declines to do something though... that's because it's apparently not the 'norm' for a candidate to demonstrate that they're mentally competent. I'll grant you that... Mental health has made a lot of advancements. I guess we shouldn't add any new 'norms' though.... oh, other than 'this' one of course.

There is zero upside for Trump to release his taxes. "Norm' or not, it is not a legal requirement for office and sure didn't keep him from getting elected last time. If you choose to try and make hay of that (again), feel free.

Shouldn’t be added as a requirement for the same reason a physical or mental test shouldn’t be, IMO - potential for abuse. Our current requirements for holding office are sufficient from a legal perspective, IMO.
[/quo te]

A minimum age and a natural born citizen, I believe. Are there others?

Being a resident of the US for 14 years is the other, basic eligibility requirement.

We have had back and forths numerous times about this issue when discussing whether or not Trump was fit for office. From an eligibility standpoint, I find our current rules to be more than sufficient - IMO, the more hurdles to being able to run for POTUS, the greater chance for abuse. But personal opinions about whether or not someone is fit (mentally or physically) is left up to each individual voter.

Thanks for that last requirement. I had a nagging thought that I had missed something.

I feel pretty much that every Democrat in the primaries is unfit for office, just because they either advocate bad policies or they are easily influenced by those who advocate bad policies. Yang impressed me as the best of a bad lot, but he did not impress Democrats as bad enough.

I agree with you on the hurdles. When we start requiring mental exams, IQ tests, and yes, tax returns, we just complicate what was meant to be a simple choice.

The question of "fit" is open to interpretation. As you can see, I think a proponent of the GND is unfit. Many of the early contenders fro the Democratic nomination were more unfit than Biden, including the designated POTUS #47, Harris.

So on the basis of issues important to me, I think Trump more fit than Biden. Is trump perfect? Heck no. He still says and does things I don't like, but he is more fit than an affable puppet.

(08-13-2020 01:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The problem with 'norms' is that they often simply encourage the status quo and discourage innovation and 'new blood'. How do you keep 'different' people out of your club? Norms

Sorry; had to do it.

(08-18-2020 12:24 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

I love that cartoon about Trump.

lad gets really defensive about the comments on Biden's mental faculties I have noticed.

(08-18-2020 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  lad gets really defensive about the comments on Biden's mental faculties I have noticed.

Don't they all.

Seems they all admit he is somewhat diminished and misguided and flexible to whatever his puppeteers say, , but what the heck, he isn't Trump, so whoop ti do, vote for him. We have to reverse those low gas prices and high economic activity.