The Trump Presidency 14

[Steve]

So, you are saying if Congress chose the most obviously inappropriate person to request tax returns for, the IRS is in no position to refuse? Even if the request explicitly said it was being done to violate the person's rights?

Do you actually think Bob001 said that? I do not.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Privacy, as with a lot of other not-so-ironclad rights, is often pitted up against "compelling public interest" with a "least intrusive measures" caveat.

I think there's a case to be made for a compelling public interest in the President's financial activities leading up to his taking office and potential emoluments violations since.

I also think Congress simply asking the IRS for the records is about the most straightforward and least intrusive means available. Trump literally has to do exactly nothing and the request would get processed. Zero "burden" on his part, no "encumbrance" is placed upon him. It takes more work for him to resist this method than anything!

 

[Planigale]

Privacy, as with a lot of other not-so-ironclad rights, is often pitted up against "compelling public interest" with a "least intrusive measures" caveat.

I think there's a case to be made for a compelling public interest in the President's financial activities leading up to his taking office and potential emoluments violations since.

I also think Congress simply asking the IRS for the records is about the most straightforward and least intrusive means available. Trump literally has to do exactly nothing and the request would get processed. Zero "burden" on his part, no "encumbrance" is placed upon him. It takes more work for him to resist this method than anything!

I am not sure I agree with this. I think this is a case of 'caveat elector'. You get what you vote for; you cannot take back your vote if you subsequently decide you don't like your President when you get him home. A majority of the electorate voted for the President it was their responsibility to do due diligence.

Maladministration / corruption in office are specified reasons for impeachment, thus I think one can argue that review of the President's financial affairs once in office is justified. I am not sure that his tax return is the way to do this. Perhaps Trump has recorded in his return "Gift from Mr Putin $1,000,000", but I doubt it. In any case is this not the function of the office of government ethics?

I do not know if this law has been previously challenged; it would seem entirely reasonable for Trump to challenge it. It seems a bad law; from now on I suspect that the tax returns of political enemies will be increasingly requested by the chairs of the relevant committees. There is no check and balance in this law, a single individual without agreement of the committee can request the return, nor is it clear that the request needs to be made public nor that the tax payer needs to be informed, nor does there appear to an appeal process.

In principle I think the Scandinavian practice of making tax returns of all public is best. Some wealthy people contribute little to their country. My guess is that Trump does not have any big secret to hide other than the fact he will legitimately have avoided paying much tax. Many middle class tax-payers may suddenly discover they have paid more than he has.

 

[Mumbles]

I am not sure I agree with this. I think this is a case of 'caveat elector'. You get what you vote for; you cannot take back your vote if you subsequently decide you don't like your President when you get him home. A majority of the electorate voted for the President it was their responsibility to do due diligence.

Um...the majority did not vote for Dolt 45 - and for that matter, nobody managed to get a majority of the vote.

In principle I think the Scandinavian practice of making tax returns of all public is best. Some wealthy people contribute little to their country. My guess is that Trump does not have any big secret to hide other than the fact he will legitimately have avoided paying much tax. Many middle class tax-payers may suddenly discover they have paid more than he has.

Given that pretty much everyone around him agrees that he routinely undervalues his properties on his taxes, *and* overvalues them when applying for loans, I suspect that they'd provide clear evidence of both tax evasion and fraud. Not that this would be a shock coming from a career criminal like him...

 

[phiwum]

I am not sure I agree with this. I think this is a case of 'caveat elector'. You get what you vote for; you cannot take back your vote if you subsequently decide you don't like your President when you get him home. A majority of the electorate voted for the President it was their responsibility to do due diligence.

Maladministration / corruption in office are specified reasons for impeachment, thus I think one can argue that review of the President's financial affairs once in office is justified. I am not sure that his tax return is the way to do this. Perhaps Trump has recorded in his return "Gift from Mr Putin $1,000,000", but I doubt it. In any case is this not the function of the office of government ethics?

I reckon that if a sitting President was, after election, found to have committed a serious crime prior to the election, impeachment is a reasonable response. It would make little sense that there's nothing that can be done to remove, say, a killer who murdered a victim prior to election from office.

Now, no one will find evidence of murder in Trump's IRS forms, but your statement was sweeping, not about the scope or seriousness of the offense. If you think that caveat emptor has its limits, I suppose we'd need some indication of what they are and why.

For the second point, perhaps OGE is responsible for investigating corruption in office, but Congress also has an independent oversight responsibility.

I'm not altogether certain that Congress should be requiring the tax returns of Trump, but I tend to think its their right to do so. If they receive them, I genuinely hope they're treated with due concern and don't leak.

 

[Planigale]

Um...the majority did not vote for Dolt 45 - and for that matter, nobody managed to get a majority of the vote.



Given that pretty much everyone around him agrees that he routinely undervalues his properties on his taxes, *and* overvalues them when applying for loans, I suspect that they'd provide clear evidence of both tax evasion and fraud. Not that this would be a shock coming from a career criminal like him...

Trump received 304 votes versus 227 for Clinton. A clear majority, That the US has a 'broken democracy' in which the President is elected by a small elite of Illuminati (or possibly reptilian aliens from Sirius) is an explanation for the democratic deficit. The whole point of the electoral college was;
"... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." Although it also enabled the slave states to profit from the additional votes awarded by virtue of the disenfranchised population.

Indeed several voters did try and prevent Trump's election.

(FWIW my guess is that many of the electors were believers in Trump and as we on a skeptic site should know, belief often trumps rationality. (Accidental pun.) so even if free to vote would still have voted for Trump)

I think the Nebraska style electorate seems a balance between tradition and democracy and states power. Although given the length of time it took for the last amendment to pass I don't hold out much hope for electoral reform any time soon.

 

[jeremyp]

Given that pretty much everyone around him agrees that he routinely undervalues his properties on his taxes, *and* overvalues them when applying for loans, I suspect that they'd provide clear evidence of both tax evasion and fraud. Not that this would be a shock coming from a career criminal like him...

No. There won't be any evidence of tax evasion in them. If there were, the IRS would have spotted it and he would have gone to prison instead of the Whitehouse.

I'm not saying he does or doesn't evade taxes, but if he does evade taxes, he is not so stupid as to put clear evidence of the same in his tax returns.

 

[Planigale]

No. There won't be any evidence of tax evasion in them. If there were, the IRS would have spotted it and he would have gone to prison instead of the Whitehouse.

I'm not saying he does or doesn't evade taxes, but if he does evade taxes, he is not so stupid as to put clear evidence of the same in his tax returns.

My thoughts too. The issue is reputational not criminal. Either he is poor, or he is rich. In either case I suspect his tax is embarrassingly small. Like his hands.

 

[Norman Alexander]

No. There won't be any evidence of tax evasion in them. If there were, the IRS would have spotted it and he would have gone to prison instead of the Whitehouse.

I'm not saying he does or doesn't evade taxes, but if he does evade taxes, he is not so stupid as to put clear evidence of the same in his tax returns.

You are talking about Donald Trump here. A sensible person would proceed like you describe. Trump...is not sensible.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Yes.

Last year I filled out eight letter sized, 8.5 inch by 11 inch, tax forms.
This year I filled out ninety six post card sized, 3 by 5 inch, tax forms.

Just barely got in before the dead line. Normally I'd be a month ahead.

I just filed mine, Federal and Georgia, on Friday.

Using TurboTax, I found no significant difference in complexity. All the relevant numbers went in all the relevant boxes. With the larger standard deductible, I did not even bother adding up deductions* - no way I’d have enough to make a difference.

Just a single data point, of course, but I think I benefited from both the much higher standard deductible, plus the slightly lower marginal tax rate for my income level.


*We did get a straight $7,500 off our tax liability this year, due to the fact we bought a qualified Plug-In Hybrid EV last year. That credit only counts against taxes owed - most years we would not have that much in taxes - which is why we made the purchase in 2018 in the first place.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I am not sure I agree with this. I think this is a case of 'caveat elector'. You get what you vote for; you cannot take back your vote if you subsequently decide you don't like your President when you get him home. A majority of the electorate voted for the President it was their responsibility to do due diligence.

Has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Maladministration / corruption in office are specified reasons for impeachment, thus I think one can argue that review of the President's financial affairs once in office is justified. I am not sure that his tax return is the way to do this. Perhaps Trump has recorded in his return "Gift from Mr Putin $1,000,000", but I doubt it. In any case is this not the function of the office of government ethics?

Ways and Means has a right to know if someone is interfering with revenue collection.

I do not know if this law has been previously challenged; it would seem entirely reasonable for Trump to challenge it. It seems a bad law; from now on I suspect that the tax returns of political enemies will be increasingly requested by the chairs of the relevant committees. There is no check and balance in this law, a single individual without agreement of the committee can request the return, nor is it clear that the request needs to be made public nor that the tax payer needs to be informed, nor does there appear to an appeal process.

There are a number of court cases that affirm Congess' subpoena power and investigative authority.

In principle I think the Scandinavian practice of making tax returns of all public is best. Some wealthy people contribute little to their country. My guess is that Trump does not have any big secret to hide other than the fact he will legitimately have avoided paying much tax. Many middle class tax-payers may suddenly discover they have paid more than he has.

Okay.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you actually think Bob001 said that? I do not.

Bob001 has not equivocated on the IRS's inability to not comply. That is why I asked the question.

 

[newyorkguy]

So many lies, so little time. From Vox:

During the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump praised WikiLeaks’s consistent releases of emails related to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks!” Trump professed during a speech on October 10. As ThinkProgress has documented, in the final month before the 2016 presidential election, Trump mentioned WikiLeaks and the hacked emails it published at least 164 times during speeches, media appearances, and debates. Link

But last Thursday, when reporters asked Trump about WikiLeaks, following the arrest in London of founder Julian Assange, Donnie got amnesia:

“I know nothing about WikiLeaks,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Thursday. “It’s not my thing,” he added.

Sadly, this is the kind of situational lying Trump's supporters undoubtedly, uh, support. Like Bart Simpson throwing a rock through a window and then turning around and saying, "I didn't do that, man!"

.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

If the Fed had done its job properly, which it has not, the Stock Market would have been up 5000 to 10,000 additional points, and GDP would have been well over 4% instead of 3%...with almost no inflation. Quantitative tightening was a killer, should have done the exact opposite!

 

[Norman Alexander]

Trump Tweets

If the Fed had done its job properly, which it has not, the Stock Market would have been up 5000 to 10,000 additional points, and GDP would have been well over 4% instead of 3%...with almost no inflation. Quantitative tightening was a killer, should have done the exact opposite!

...commented the financial genius who crashed a number of uncrashable casinos and went bankrupt multiple times.

 

[Ladewig]

My thoughts too. [xhilite]The issue is reputational not criminal. [/xhilite]Either he is poor, or he is rich. In either case I suspect his tax is embarrassingly small. Like his hands.

Hmmm. I am not sure I agree with that.
He has been found to break the law previously. Loan application fraud and bankruptcy fraud are felonies. The later (when done repeatedly) is on the list of federal racketeering crimes (RICO statute).

After he demonstrated how little business acumen he has and his propensity to make sure he comes out ahead while investors lose their money, fewer and fewer US banks would lend him money. They have been long-time allegations that the Russian mob started bankrolling him at that point.

Requesting the president’s tax returns is not just Congress’s right, it is their duty. Checks and balances are the only thing making sure that the president’s Business dealings do not represent foreign entanglements.

 

[Ladewig]

...commented the financial genius who crashed a number of uncrashable casinos and went bankrupt multiple times.

Also the guy who, when responding to a question about the country defaulting, said, “First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?"

 

[acbytesla]

I am not sure I agree with this. I think this is a case of 'caveat elector'. You get what you vote for; you cannot take back your vote if you subsequently decide you don't like your President when you get him home. A majority of the electorate voted for the President it was their responsibility to do due diligence.

Maladministration / corruption in office are specified reasons for impeachment, thus I think one can argue that review of the President's financial affairs once in office is justified. I am not sure that his tax return is the way to do this. Perhaps Trump has recorded in his return "Gift from Mr Putin $1,000,000", but I doubt it. In any case is this not the function of the office of government ethics?

I do not know if this law has been previously challenged; it would seem entirely reasonable for Trump to challenge it. It seems a bad law; from now on I suspect that the tax returns of political enemies will be increasingly requested by the chairs of the relevant committees. There is no check and balance in this law, a single individual without agreement of the committee can request the return, nor is it clear that the request needs to be made public nor that the tax payer needs to be informed, nor does there appear to an appeal process.

In principle I think the Scandinavian practice of making tax returns of all public is best. Some wealthy people contribute little to their country. My guess is that Trump does not have any big secret to hide other than the fact he will legitimately have avoided paying much tax. Many middle class tax-payers may suddenly discover they have paid more than he has.

Really? I think I disagree with every point you made.

But most importantly, saying that the "law is bad" is not a legal rational to disobey or challenge it. The question is, "is the law illegal?" As in unconstitutional. And you provided no reason why the law is unconstitutional and requires rejection.

Your argument that just because the electorate should have done their due diligence so it doesn't matter now goes against the principle of transparency. And who cares if other President's tax returns are subpoenaed by future committee chairpersons? Past presidents have been forthcoming with their taxes before they became President. This has been the norm for 50 years.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The easiest way to avoid a future Trump would be for both parties to pledge to only allow candidates who have given their tax returns to the Party's national committee, which they will release in case the person gets nominated.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The easiest way to avoid a future Trump would be for both parties to pledge to only allow candidates who have given their tax returns to the Party's national committee, which they will release in case the person gets nominated.

Didn't Washington state just make it impossible to run for POTUS/win that state for candidates who had not released their tax returns?