I've written as much on other articles these past few months! No, he would never pass muster to be a cabinet secretary. Moreover, Donald Trump would never pass any serious campaign's vetting to be a VP pick. Yet, he can run for president, win a major party nomination, and then be in contention for the electoral win? It makes no sense; it is truly frightening.
20
Is there any suggestion that Trump did not follow the tax code? Those that had problems with confirmation did not follow the law. If Trump followed the law, and it seems like he did, he is not the problem. The tax code is.
10
People think Donald Duck Trump is a con. They should know that Warren Buffett is a bigger CON: he says he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary on W2. He does not have to. He uses the LONG TERM CAPITALS GAINS TAX RATE loophole, and when he buys CASH-RICH, DIVIDEND-PAYING companies, he stops paying dividends that are taxed at personal income, and holds assets for at least a year so he can avail of low federal tax rates.
I suppose the authors of this claptrap also use the tax laws to the fullest advantage and pay the least amount in taxes. If they don't, they are stupid, capital S.
I suppose the authors of this claptrap also use the tax laws to the fullest advantage and pay the least amount in taxes. If they don't, they are stupid, capital S.
6
Actually, it is more relevant to this country's well being to hold HRC to the same standards as other govt employees who are reckless with state secrets. Trump's decision not to release returns at this juncture is his alone and affects only him.
What Hillary did ordinarily gets people prosecuted for endangering all of us. Aside from terrible judgement, she had a purpose which is to keep the horrendous actions and blurring of the lines between the foundation and her office under wraps.
Imagine every elected official, mayor, senator, and congress person creating a foundation and then referring people to it in order to schedule face-time. The ends do not justify the means. Anyone who thinks her actions are acceptable is equally as corrupt.
What Hillary did ordinarily gets people prosecuted for endangering all of us. Aside from terrible judgement, she had a purpose which is to keep the horrendous actions and blurring of the lines between the foundation and her office under wraps.
Imagine every elected official, mayor, senator, and congress person creating a foundation and then referring people to it in order to schedule face-time. The ends do not justify the means. Anyone who thinks her actions are acceptable is equally as corrupt.
8
Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts was launched onto an unsuspecting public the same year (1995) as Trump filed for $916,000,000 in losses that mostly consisted of bad loans to him. This public offering was nothing but a poorly vetted fraud, and filed for bankruptcy after less than a decade, costing shareholders millions of dollars, even as other casino companies saw their value and income skyrocket under competent management.
Despite losing money every year under Trump’s leadership, the company paid Trump handsomely, including a $5 million bonus in the year the company’s stock plummeted 70 percent.
Many of those who lost money were Main Street shareholders who believed in the Trump brand. Trump had his only outing as the head of a major public company when he served as the chairman of Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts in Atlantic City from 1995 to 2009. During that span, the company lost more than $1 billion. He also presided as its chief executive from 2000 to 2005, during which time share prices plunged from a high of $35 to as low as 17 cents.
This is the guy, "who knows how to run businesses." RIght?
When DJT opened that year on the NYSE, Trump’s company raised $140 million from investors, at $14 a share, and said the money would go toward expanding the Plaza and developing a riverboat casino in Indiana. Much of that money went to pay off tens of millions of dollars in loans Trump had personally guaranteed, filings show. Gosh!!
He sure has changed. Hahaha.
Despite losing money every year under Trump’s leadership, the company paid Trump handsomely, including a $5 million bonus in the year the company’s stock plummeted 70 percent.
Many of those who lost money were Main Street shareholders who believed in the Trump brand. Trump had his only outing as the head of a major public company when he served as the chairman of Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts in Atlantic City from 1995 to 2009. During that span, the company lost more than $1 billion. He also presided as its chief executive from 2000 to 2005, during which time share prices plunged from a high of $35 to as low as 17 cents.
This is the guy, "who knows how to run businesses." RIght?
When DJT opened that year on the NYSE, Trump’s company raised $140 million from investors, at $14 a share, and said the money would go toward expanding the Plaza and developing a riverboat casino in Indiana. Much of that money went to pay off tens of millions of dollars in loans Trump had personally guaranteed, filings show. Gosh!!
He sure has changed. Hahaha.
10
We shouldn't lose sight of an even bigger issue about Trump, taxes and the law. Trump will fight even the smallest taxes even if it costs him money and will have a direct impact on the middle class he pretends to care about. Since June 2015 5 tax liens have been filed in NY for unpaid or late taxes. The amount$13,000 is so small you have to wonder why he is willing to force municipalities to send money jus to pay what he owes. His other tactic is to ask for reassessments for property taxes or even to convince the municipalities he shouldn't have to pay. In the case of some of the reassessments recentlyhe has tried to convince municipal governments that some of the properties hr has bragged about on his FEC filimgs is worth 90℅ less for tax purposes. What will happen when he can use taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers to try to get more favorable treatment. He can claim executive privilege so we will know even less. Even. His claims about infrastructure get folded in. He won't pay the taxes to fund even though his properties benefit. If elected you can imagine where the money for infrastructure will go. The only thing we can know us that it will not go to the places that need it most unless he lives there. We need to watch all the tax not just the big ones
8
In Canada, in the 80s, the Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Bora Laskin .. provided the ruling in a tax case - that it was the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay the least amount of tax legally liable.
So Trump's position, as an individual, is perfectly apt.
As a candidate for the President of the United States, though, it sends a terrible message
So Trump's position, as an individual, is perfectly apt.
As a candidate for the President of the United States, though, it sends a terrible message
4
So, it's okay that a significant number of people in Congress have not paid their taxes, but they can serve? Even Rangel was only sanctioned, whatever that means.
How about the following - if you've been indicted for a felony, you cannot serve at any level in government, including the police force or local city council. If you have not paid taxes, and the issue was not resolved by the time you run for office, you cannot run?
I know that the IRS makes mistakes, some of them outrageous. And they are slow to fix their mistakes (sometimes it takes 10 years or more!). This needs to be taken into account here, but we do have criminals in public office and I cannot understand how that is possible, except for bad laws, that only the criminals can change. Wonder if they will....
How about the following - if you've been indicted for a felony, you cannot serve at any level in government, including the police force or local city council. If you have not paid taxes, and the issue was not resolved by the time you run for office, you cannot run?
I know that the IRS makes mistakes, some of them outrageous. And they are slow to fix their mistakes (sometimes it takes 10 years or more!). This needs to be taken into account here, but we do have criminals in public office and I cannot understand how that is possible, except for bad laws, that only the criminals can change. Wonder if they will....
2
Trump has done nothing illegal. His returns have been audited over and over. "Unsavory" may be a bureaucrat's word for refusing to pay a dime more than taxes owed, but it certainly isn't how average tax-paying (as opposed to those who LIVE OFF OF other's taxes) Americans view it.
2
Congress should pass a law that requires anybody running for public office must disclose his/her tax returns for at least the last 5 years. If they refuse they will not be considered for office.
6
I wish we had had this piece six months ago, even a year ago. And that some official body, say the presidential election commission, could carry the drumbeat in official circles. It seems like the real issue is Trump's flaunting of this convention, not so much any mendacious secrets he's hiding.
2
So these "guardians of correctness" have concluded that Trump should not have been nominates based on a few pages of an 11 year-old tax return?
The White House can demand returns from its appointees, but the major reason is to avoid embarrassment later. The same rule is not applicable to political candidates.
The White House can demand returns from its appointees, but the major reason is to avoid embarrassment later. The same rule is not applicable to political candidates.
1
Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing this piece, Mr Eisen.
6
This is a job, not a popularity (or beauty) contest. Every job I've applied for required that I meet certain requirements. Why isn't the most important job on the planet holding Trump to this standard? Whether you're for or against Trump...we MUST as a nation demand the release of his returns before we vote.
5
The release of his taxes is the main reason of many, why Trump is unfit to be President. Does he have foreign financial dealings with our international adversaries? The American public has a right to know that, with direct review of his financial dealings.
Trump is hard wired to put himself first in every endeavor and never apologize. That may be okay for a business person, but is totally wrong for a candidate who must show empathy for others as a President. Whether it is calling someone derogatory names or mocking their disability are just other examples.
He is truly incapable of caring or feeling for others, except himself and his family. It's okay to make demands and criticize others, including other candidates not running for President, but it's okay for him to double standard and stonewall his financial information.
Again, Trump is unfit to be President.
Trump is hard wired to put himself first in every endeavor and never apologize. That may be okay for a business person, but is totally wrong for a candidate who must show empathy for others as a President. Whether it is calling someone derogatory names or mocking their disability are just other examples.
He is truly incapable of caring or feeling for others, except himself and his family. It's okay to make demands and criticize others, including other candidates not running for President, but it's okay for him to double standard and stonewall his financial information.
Again, Trump is unfit to be President.
3
Someone should point out to the authors that just because they required their nominees to disclose tax returns as part of their vetting process does not mean that this disclosure is either warranted or necessary. The disclosures discussed have no basis in law. The disclosure or lack thereof may prevent a nominee from being approved but that doesn't make it a legal requirement either.
Most U.S. citizens believe everyone should pay the taxes they owe, based on the current tax code, and that they should pay no more than they owe. That doesn't make them unethical or immoral. The IRS and U.S. government and our State & Local governments are not charitable entities. Very few people approach their tax advisers telling them they want to pay 20% more than they need to.
Most U.S. citizens believe everyone should pay the taxes they owe, based on the current tax code, and that they should pay no more than they owe. That doesn't make them unethical or immoral. The IRS and U.S. government and our State & Local governments are not charitable entities. Very few people approach their tax advisers telling them they want to pay 20% more than they need to.
5
Well said, chump for Trump.
Trump and other rich Americans buy political passage of tax loopholes and preferential tax rates. And you buy into this bribery and social injustice?
Trump and other rich Americans buy political passage of tax loopholes and preferential tax rates. And you buy into this bribery and social injustice?
7
I dislike Donald Trump as much as anyone I know. However, I disagree with he statement that corporation doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, (and that means minimizing taxes) for it's investors. The people whose votes you seek to sway, for the most part, would pay less in taxes by any legal means they could, and they aren't going to dislike someone who does. Refusing to release his returns, while the IRS investigates improprieties, is another, and more important, thing.
1
This is another desperate NY Times example of its relentless crusade to destroy Trump. I am a CPA and tax return preparer. Trump hires tax professionals to prepare his tax returns. When these prepared tax returns show little or no taxes due, should he demand to pay more taxes? Due to the tax laws in this country, people and companies in real estate businesses are often able to pay little or no income taxes. Do Hillary and Bill complain that their speaking honorariums are too high or demand to pay more taxes than required? Every taxpayer expected to legally pay the lowest amount of income taxes each year. A taxpayer is entitled to offset business losses in one tax year against taxable income in prior years when they did pay taxes or against n future net profits when they may otherwise have to pay taxes. This is because if you have a loss you don’t get to claim a refund for that year’s loss. This is one of the tax laws that is actually fair and should not be changed because it is not a loophole. There are other tax laws in the real estate industry that could be scrutinized, but again, everyone in real estate is entitle to these benefits under laws enacted by congress, not by Trump. One of the first things I learned in my college tax courses is that “tax avoidance” is legal, but “tax evasion: is illegal and done deliberately. For the average American the term tax avoidance probably has a negative connotation, but not in professional practitioner’s parlance and not in reality.
4
The issue is not his not paying taxes if he followed the law, the issue is the $916,000,000 business loss in one year (for a guy that claims to be the greatest that is pretty bad )and what business he has in Russia and other venues that would indicate a conflict of interest.
Stop defending The Indefensible One.
Stop defending The Indefensible One.
10
No Speech Transcripts - No Job
2
There should also be a rule on comment boards; no false equivalencies allowed.
8
Of course this begs the question--why do these unsavory loopholes exist at all? Certainly no one wants to pay more then their fair share, but our existing tax laws shamelessly create havens for the wealthy.
15
Whatever Trump is hiding by not releasing his tax returns must be pretty devastating. Until he does release them, nothing can be ruled out.
My own pet theory is that he has been telling the IRS that his political campaigns have been nothing more than publicity stunts to promote the Trump brand name, and that therefore they are 100% deductible as a business expense.
My own pet theory is that he has been telling the IRS that his political campaigns have been nothing more than publicity stunts to promote the Trump brand name, and that therefore they are 100% deductible as a business expense.
9
How can anyone support this man? That he enjoys the popularity he does demonstrates a chasmic moral and intellectual deficiency in our culture.
16
By donating millions of dollars to assure victory for Congressional candidates, Trump, in fact, did help make the tax code. Then he used every possible loophole to avoid paying taxes.
4
What a muddle of ideas. On the one hand, we have the public relations aspect: does a candidate for office have a whiter than white record? That's fine as a standard for someone who wants to be in public service. The second, and completely unrelated, idea is that executives have no responsibility to the company for which they work to make sure that they are only paying the amount of tax that the law requires. The thought is a duty to country (or state, or county, or whatever the taxing authority is) should take precedence over responsibility to a private organization. The professor and the ambassador would do well to open their case book on fiduciary duty. Any employee who applies their own notion of public good, at the expense of the private resources they are charged to manage, would be, by definition, in breach of their fiduciary duty. Imagine the executor of an estate who chooses voluntarily to pay out estate assets to one beneficiary at the expense of another, rather than in the proportions that the will specified, because one beneficiary is a social worker, and the other a hedge fund manager. The level of aggression that is applied to tax planning strategies is a matter of individual risk tolerance, complete with consequences upon audit. But actually taking deductions that the law allows is hardly an unethical enterprise. Are the authors willing to divulge their tax returns?
3
The point here is that he should disclose his returns. We can't really know what he did within or beyond his duty or the law unless we actually see them, can we?
7
The world has transfigured light years beyond what the framers of the Constitution could possibly have imagined. Brave New World? Down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass, waves of negative political vitriol are eroding any chance for effective governance. The talk about tax returns is laughable as the federal government is both moribund and bankrupt, rudderless and foundering. All the while states like Kansas and Louisiana fall into the abyss, with many red states eager to join them.
Trump is the first in a long line of feeble emperors that seek the seat of power through self interest. And the praetorian guard of special interests, bought politicians, and corrupt political parties will continue to feed the assembly line of potential presidential candidates with misfits and miscreants that trigger the countries collective gag reflex.
The circular firing squad is locked and loaded.
Trump is the first in a long line of feeble emperors that seek the seat of power through self interest. And the praetorian guard of special interests, bought politicians, and corrupt political parties will continue to feed the assembly line of potential presidential candidates with misfits and miscreants that trigger the countries collective gag reflex.
The circular firing squad is locked and loaded.
1
What's missing in all this talk about tax loopholes and Citizens United, and how Democrats like Hillary Clinton are forced to take all that money so she can go after the loopholes and Citizens United after being elected, is this: Bernie Sanders proved you don't have to take millions from Wall Street. You can raise campaign funds the old-fashioned way, from the people in small donations, and collect almost just as much.
It's reprehensible that the NYT refuses to note this important fact in all its criticism about Citizens United while cheering on Clinton for taking advantage of Citizens United more than any other candidate. Your newspaper no longer subscribes to afflicting the comfortable to comfort the afflicted. You comfort Wall Street and its political minions to heap more misery on the afflicted.
It's reprehensible that the NYT refuses to note this important fact in all its criticism about Citizens United while cheering on Clinton for taking advantage of Citizens United more than any other candidate. Your newspaper no longer subscribes to afflicting the comfortable to comfort the afflicted. You comfort Wall Street and its political minions to heap more misery on the afflicted.
2
The word "businessman" is treated by some as if it had some sacrosanct meaning. However, there really wouldn't be much difference if it was replaced by "hustler". But let's give Donald the benefit of the doubt (my fingers just typed benefit of the debt) and replace "businessman" with "guy" and business with "stuff a guy does".
It is my fiduciary duty as a guy who is engaged in guy stuff to pay as little taxes as possible. If it weren't for that, I'd pay the max, believe me.
It is my fiduciary duty as a guy who is engaged in guy stuff to pay as little taxes as possible. If it weren't for that, I'd pay the max, believe me.
1
Since there are so many people stuck in the fact that there is no comparison between Mr. Trump's and Mrs Clinton's taxes, I decided to add this comment to my previous post:
1. Mr. Trump is doing something that is totally legal, if you don't like it, change the law.
2. He is being penalized because of it.
3. The MSM is using the same tactics they used with Romney. They worked, right? Divert attention from what is really important, a candidate that has been under FBI investigation and should have been indicted.
4. Both used whatever loopholes were legally available to them, regardless
of the fact of who seemed to have "benefited" the most. That had to do with
their income and circumstances.
It is obvious the MSM is getting away with their goal. We have become a nation of idiots.
1. Mr. Trump is doing something that is totally legal, if you don't like it, change the law.
2. He is being penalized because of it.
3. The MSM is using the same tactics they used with Romney. They worked, right? Divert attention from what is really important, a candidate that has been under FBI investigation and should have been indicted.
4. Both used whatever loopholes were legally available to them, regardless
of the fact of who seemed to have "benefited" the most. That had to do with
their income and circumstances.
It is obvious the MSM is getting away with their goal. We have become a nation of idiots.
3
So Clinton complies and the FBI finds that there was no cause for indictment but somehow she's still guilty of something. Trump declines to comply but he's innocent of everything. If you're worried about what Clinton wasn't disclosing you should be very worried about what Trump isn't disclosing.
6
I would say it's more important that someone release his/her birth certificate--rather than having it dragged out of them--than their tax returns. The former is required by the Constitution; the latter is not. Politicians should release their tax returns so we know whether they're using public office as a personal piggy bank--as Hillary Clinton has done via the Clinton Foundation--but private citizens are under no such mandate. If it's so important that private citizens running for office release their tax returns, let's make it a Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, keep your rubber duckies to yourself.
The NYT finds one tax return from 20 years ago and draws the conclusion he has not paid tax from then on. Has he been charge with tax fraud? They point to his bankruptcies. But what about our government? If they didn't own the printing presses we would have been bankrupt years ago and certainly now. At the end of FY 2016 the gross US federal government debt is estimated to be $19.3 trillion. We have 3,872,776,583,904 spending and 3,349,698,024,609 in revenue. Many of our programs we carry on have failed but we just keep paying for them. We could say they are bankrupt of purpose and accomplishments. Even Bill Clinton has been outspoken about Obamacare and yet nothing is done to get rid of the failures and develop a better approach. One thing for sure, There is not one law concerning tax codes that Trump has his name on and so far not one law concerning his taxes that has been broken. So lets decide whether he would be a good president Having a bunch of NYT reporters and lawyers pour over his tax returns looking for problems is just misdirection at this point.
3
Trump is truly a piece of work. He didn't subject himself to the draft, since he treated it the same as his taxes, something to avoid. He won't release his tax returns since that's private business. He admires Putin. He truly believes tax avoidance is his sacred duty, much like the draft.
Yet, we are debating the nonsense that he spouts, as if he was a person to be taken seriously. Sad.
Yet, we are debating the nonsense that he spouts, as if he was a person to be taken seriously. Sad.
5
Dear shuswap:
Luckily, living in the Valley of the Sun has exempt you for the most part of Trump's shenanigans. We New Yorker's have had to put up with this con man and blowhard for decades. He is an amalgam of everything you stated, and more. He's King Midas in reverse, everything he touches becomes tarnished gold. He's a bully, a chauvinist, has been his entire adult life. Adult in age but in actuality he acts like a child most of the time, an extremely spoiled one at that.
We have a rule of thumb here in NYC: If you ever get a call from Trump asking to talk about a possible business proposal, run away from it as fast as you can. When we first saw Trump's announcement we believed first of all that this was a cruel joke, a parody, and thought for certain that sane voices in what's left of the GOP would prevail. Incredibly, they did not. Not a bona fide war hero John McCain, not Mitt Romney, whose gentlemen demeanor was never in question, or even criticism from your junior Senator Flake managed to strike any common sense into the Republican rank and file. They seem as taken by Trump the candidate as they were by Trump the Reality TV shyster. That indeed is sad.
Here in NY, the results are a foregone conclusion. Trump will lose in a landslide. Your vote in Grand Canyon state will be more effectual. Please exercise your right to do so by November 8th.
DD
Manhattan
Luckily, living in the Valley of the Sun has exempt you for the most part of Trump's shenanigans. We New Yorker's have had to put up with this con man and blowhard for decades. He is an amalgam of everything you stated, and more. He's King Midas in reverse, everything he touches becomes tarnished gold. He's a bully, a chauvinist, has been his entire adult life. Adult in age but in actuality he acts like a child most of the time, an extremely spoiled one at that.
We have a rule of thumb here in NYC: If you ever get a call from Trump asking to talk about a possible business proposal, run away from it as fast as you can. When we first saw Trump's announcement we believed first of all that this was a cruel joke, a parody, and thought for certain that sane voices in what's left of the GOP would prevail. Incredibly, they did not. Not a bona fide war hero John McCain, not Mitt Romney, whose gentlemen demeanor was never in question, or even criticism from your junior Senator Flake managed to strike any common sense into the Republican rank and file. They seem as taken by Trump the candidate as they were by Trump the Reality TV shyster. That indeed is sad.
Here in NY, the results are a foregone conclusion. Trump will lose in a landslide. Your vote in Grand Canyon state will be more effectual. Please exercise your right to do so by November 8th.
DD
Manhattan
3
In order to serve in any presidential administration, there is a review of the person's tax return.
So the presidential candidate does not need to produce his?
So the presidential candidate does not need to produce his?
3
Trump should release his tax returns. Failure to do so should disqualify him from the Presidency. Eileen and Painter are right.Their reasons,however, aren't the reasons most important to me, and possibly to other voters.
My reasons:1) Trump is running as a successful businessman, a builder and creator of jobs. Tax returns will show amount and sources of income. Is he as rich as he says? Is his income from creation, or just selling his name? Is he only a brand and a TV personality? 2) Returns may show who Trump does business with, revealing conflicts of interest; 3) Charitable donations;, 4) Debt; and 5) illegal schemes and errors.
I don't agree that he has an obligation or moral duty to pay more than the law mandates. I don't believe that purchases from a purely out-of-state company are taxable in one's own state. I don't think many voters care either.
His $1billion-ish tax loss should be explained. It probably wasn't a cash loss; it may have been depreciation or allocation of partnership losses. He likely has never had that kind of money to lose. Someone should explain this.
We should be focusing on whether Trump's claim of wealth and success as a creator of opportunity is accurate. That's why his taxes are important, to prove he's a fraud. Should real estate tax law be changed-yes. But I don't know anyone who doesn't take those deductions that they are allowed. If I lose money on investments, I find no moral problem in deducting them from future gains.
My reasons:1) Trump is running as a successful businessman, a builder and creator of jobs. Tax returns will show amount and sources of income. Is he as rich as he says? Is his income from creation, or just selling his name? Is he only a brand and a TV personality? 2) Returns may show who Trump does business with, revealing conflicts of interest; 3) Charitable donations;, 4) Debt; and 5) illegal schemes and errors.
I don't agree that he has an obligation or moral duty to pay more than the law mandates. I don't believe that purchases from a purely out-of-state company are taxable in one's own state. I don't think many voters care either.
His $1billion-ish tax loss should be explained. It probably wasn't a cash loss; it may have been depreciation or allocation of partnership losses. He likely has never had that kind of money to lose. Someone should explain this.
We should be focusing on whether Trump's claim of wealth and success as a creator of opportunity is accurate. That's why his taxes are important, to prove he's a fraud. Should real estate tax law be changed-yes. But I don't know anyone who doesn't take those deductions that they are allowed. If I lose money on investments, I find no moral problem in deducting them from future gains.
3
Not only does Trump set a bad example for our children and grandchildren, he also affects possible future statesmen/women from wanting to enter politics. Swift boating was pretty, bad, but Trump has brought us to a new low with his mud slinging. What moral person would want to have to spend valuable campaign time defending themselves against lies and any minor incident in his/her past that gets blown out of proportion rather than putting forth their policies?
3
Trump took his lawful deductions as a private citizen. Big whoop. The New York Times also claimed NOL in 2014. From these editorials about Trump I would deduce something untoward about the NY Times. Then there is Hillary who is under Federal investigation for use of a private email server whose aides all took the Fifth and helped her erase thousands of emails. I never paid much attention to Bernie but what was delivered for those $300,000 speeches. Then there is the ME mess and the Benghazi fiasco blamed on a video. That hapless video maker sent to jail for a year for a pretend crime. Vote for Hillary? No Can Do.
2
Dear S.M.:
No need to worry, Sue. Your not voting, or a vote for Trump will not matter one bit in the Nutmeg State. We've got one month of nonsense left with Trump. Put a fork in him, he's done.
As for my dear Hill, sorry Sue, but you'd better start getting used to it. Madame President-elect H. Clinton is but a month away.
DD
Manhattan
No need to worry, Sue. Your not voting, or a vote for Trump will not matter one bit in the Nutmeg State. We've got one month of nonsense left with Trump. Put a fork in him, he's done.
As for my dear Hill, sorry Sue, but you'd better start getting used to it. Madame President-elect H. Clinton is but a month away.
DD
Manhattan
3
Suggest you read more "conservative" papers' editorial board endorsements for President to put things in objective perspective, like The Dallas Morning News Houston Chronicle, the San Diego paper, the big Arizona paper et al. After that the Atlantic explains in detail why they are endorsing Clinton over Trump, only the 3rd time since the magazine was founded in 1857 that it has made a Presidential endorsement. Then there is USA Today, not known for being partisan, which clearly says anybody but Trump with its own specific detail as to why. If you still support risking Trump as our President, then go for it. And if America goes for him in Nov then we have no one to blame for following the example of Rome with its destruction from both within and without by barbarians from beyond our shores who see us ready for the raping.
1
Of course the problem is that with her history with the e-mails, her refusal to release the Goldman Sachs transcripts, and the questions about foreign donations to the Clinton foundation, it is unlikely that Clinton could gain confirmation to a cabinet post if she were nominated today.
It's just a sad reflection on the poor quality of the nominees of both parties. And Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would be laughed out of a hearing room due to their bizarre views on many issues so those who think they're proper alternatives are deceiving themselves,
It's just a sad reflection on the poor quality of the nominees of both parties. And Gary Johnson and Jill Stein would be laughed out of a hearing room due to their bizarre views on many issues so those who think they're proper alternatives are deceiving themselves,
3
Dear Steve:
Excuse me, Steve, but did you read this piece before posting? Tax returns is the topic, the releasing of such by candidates for president. Tax returns, which reveal someone's profile by the numbers, not by the rhetoric, however convoluted tax attorneys may spin their clients tales, are what we the people by a vast majority are demanding that a presidential candidate tax returns become a requirement.
Doing your best attempt at spinning Kellyanne-like tax returns to Hillary's suspicious to you transcripts from speeches to Goldman Sachs is grasping at straws. We know basically what is said at those events and they don't amount to a hill of bean compared with one's tax returns. All Americans can identify with people who want to lead this nation paying their fair share of taxes to a country they claim to love so much. When you see Trump hem and haw with his consistent lies about some audit preventing him from releasing his tax returns you know he's hiding something which is of greater value than a pep talk on Capitalism given by Hillary.
Please, Steve, a good argument for Trump is one thing. What you present here is as ridiculous a diversion as the candidate you are defending.
DD
Manhattan
Excuse me, Steve, but did you read this piece before posting? Tax returns is the topic, the releasing of such by candidates for president. Tax returns, which reveal someone's profile by the numbers, not by the rhetoric, however convoluted tax attorneys may spin their clients tales, are what we the people by a vast majority are demanding that a presidential candidate tax returns become a requirement.
Doing your best attempt at spinning Kellyanne-like tax returns to Hillary's suspicious to you transcripts from speeches to Goldman Sachs is grasping at straws. We know basically what is said at those events and they don't amount to a hill of bean compared with one's tax returns. All Americans can identify with people who want to lead this nation paying their fair share of taxes to a country they claim to love so much. When you see Trump hem and haw with his consistent lies about some audit preventing him from releasing his tax returns you know he's hiding something which is of greater value than a pep talk on Capitalism given by Hillary.
Please, Steve, a good argument for Trump is one thing. What you present here is as ridiculous a diversion as the candidate you are defending.
DD
Manhattan
6
Actually Hillary could be confirmed, she has over 30 years of tax returns in the public domain.
Trump could not be appointed to any presidential cabinet without producing a tax return.
Trump could not be appointed to any presidential cabinet without producing a tax return.
4
What a joke.
A person uses tax laws to keep his income and he's a crook? Unpatriotic?
The problem isn't the taxpayer it is Congress which grants these options. No one has an obligation to pay more than he has to the federal income confiscation system.
Want to make people feel better about paying taxes? Start doing something productive with the taxes collected. Spending billions on nation building military ventures and supporting people crossing our borders illegally to stay here ( see the story on that in today's Times) is a good way to start.
A person uses tax laws to keep his income and he's a crook? Unpatriotic?
The problem isn't the taxpayer it is Congress which grants these options. No one has an obligation to pay more than he has to the federal income confiscation system.
Want to make people feel better about paying taxes? Start doing something productive with the taxes collected. Spending billions on nation building military ventures and supporting people crossing our borders illegally to stay here ( see the story on that in today's Times) is a good way to start.
1
Yet people would give the job of President of the United States to a woman who broke the law by setting up a private email server to serve her needs as Secretary of State? That IS illegal.
HIllary Clinton broke laws that have sent hundreds of government employees packing, sometimes to prison!
The chutzpah of the New York Times is incredible!
HIllary Clinton broke laws that have sent hundreds of government employees packing, sometimes to prison!
The chutzpah of the New York Times is incredible!
Seems like the N Y T is obsessed with TRUMP's tax returns and the possibility that he didn't pay any tax after a questionable huge tax loss.
Just a couple of points.......
1) Evidently, the NYT is being very quiet that in 2014 you also had a huge tax loss. In fact, one has to ask how you folks got the government to pay you $3 billion dollars for your loss. Not bad, but please keep this quiet, folks may think you're hypocrites.
2) On the document you published, I have to wonder what sort of typewriter types the numbers on different levels on the same line AND with the first number being of a different type face.
Just curious why these facts aren't ever mentioned by your honest liberal reporting/reporters?
Just a couple of points.......
1) Evidently, the NYT is being very quiet that in 2014 you also had a huge tax loss. In fact, one has to ask how you folks got the government to pay you $3 billion dollars for your loss. Not bad, but please keep this quiet, folks may think you're hypocrites.
2) On the document you published, I have to wonder what sort of typewriter types the numbers on different levels on the same line AND with the first number being of a different type face.
Just curious why these facts aren't ever mentioned by your honest liberal reporting/reporters?
1
Some say Nixon began this "tradition" in order to prove he was not a crook. Every politician since has had to comply to prove they did not accept payola (I would say, however, that $300,000 dollar "speeches" is a cellophane fig leaf on that score).
There's the point. Trump could not have sold us out while in office, because he has never been in office. As a businessman he is not subject to the test. Second term, fair argument, Now....cheap optics game.
But what you refuse to see is he can claim a Watergate like hack. only worse. HIs security people tell him he has no idea what was really stolen (oh, it came in an envelope? Only those owning a half mill in stock of the Brooklyn Bridge would buy that Fairy tale). it can be far more than ALL his returns. Biz info. Really proprietary stuff.
It is Nixonian. And in line with how paid front orgs, like AMERICAN BRIDGE and CORRECT THE RECORD dug up the Latina spokes model, only with ex spook plumbers...
If he plays the spin that way, instead of trying to change to that limp email bit, you lose big.
He has filed what the law requires, he doesn't have t prove he was not a dirty pol, because by DEFINITION, he could not have been.
There's the point. Trump could not have sold us out while in office, because he has never been in office. As a businessman he is not subject to the test. Second term, fair argument, Now....cheap optics game.
But what you refuse to see is he can claim a Watergate like hack. only worse. HIs security people tell him he has no idea what was really stolen (oh, it came in an envelope? Only those owning a half mill in stock of the Brooklyn Bridge would buy that Fairy tale). it can be far more than ALL his returns. Biz info. Really proprietary stuff.
It is Nixonian. And in line with how paid front orgs, like AMERICAN BRIDGE and CORRECT THE RECORD dug up the Latina spokes model, only with ex spook plumbers...
If he plays the spin that way, instead of trying to change to that limp email bit, you lose big.
He has filed what the law requires, he doesn't have t prove he was not a dirty pol, because by DEFINITION, he could not have been.
Trump has bragged about having bought off politicians.
A businessmen who proffers a bribe is just as guilty as the politician who takes it.
Trump is guilty of bribery.
A businessmen who proffers a bribe is just as guilty as the politician who takes it.
Trump is guilty of bribery.
1
Could't be a dirty pol, but he certainly could be a bad business man, which would nullify his entire claim to the experience he cites as his main qualification. How about let's just see? The fact that he doesn't want us to see is pretty damning. Imagine if Hillary hadn't complied with the FBI investigation into her emails? Y'all would have been screaming GUILTY from the get-go. Oh wait, you were, and are even after the FBI found no cause for indictment. Whatever fits your narrative is what really matters. Hillary is no saint but Trump is a buffoon and a crook. Anyone can see this.
1
I suppose Pence was required to disclose tax returns to Pence campaign before being put on the ticket as running mate. That is an APPOINTMENT, not ELECTION. If people do not like the fact Trump did not disclose tax returns or did not pay a dime in taxes, then they can reject him this election. It is people's choice. Who are you or I to argue with that?
1
I meant to say: Pence was required to disclose tax returns to Trump campaign.
I should proof-read before hitting POST.
I should proof-read before hitting POST.
1
Not everyone who supports That Man for POTUS pays Federal taxes. However, they very likely live in states that have a sales tax and also a state tax, which they would have difficulty getting out of paying. I suppose those who admire That Man for his ability to stiff the Federal government may make them feel good, but when their bridges that need repair and their city sewer system needs replacing along with the street lights, they will find that the monies the states get from the Federal govt. will be less than they need because people such as that much admired (by them) Man have seen to it he doesn't pay his fair share.
When you consider Clinton showed that they paid about 35% for taxes, you have to question which candidate really cares about bridges, roads, schools, and all the rest that we peons can't afford to pay.
When you consider Clinton showed that they paid about 35% for taxes, you have to question which candidate really cares about bridges, roads, schools, and all the rest that we peons can't afford to pay.
5
I don't know about Eisen's background but Painter, a law professor at U of Minnesota should know comparing positions that are subject to appointment and subsequent confirmation by senate with ELECTED OFFICES is a HUGE FLAW in logical reasoning. I suppose he is tenured and cannot be dismissed for ignorance now.
1
I wonder just how many of the people that are so upset about Trump's tax returns have ever run into their tax persons office saying I want to pay more? Whoopi is a strong racist democrat until they go after her money. Different standards for the "little people" isn't it.
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."
Leona Helmsley
Different standards for the rich like Helmsley and Trump and little people like us.
Leona Helmsley
Different standards for the rich like Helmsley and Trump and little people like us.
1
Pay more? We don't even know if he paid the minimum required because he won't release them. That's the whole point.
1
Did it ever occur to you that the IRS does know and if he hadn't paid what he should he would probably be in jail. In fact they would love to throw him in jail.
What part of the distinction between ELECTED versus APPOINTED is not clear to Eisen and Painter? An erstwhile member of Choomgang may not be appointed or confirmed by Senate for a cabinet position but could be elected twice for office of president. Helloooooooooooooooooooooooo.
1
I had to finish laughing before posting this... It's laughable that two people who are credited to be "champions of ethics" don't measure Trump on whether he followed the law, but rather whether he followed "tradition." There is no law that requires a candidate to release tax returns. So the entire premise of this opinion editorial is an "opinion." Give me your opinion of my opinion. That's great reading material. So it goes without saying, but that's not very tangible for the fact-loving scientists that read the NYT.
Even more laughable is the fact that these supposed ethics watchdogs base their entire opinion of Trump on illegally obtained, illegally published, and incomplete tax documents. Nothing unethical there. The ends serve the means though, right? "The people need to know what the people need to know!!!" This piece reads entirely as bureaucratic political opinion that's based upon expectations, not facts, and illegal/incomplete documents.
So in closing: expect, all you want, for Trump to release tax returns so that you can write more about his tax avoidance (not tax evasion); which any American with half a brain either does or tries to do each year. Proceed to try and convince us how a presidential candidate who, even if he became president, didn't write the tax law, and as president couldn't pass amendments to the tax law but merely propose changes for Congress to consider.
A lot to do about nothing, but it did make me laugh.
Even more laughable is the fact that these supposed ethics watchdogs base their entire opinion of Trump on illegally obtained, illegally published, and incomplete tax documents. Nothing unethical there. The ends serve the means though, right? "The people need to know what the people need to know!!!" This piece reads entirely as bureaucratic political opinion that's based upon expectations, not facts, and illegal/incomplete documents.
So in closing: expect, all you want, for Trump to release tax returns so that you can write more about his tax avoidance (not tax evasion); which any American with half a brain either does or tries to do each year. Proceed to try and convince us how a presidential candidate who, even if he became president, didn't write the tax law, and as president couldn't pass amendments to the tax law but merely propose changes for Congress to consider.
A lot to do about nothing, but it did make me laugh.
Mr Trump has declared it is his business expertise that makes him hugely qualified for President. That he's a genius who can make superb deals like no one else. He alone can save us.
We're supposed to take his word on all of this.
But when you compare this to what is publicly documented, proof of success is required. The multiple bankruptcies (6?), lawsuits, penalties, fines - including a $450,000 fine for gifting mobster Robert Libutti nine ultra-luxury cars, fraudulent charity activities, Russian connections. So many failed ventures, 2 out of 3 fail or under perform.
None of this sounds like a successful businessman. It sounds like a con man.
Show us the tax returns. Put you money where your mouth is, Mr. Trump.
We're supposed to take his word on all of this.
But when you compare this to what is publicly documented, proof of success is required. The multiple bankruptcies (6?), lawsuits, penalties, fines - including a $450,000 fine for gifting mobster Robert Libutti nine ultra-luxury cars, fraudulent charity activities, Russian connections. So many failed ventures, 2 out of 3 fail or under perform.
None of this sounds like a successful businessman. It sounds like a con man.
Show us the tax returns. Put you money where your mouth is, Mr. Trump.
1
It should be - No tax return - then no secret service protection.
1
"We wouldn't have let someone with Trump's returns serve in the cabinet, so how can he be president?"
Cabinet members are appointed while the president is elected ergo the will of the people!
Cabinet members are appointed while the president is elected ergo the will of the people!
But...Remmber, Trump is different. He gets special treatment.
1
Stupid people do stupid things and will vote for Trump anyways but some stupid people have more common sense and will not vote for Trump.
Let common sense rule as sometimes common sense is more important than being smart.
Let common sense rule as sometimes common sense is more important than being smart.
The sole reason for a corporation to exist is to make a profit for its shareholders. That is a difficult thing for many people to accept, but it's the fact of incorporation. Companies may choose to do things that would seem to vary from that, such as support social causes, or offer enticing benefits to employees. But those niceties are costs and reduce profits. In the end, the bottom line is the bottom line, and all corporate executives are measured on that. So, it is incumbent on them to maximize profits to the full extent of the law. And that means taking advantage of any and all legal loopholes in the tax code toward that end, and to avoid paying whatever taxes they can. Otherwise, shareholders will put someone else in their jobs.
It appears Trump did nothing illegal in his avoidance of paying taxes. It was his fiduciary responsibility to the businesses he owned to do exactly that, so as to reduce costs like taxes to the minimum. That, people, is capitalism at work.
Yes, doing that exposes his natural and rampant greed, but doesn't make it illegal. If you don't like it, lobby your Congressmen to change the law.
But it also doesn't mean that Trump should hide his tax returns. How he runs his businesses is fully relevant to how he would run the country's finances, and the voters need to see that. For that reason, he should be disqualified for not releasing his returns.
But it's too late for that now. It will be up to the voters to pass judgment on him when they vote.
It appears Trump did nothing illegal in his avoidance of paying taxes. It was his fiduciary responsibility to the businesses he owned to do exactly that, so as to reduce costs like taxes to the minimum. That, people, is capitalism at work.
Yes, doing that exposes his natural and rampant greed, but doesn't make it illegal. If you don't like it, lobby your Congressmen to change the law.
But it also doesn't mean that Trump should hide his tax returns. How he runs his businesses is fully relevant to how he would run the country's finances, and the voters need to see that. For that reason, he should be disqualified for not releasing his returns.
But it's too late for that now. It will be up to the voters to pass judgment on him when they vote.
1
Based on this article, I would like to know how much either/both of the authors have donated over and above their tax obligation to the federal government to set an example to the family. This dollar amount would lend some credence to their opinion piece.
The fiduciary duty to the public comes about when handling public funds. There is no duty to the public when handling personal funds other than following the law. Loopholes are simply laws the authors don't like becauase they probably cannot utilize them.
My primary financial duty is to my family. I will use every legal tactic (actually my accountant will) to maximize the amount of my personally earned income that I get to keep.
The fiduciary duty to the public comes about when handling public funds. There is no duty to the public when handling personal funds other than following the law. Loopholes are simply laws the authors don't like becauase they probably cannot utilize them.
My primary financial duty is to my family. I will use every legal tactic (actually my accountant will) to maximize the amount of my personally earned income that I get to keep.
Just ask Marla Maples to release all the rest of her joint returns with Donald.
3
Trumps supporters will follow him to the end of the earth, no matter what. He can do no wrong because they see him as outside the policial scene.
Little do his followers know he manipulated politics to get his gains.
But then again Trump did say he LOVES the uneducated.
They are too busy chanting " lock her up" at the mere mention of Hillary Clintons name.
Little do his followers know he manipulated politics to get his gains.
But then again Trump did say he LOVES the uneducated.
They are too busy chanting " lock her up" at the mere mention of Hillary Clintons name.
2
From this op-ed:
"In both the Bush and Obama administrations, a bad attitude about paying taxes was a deal killer."
Really? How about one's attitude and experience when it came to handling highly-classified materials via insecure email systems? Was that a deal killer as well?
"In both the Bush and Obama administrations, a bad attitude about paying taxes was a deal killer."
Really? How about one's attitude and experience when it came to handling highly-classified materials via insecure email systems? Was that a deal killer as well?
Rather than berate Mr. Trump maybe we should be thanking him for showing America in no uncertain terms just how screwed up, inequitable, unfair, you pick the word our current tax system truly is.
If one is extremely wealthy the current tax system is your oyster, simply full of deduction pears ripe for the picking.
If you are the average person simply trying to make ends meet, well that's too bad.
I say we owe Mr. Trump a collective "thank you" for showing us, the great unwashed masses, how the system is "rigged", really works for those at the top.
If one is extremely wealthy the current tax system is your oyster, simply full of deduction pears ripe for the picking.
If you are the average person simply trying to make ends meet, well that's too bad.
I say we owe Mr. Trump a collective "thank you" for showing us, the great unwashed masses, how the system is "rigged", really works for those at the top.
1
"Gaming of the tax system"? "Tax loopholes"? Let's imagine Trump never ran for president or Trump loses (as so many here are hoping) I guess that somehow changes are tax laws? I need to pause a moment to laugh. You see, there's this thing called "the law." Every American is supposed to follow the law. Trump followed the law. You conflate not liking what the law says with "Trump gamed the system and Trump used Tax loopholes" all you want but people like Bush, Clinton, and Obama (more the latter two since they served in congress) control our laws, not Trump or the countless people and businesses that navigate tax law each year, trying to keep their money in their pocket.
Don't you find it odd that the "ethics committee" would rather keep the American people in the dark about the realities of our legal system (because factually Trump didn't break any laws) than to allow candidates (who they perceive to be unethical) to explain to the populous what they do and why? It sounds more like an oligarchy/bureaucratic commission than it does an ethics commission.
Don't you find it odd that the "ethics committee" would rather keep the American people in the dark about the realities of our legal system (because factually Trump didn't break any laws) than to allow candidates (who they perceive to be unethical) to explain to the populous what they do and why? It sounds more like an oligarchy/bureaucratic commission than it does an ethics commission.
4
...And laws can be changed. If he's followed the laws, and really you don't know which ones he broke and which ones he stretched to with an inch of it's life, and if his use of the tax laws makes him such a "genius", why not release them?
He going to change the tax laws so he and his kind can no longer get away with what he's been doing!? He said that with a straight face, such a practiced liar he is.
The fox wants access to the henhouse.
He going to change the tax laws so he and his kind can no longer get away with what he's been doing!? He said that with a straight face, such a practiced liar he is.
The fox wants access to the henhouse.
Trump has bragged how he has bought changes to the law to serve his purposes. The businessman who proffers a bribe is just as guilty as the politician who takes it
Crooked Donald Trump.
Crooked Donald Trump.
All well and good, but his failures will send him back to Trump Plaza on November 8, thankfully, not the White House.
The people decide who they elect as President. The qualifications are set forth in the constitution. The NY Times does not get to make the rules up as we go along. Now if Hillary is elected she will not qualify for a security clearance but we will still have to entrust her with are national secrets, unfortunately
3
She has an active security clearance and there is. No risk or information or hint about her losing it.
1
Yeah, just like the duties of the congress to consult and confirm of Supreme Court justices, right?
Like it or not, for over a century, the Times has been highly influential, and for good reason, they are pragmatic, unlike Fox so called news. By the way, Hillary already has a Top Secret clearance.
1
When will the U.S. media come to accept that Trump's supporters don't care at all about his tax returns? When the 'Wizard' promised to fulfill all of Dorothy & company's wishes they didn't question the green curtain behind which he hid. It took the little dog Toto to pull back in back to reveal the charlatan and the U.S. is 'not in Kansas anymore' and seems to be rather enamoured with the 'rose-coloured glasses' of Oz.
5
Yeah, that policy really helped save the country from Timothy Geithner.
2
Geitner fixed his problems when nominated. Why shouldn't Trump fix his problems when nominated? Why amnesty foe Trump?
1
"People who believe they have a legal duty to put self-interest before the public interest don’t belong in public service." This is what makes one a crook.
11
I don't get your point. The IRS has not proven that Donald Trump put his interest before the public interest; we don't even know if they have a suspicion that he has. The fact that he is being audited doesn't mean much. Thousands of people who have complied with the law are audited every year. If your concern is that the tax law is somehow too forgiving then your gripe is with your government and your governments failure to put in place a tax code that reflects your version of the public interest.
1
So, it is ok to put in those loopholes in tax laws but it is not kosher to use them? Hillary used carry forward loss provision in 2015, and Warren Buffett uses it all the time. Even as Warren "complains" for political reasons that he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary, he continues to exploit the tax loophole about long-term capital gains, and refuses to pay a penny more than he has to. In fact, he is fighting IRS that wants to get more in taxes from him.
So, it is all a charade to fool the gullible liberal base, and a diversion from Hillary Clinton's own health and ethical issues.
The Times reported that the BOND between Hillary and Goldman Sachs got more sold after the 2008 financial collapse. She earned millions in paid speeches to the likes of GS. What did she say in those speeches? Even Bernie would like to know.
If she is metaphorically in bed with the financial types, and if her own son-in-law is running a fledgling hedge fund company blessed by Lloyd Blankfein, and if anyone thinks she will be tough on Wall Street types, then you need to get your head examined by a psychiatrist, who, according to a report in the Times, is more likely to be a Democrat himself or herself.
Go get checked out, people.
So, it is all a charade to fool the gullible liberal base, and a diversion from Hillary Clinton's own health and ethical issues.
The Times reported that the BOND between Hillary and Goldman Sachs got more sold after the 2008 financial collapse. She earned millions in paid speeches to the likes of GS. What did she say in those speeches? Even Bernie would like to know.
If she is metaphorically in bed with the financial types, and if her own son-in-law is running a fledgling hedge fund company blessed by Lloyd Blankfein, and if anyone thinks she will be tough on Wall Street types, then you need to get your head examined by a psychiatrist, who, according to a report in the Times, is more likely to be a Democrat himself or herself.
Go get checked out, people.
5
If it was important for the candidates for President to release their tax returns, congress would pass a law requiring it. They haven't. If you want the tax returns of those running for president, get your congressperson to act.
2
OK, but we don't have to vote for him. No one should vote for a candidate that hasn't released their tax forms. I think that is a fair rule that anyone can apply, whether it is legislated or not.
I think most Americans already know that anyone who has amassed great wealth in this country can afford accountants and tax lawyers who know how to legally evade taxes, thanks to a tax code written specifically for the rich. We're not dumb; there's a reason we detest most in Congress for letting those laws get passed and piling on more loopholes for their rich donors every few years.
Yet some NYT readers, like Clinton's campaign advisors, say, goodie, and call for more attack ads, based on the obvious. They've put out some real zingers already about Trump, but it hasn't budged the polls much.
At this late stage, wouldn't it be far more effective for Clinton's campaign to zero in on positive ads and speeches to voters (not wealthy donors) focusing on why voters who don't support her should, and why voters lukewarm about Clinton should be inspired enough to cast that ballot?
Sure, some of the media would rather see mudslinging, but all those newspaper endorsements haven't budged the polls much, either, and she needs the votes of more than media editorial board members.
She could say if elected president, this is specifically what I would do to close tax loopholes for the rich (not in general, like her campaign material states, but how exactly she would do it), and that this is specifically how making wealthy people like Trump pay their fair share in taxes would benefit our schools, roads and libraries.
Just a thought.
Yet some NYT readers, like Clinton's campaign advisors, say, goodie, and call for more attack ads, based on the obvious. They've put out some real zingers already about Trump, but it hasn't budged the polls much.
At this late stage, wouldn't it be far more effective for Clinton's campaign to zero in on positive ads and speeches to voters (not wealthy donors) focusing on why voters who don't support her should, and why voters lukewarm about Clinton should be inspired enough to cast that ballot?
Sure, some of the media would rather see mudslinging, but all those newspaper endorsements haven't budged the polls much, either, and she needs the votes of more than media editorial board members.
She could say if elected president, this is specifically what I would do to close tax loopholes for the rich (not in general, like her campaign material states, but how exactly she would do it), and that this is specifically how making wealthy people like Trump pay their fair share in taxes would benefit our schools, roads and libraries.
Just a thought.
5
The ethics advisers here neglect other recent candidates whose tax practices were suspect. John Edwards and newt Gingrich both took extreme advantages of loopholes to save large amounts in taxes. Nixon and Ford did not timely disclose their returns. And information on Bill Clinton's tax returns were used against him in a criminal investigation. Finally, in 2012, you will remember, Romney initially refused to disclose his returns.
Bottom line, the suggestion that Trump is the only candidate with a suspect tax history is simply not true. A lot of tax abusers have run for President. If you're going to tell the story, you ought to tell the whole story.
Bottom line, the suggestion that Trump is the only candidate with a suspect tax history is simply not true. A lot of tax abusers have run for President. If you're going to tell the story, you ought to tell the whole story.
2
The claim is not that he is unique in having a suspect tax history, but that if he gets the job, he will be unique not only among all modern presidential candidates, but also among all recent appointees to top government posts, in not providing his tax records. I think the requirement for such candidates to do so is a fair one, and violating it seems disqualifying.
... The wh6ile story is they released theirs.
The Tea Party & the so-called Freedom Caucus have poisoned the American minds. They said they are just re-enacting the original Boston Tea Party but taxes are not going offshore to some monarchy. Instead, taxes are used to establish America to be the pre-eminent nation and even civilization. At least we did once when President Eisenhower built the highway system - perhaps after seeing the German Autobahn
Instead, people like Trump game the system for their own benefit without giving back. His presidential candidacy is just another scam. Him and Gov Pence are playing quite a con job but tax returns don't lie. Okay, even tax returns could lie. Look at what Trump did to his foundation, using charity dollars to pay off legal claims. So, even that $1B tax loss in 1995 is questionable. Legal? Maybe in letters. But in spirit? Rest assured his subsequent taxes are far worse
Instead, people like Trump game the system for their own benefit without giving back. His presidential candidacy is just another scam. Him and Gov Pence are playing quite a con job but tax returns don't lie. Okay, even tax returns could lie. Look at what Trump did to his foundation, using charity dollars to pay off legal claims. So, even that $1B tax loss in 1995 is questionable. Legal? Maybe in letters. But in spirit? Rest assured his subsequent taxes are far worse
19
So, to read this, it comes across as if you think that providing over 10,000 to US workers, isn't giving back. Is that really your position?
10,000 jobs for US workers is not giving back?
"Unsavory use of loopholes?" is like a "questionable attempt to continue breathing." Far, far more unsavory is how a career politician, whose government income as Senator and Sec of State was less than $200k per year built a net worth near $50 million, what on speeches? Now THAT is a useful investigation for Times readers. Unless you want to continue to be sheep. Which is just fine with Hillary, because...
Hilly Bo Peep is looking for sheep
To sheepishly trail behind her.
Her email lies and Benghazi alibis
Are just fine if you bleet and wear blinders.
Hilly Bo Peep is looking for sheep
To sheepishly trail behind her.
Her email lies and Benghazi alibis
Are just fine if you bleet and wear blinders.
2
That does not change Trump's noncompliance.
3
It's been done, if you read any actual news you would know this.
5
By including Benghazi, your argument fails.
6
Don's tax returns would show whether there are conflict of interest problems in his business dealings and being President. He and his kids have bragged that they have 120+ "deals" all over the world. Does he do business with foreign governments and foreign banks? Does he do business in Russia? We know he has interests in hotels in Canada, Brazil, Panama, Ireland and Scotland, and large high rises in India, the Philippines, Canada, Turkey, South Korea, and Uruguay. Brazil is coming soon. His eyeglasses are made in China. His $85 red polyester ties are made in China. His suits are made in China and Indonesia. His dress shirts are made in Bangladesh. His website sends people to Amazon for his clothing line, and his $650 suits are $120. He says he'll avoid conflicts by having his kids and executives run the business temporarily while he is President, and then he'll go back to running it when he leaves office. Ivanka also makes much of her merchandise in other countries, mostly China. Don's going to "forget" all his business interests while he's President. He could start making America great again and bringing jobs back from China by having his clothing line made in the US. Don says he doesn't make his clothing in the US because “very, very hard to have anything in apparel made in this country." Hardwick , Hickey Freeman, Joseph Abboud and Hart Schaffner Marx make all their suits in the US. Release the tax returns so we can see any conflicts of interest!
21
Oh, please, spare me the holier-than-thou. Tim "Turbotax" Geithner was not only a notorious tax cheat, he was appointed Treasury Secretary where he was in charge of the IRS.
Geithner famously tried to write off his child's summer camp costs as a business expense, and he failed to pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. These mistakes later needed to be corrected before he could assume his Cabinet position.
Does anyone seriously think that he would have fixed these tax problems had he not been nominated?
Geithner famously tried to write off his child's summer camp costs as a business expense, and he failed to pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. These mistakes later needed to be corrected before he could assume his Cabinet position.
Does anyone seriously think that he would have fixed these tax problems had he not been nominated?
6
Yes, but the issues you mention were addressed because Geitner had to submit his tax returns. That seems to prove that submitting tax returns is necessary .
We already know that Trump has used his "foundation" to pay off personal debts in violation of the tax code. What else is he hiding in his tax returns?
We already know that Trump has used his "foundation" to pay off personal debts in violation of the tax code. What else is he hiding in his tax returns?
8
The point is he fixed them before being approved.
4
Exactly why Creepy Clown Trump should release his.
2
I'm not a fan of Trump, but all this media hysteria over his tax returns is ridiculous, and shows just how out of touch the so-called mainstream media is with America. Of course Trump is going to take advantage of any and every tax deduction he can - that's what every red-blooded American does. To berate him for doing so, and to insinuate that taking advantage of deductions is somehow "unethical" insults not only Trump, but the American people. Moreover, as a middle class taxpayer, I find it highly insulting to be called "greedy" because I want to pay as little tax as possible. That's not greed; it's self interest. To suggest anything otherwise is disingenuous. Get off your high-horse, stop being condescending, and get real!
10
Your point is well taken. Nevertheless, I agree with the point of the article....that Trump is disqualified unless he provides his tax information.
5
One point of the article was that people who put self-interest before public interest should not be i public service. They're not evil; they just should not take on a position where others depend on their compassion and generosity. Despite the response that most people do not have access to the lawyers and accountants who can help them play Trump's game, and therefore continue to pay more than their share of the funds needed to do the country's work, the larger point is that there is a difference between taking every advantage as a private citizen and doing so when it affects your role as a public servant. Trump will no doubt be following the "law" if he lets his debts to foreign principles override his governmental duties for the sake of his personal well-being.
There's a psychosis in this country that seems to say that we would all be as rich as Trump if we could just get the jackboots off our necks. A lot of people seem to feel they are would-be Trumps and that being smart about avoiding taxes is one of the virtues they need to follow in Trump's footsteps. But to be a Trump, you need a few other qualities as well. One is the belief that we should all do only as much as we are absolutely forced to do to contribute to our country and our communities, that "paying it forward" is for fools.
There's a psychosis in this country that seems to say that we would all be as rich as Trump if we could just get the jackboots off our necks. A lot of people seem to feel they are would-be Trumps and that being smart about avoiding taxes is one of the virtues they need to follow in Trump's footsteps. But to be a Trump, you need a few other qualities as well. One is the belief that we should all do only as much as we are absolutely forced to do to contribute to our country and our communities, that "paying it forward" is for fools.
I think you need to look up the definition of the word greed.
Also, the question isn't whether Trump took advantage of the laws as they were intended. The question is whether he illegally or unethically used the tax laws to avoid paying taxes he should have paid. Others have had to release their tax forms and have taken a hit politically because they were not proper. We can't know if Trump did the right thing unless he exposes his tax filings.
Finally, for the record, I am a red-blooded American and do not take advantage of or manipulate my tax forms to get out of paying taxes that I am obligated to pay. My goal is to pay my fair share; not to pay as little as possible.
Also, the question isn't whether Trump took advantage of the laws as they were intended. The question is whether he illegally or unethically used the tax laws to avoid paying taxes he should have paid. Others have had to release their tax forms and have taken a hit politically because they were not proper. We can't know if Trump did the right thing unless he exposes his tax filings.
Finally, for the record, I am a red-blooded American and do not take advantage of or manipulate my tax forms to get out of paying taxes that I am obligated to pay. My goal is to pay my fair share; not to pay as little as possible.
1
News flash! Trump will never release his tax returns. Before or after the election.
10
No tax returns, No Job! Really! Trump is a charlatan and shouldn't be allowed in the White House lobby, but isn't this a bit hypocritical? Yes, he probably couldn't get confirmed for a Cabinet position in any administration, but isn't the same true for Hillary. After her gross mishandling of Top Secret information, would she be allowed another security clearance, much needed for a Cabinet level position? Would the FBI, CIA or NSA ever hire her? I think not! Whoever gets to the White House, America loses either way!
4
It is not hypocritical at all. You can make an informed decision to vote against Clinton based on her mishandling of classified data because you have the information to make that decision. It is not hypocritical to require that Trump release his tax information so that we can make an informed decision about him.
1
After reading the article and comments, pro and con, I do not think this needs to be made part of the Constitutional qualifications. Leave it as is. The refusal of a candidate to release tax returns is a good thinking person's reason to not vote for said candidate. One can infer said candidate is most definitely not above board on many levels by refusing. A lack of transparency about a basic part of citizenship, paying taxes to do your share for education, infrastructure, and security, well, that says quite a bit about a candidate's character.
26
Or the nosy Neighbor who will go through the trash to speculate rumors on the street.
Trumpers generally don't care about Trump's tax returns, usually because they see the gaming of the tax system as a positive thing, vaguely related to "liberty" & "freedom." They can't seem to explain how though, other than to complain about "free stuff" being given to "moochers," which everyone knows means "people who aren't like me."
26
This is funny really funny. I'm no Trump supporter but Hillary couldn't get a job with the government after her email fiasco. I think the NYT would be better focusing on the real issues here but I Realize doing that would be awfullly embarrassing.
7
OK, but it is quite possible that Trump couldn't get a job in various parts of the government based on his business ties. Why the double standard? Why don't you think Trumps business dealings are a real issue? If a significant portion of his fortune is tied to foreign interests, why would that not be a real issue?
nuts to you donald trump and bravo for this op-ed!
5
Putin, show us trump's tax returns.
15
Great column, thanks New York Times. Many people I know appreciate that you continue turning the vise on this horrible king of vice.
8
Both of the major political parties have demonstrated d beyond any reasonable
doubt that they are incapable of producing superior nominees in this environment in which special interests with deep pockets are able to pollute the process with eight figure donations to Super Pacs.
The American voters deserve at the least access to the past five years federal income tax returns as well as a medical physical conducted by an independent unbiased physician for anyone who aspires to this nation's most powerful position.
Leading nations who fall under the control of mediocre leaders who answer to special interests are destined to mediocrity.
doubt that they are incapable of producing superior nominees in this environment in which special interests with deep pockets are able to pollute the process with eight figure donations to Super Pacs.
The American voters deserve at the least access to the past five years federal income tax returns as well as a medical physical conducted by an independent unbiased physician for anyone who aspires to this nation's most powerful position.
Leading nations who fall under the control of mediocre leaders who answer to special interests are destined to mediocrity.
1
Trump wants to make America great again yet the America he's harkening back to most certainly would have tarred and feathered him at the very least for his overly slick shenanigans and then ridden him right out of town on the rails with the warning he never return ringing in his ears.
8
Thank you for taking the time to jointly prepare this very informative and non-partisan op-ed. I hope it will find wide audience. In a way, it's a shame to see it in the reviled "main stream media." Any chance you could devise a click bait version for yahoo or msn, or a YouTube version titled, for example, "the most amazing and shocking " It seems sadly clear that this is how "news" reaches an achingly large number of not just North Americans but people worldwide.
5
That Trump is unwilling to release his tax returns, that Trump clutches irrational nonsense excuses for not doing so is a fundamental deal-breaker for me. It is, however, not really necessary to my decision. Trump exhibits so many disqualifying traits, so many disturbing character flaws and personality aberrations that even with a range of 'normal' tax returns made public I would never vote for him. What truly makes me wonder is what about his tax returns is so massively damaging that he is willing to accept the hurt of keeping them hidden. What is Trump hiding, that is so fatally damaging that he's willing to hide it, when there are already so many deplorable and disqualifying things about him? How much worse must it be, what is hidden in those returns, that Trump feels he's better off not showing them and being instead 'merely' a racist, bigot, misogynist, proto-facist, and ignorant narcissist? How much worse could what he's hiding in these tax returns be than what he is already showing us over and over?
22
I think Hillary named a few things in the first debate he's probably hiding. My top choices are he's worth far less than he says he is and possible ties to Russian oligarchs. I'd also add that he doesn't want people to know he hasn't paid taxes for decades. Oh, wait--that' already been revealed!
1
Several commenters have brought up Hillary's e-mail server as some sort of equivalence argument. How about a compromise. Pass a law that says all presidential aspirants must a) swear that they will never use a private server for official business, and b) publish their past five years of tax returns. There. Problem solved.
5
How in good conscience can Paul Ryan support and campaign for Donald Trump? Ryan must go down; we Americans deserve more than a Speaker who can support such an ill-equipped Presidential candidate, and Ryan knows this!
8
Ryan is just as slimy as Trump and twice as dangerous, he's just quieter and smoother about it.
2
I keep reading poster say "if he has engaged with it legally". How many posters believe that all of Donald's deductions are legal?
1
I don't get it. Anyone who has ever had a financial loss uses (or should use) that loss to offset income. Though it is not fun to lose money, it's legal and normal to offset. Big deal.
Trump complained in the first debate that airports in America are substandard compared to third-world airports He also thinks that he and other wealthy billionaires should not have to pay taxes. Whom does he think should pay taxes to upgrade the airports that he uses frequently to amass his wealth? Would that be the middle class and blue-collar workers who can only afford to use the airports once or twice a year, or maybe not even that much?
Trump also complains about the U.S. military being weak and promises to build its strength up. Military upgrading is very expensive and will take a lot of tax money, but Trump doesn't think he should have to pay any taxes to contribute. Guess who will have to pay increased taxes if the military is to be upgraded?
Trump also complains about the U.S. military being weak and promises to build its strength up. Military upgrading is very expensive and will take a lot of tax money, but Trump doesn't think he should have to pay any taxes to contribute. Guess who will have to pay increased taxes if the military is to be upgraded?
37
Why are we here now? Reading this now? How has this happened and how is it allowed to continue? Why isn't there anything that can be done to compel this - pardon me - sleazebag - to release his taxes before the election? And then again - his supporters won't care either way. So frustrating!
7
I am so refreshed to see these ideas in print...we have been swimming in the sewer that are the ethical examples of the Congress, Trump, and corporate America for so long that I despaired. No one takes about ethics much any more
-- since Gordon Gekko became our national icon.
Maybe this article can break the ice!!
-- since Gordon Gekko became our national icon.
Maybe this article can break the ice!!
1
Government requires taxes and everyone should pay their share. However, most Republicans are opposed to paying taxes and tailor their ‘philosophy’ accordingly.
This began in earnest with Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich, trickle down economics, and a creed that said ‘greed is good’. Not long after, we had Norquist’s desire to ‘drown government in a bathtub’ followed by Gingrich’s ‘Contract on America’. Bush probably topped them all by giving massive tax cuts to the rich, fighting two unfunded wars, and then slinking out of town as the world economy imploded.
Obama was left to rescue things but had an obstructionist congress that put party over country while repeatedly threatening government shutdowns and forcing the current spending sequester.
With nearly 40 years of these shenanigans, it’s a wonder we have any government at all. The question is whether that’s really what people want and whether they’re willing to support a government that ensures life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens.
The legality of the rich avoiding taxes should really be irrelevant. Instead, we need a consensus on what government should do, and then ensure we all pay our fair share.
Tax incentives should only act as investments that reward the taxpayer while paying at least equal dividends towards the greater good. Philosophically, I don’t think it’s more complicated than that. But the divide in our populace may make this nearly impossible to accomplish.
This began in earnest with Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich, trickle down economics, and a creed that said ‘greed is good’. Not long after, we had Norquist’s desire to ‘drown government in a bathtub’ followed by Gingrich’s ‘Contract on America’. Bush probably topped them all by giving massive tax cuts to the rich, fighting two unfunded wars, and then slinking out of town as the world economy imploded.
Obama was left to rescue things but had an obstructionist congress that put party over country while repeatedly threatening government shutdowns and forcing the current spending sequester.
With nearly 40 years of these shenanigans, it’s a wonder we have any government at all. The question is whether that’s really what people want and whether they’re willing to support a government that ensures life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens.
The legality of the rich avoiding taxes should really be irrelevant. Instead, we need a consensus on what government should do, and then ensure we all pay our fair share.
Tax incentives should only act as investments that reward the taxpayer while paying at least equal dividends towards the greater good. Philosophically, I don’t think it’s more complicated than that. But the divide in our populace may make this nearly impossible to accomplish.
4
What difference does it make?
I am not a Trump supporter, and plan to vote for Clinton, as painful as that is for me. However, Trump's tax losses and his refusal to release his returns play no part in my decision. Everyone assumes that due to the magnitude of the losses that Trump has paid no income taxes since the mid 90's. Assuming this shows an ignorance of tax law and finance. It is likely that many of those losses were funded by debt, and that debt was probably forgiven in a subsequent year, which have resulted in debt forgiveness income. Even if he was able to take advantage of one of the exceptions to recognizing that income, he would still have to reduce his net operating loss carryforwards by the amount of the debt forgiveness. Ultimately, you only get to benefit from the losses if you actually funded the losses.
What has been missing from this discussion is any mention of the criminal actions of the New York Times in publishing Trump's tax returns without his consent. This is clearly and unequivocally an illegal activity, and I really hope that someone from the Times goes to jail. There is no legal requirement that anyone running for public office release their tax returns. It is perfectly valid for anyone to refuse to vote for a candidate who refuses to release, but it is not ethically, legally, or morally justifiable to publish the tax returns of any citizen without their consent. The Times actions were simply unconscionable.
What has been missing from this discussion is any mention of the criminal actions of the New York Times in publishing Trump's tax returns without his consent. This is clearly and unequivocally an illegal activity, and I really hope that someone from the Times goes to jail. There is no legal requirement that anyone running for public office release their tax returns. It is perfectly valid for anyone to refuse to vote for a candidate who refuses to release, but it is not ethically, legally, or morally justifiable to publish the tax returns of any citizen without their consent. The Times actions were simply unconscionable.
1
The NYT actions were in the best interest of this Republic. As a free press must always do.
1
Taxes, being the cost of civilization, are beneath the mouth that roared-leave that to the little people who foolishly believe that the republican party will save their lives through tax cuts for the "job creators", deregulation , religious cleansing, breaking treaty alliances, repealing health care laws and other seditious acts.
Of course Mr. Trump should release his tax returns for all the reasons stated in this excellent article.
But Mr. Trump's supporters don't care. They seem inured to any of his many outrageous affronts to the American people. Fingers in ears and shouting lalala, they are now committed to giving him a pass on everything.
The damage he is doing to our electoral and oversight systems in governance is considerable. Will anyone be compelled to disclose their finances when being considered for office--elected or appointed--again? Fat chance if he gets away with this.
The barbarians are truly at the gates, and Trump leads them all.
But Mr. Trump's supporters don't care. They seem inured to any of his many outrageous affronts to the American people. Fingers in ears and shouting lalala, they are now committed to giving him a pass on everything.
The damage he is doing to our electoral and oversight systems in governance is considerable. Will anyone be compelled to disclose their finances when being considered for office--elected or appointed--again? Fat chance if he gets away with this.
The barbarians are truly at the gates, and Trump leads them all.
33
Why must this one thing be the ultimate test or a sine qua non? Surely the taxpayers are capable of weighing all the many relevant criteria for public office including a history of mishandling classified documents and destroying evidence and using one's office for personal gain. These are nothing just because Hillary did them?
2
This entire article is nonsense. The notion that Trump or anyone else is “greedy” or “self-serving” because they take advantage of the tax laws to keep from paying any more taxes than necessary is ridiculous. I think it's safe to say we all want to keep as much of the money WE EARNED as possible. If Trump was able to use loopholes or tax inversion "tactics” to avoid paying taxes, then we need to change the laws.
I think this is yet another strong argument for overhauling our tax code.
I think this is yet another strong argument for overhauling our tax code.
3
Recall that it is Trump and his ilk that bought tax loopholes from which they benefit. Nice return on investment.
For every sleazy politician that would sell out their country, there is a sleazy businessman who would bribe a politician.
The Country loses.
For every sleazy politician that would sell out their country, there is a sleazy businessman who would bribe a politician.
The Country loses.
Please remember: Trump's returns being audited, even if they really are, is an invalid, legally false excuse for his hiding them. He is a flim-flam man who makes up phony excuses for anything. This is one of them. The man simply doesn't want us to see the returns. He's afraid of the consequences.
54
how about no transcripts of paid speeches to interest groups no job! yeah...the NYT...unabashedly shilling for the morally corrupt clinton...where are the transcripts to her speech to wall street? 600k! must have been a great speech! and now she wants us to believe she alone can "reign them in"...please...
7
If somebody is willing to pay that much , why refuse, is that not Republican market economy
1
Are these authors supposed to be taken seriously? Who vetted Timothy Geitner? The man responsible for managing the financial affairs of this administration did not pay taxes for four years, until he was nominated for the position. Pablum.
7
No ethics issues for running a private email server to avoid disclosure requirements? Why have any bar?
4
You mean like Powell and Rice did? The outrage!!!
1
For the umpteenth time, Powell and Rice did not have private servers of any kind; they had private email accounts for private email. Your 10-year-old can explain the difference between email accounts and email servers. It hurts your candidate when you focus on what you know to be untrue. The other side can then say, see, her supporters lie, too. So, if you like your candidate, stop it with this email account = email server business. Please.
1
Maybe one good thing about having to put up with Trump's shenanigans during this presidential cycle is that our lawmakers will now take a good hard look at these tax policies favored towards the super wealthy...I'm not holding my breath.
35
Agree, isn't that what this election is all about: that the 1% are living off the backs of the hardworking 99%? Don't you get it, Trump supporters?? We in the 99% have a zero chance of improving our stature with Trump in the White House. No matter how you might try to fool yourself that Trump is an outsider, fact is, he and most Republicans are on the inside legislating all kinds of loopholes so they can horde their money.
Neither Mr. Trump's fiduciary duty nor Mr. Pence's submission to a higher authority have much to do with the commonweal.
30
Some companies now require job candidates to let them access their credit scores. How one handles money is considered a good determinant of their conscientiousness, responsibility, honesty, etc. So asking for Trump's tax returns similarly can help US citizens (the employer of the President) determine character traits.
23
I'd like to see the Trumpet's credit score, as well as a calculation of his net worth.
I am laughing all the way to the bank.....betcha my "modest" net worth is greater than Donald Duck Trumpet's.
I am laughing all the way to the bank.....betcha my "modest" net worth is greater than Donald Duck Trumpet's.
Just the fact that you are the ethics counsel to Mr. Obama should be enough to invalidate your opinion on Mr. Trump's taxes. "No Tax Returns, No Job.'
So much passion on that headline!!! Maybe you wrote an article with the same indignation as this one way back when Mr. Obama spent over a $1 million dollars getting all of his records sealed? Or maybe when LATimes refused to release a video showing Obama praising Rashid Khalidi? Or maybe you wanted to get to the bottom of Mr. Sutton's statement when he, unequivocally, declared that Mr. Khalid al-Mansour had asked him for help to get Obama
accepted in Harvard? It is important to know who is going to be in the White House, right? Funny thing, I could not find any.
By the way, it seems you find Mr. Trump's using that loophole (which is completely legal by the way), totally repulsive, but you failed to mention that Mrs. Clinton also used it claiming almost $700,000 loss in their 2015 taxes.
I think both of you should look up the meaning of the word ethics.
So much passion on that headline!!! Maybe you wrote an article with the same indignation as this one way back when Mr. Obama spent over a $1 million dollars getting all of his records sealed? Or maybe when LATimes refused to release a video showing Obama praising Rashid Khalidi? Or maybe you wanted to get to the bottom of Mr. Sutton's statement when he, unequivocally, declared that Mr. Khalid al-Mansour had asked him for help to get Obama
accepted in Harvard? It is important to know who is going to be in the White House, right? Funny thing, I could not find any.
By the way, it seems you find Mr. Trump's using that loophole (which is completely legal by the way), totally repulsive, but you failed to mention that Mrs. Clinton also used it claiming almost $700,000 loss in their 2015 taxes.
I think both of you should look up the meaning of the word ethics.
9
She only claimed a $3,000 deduction for her $700,000 loss. Kind of different. Facts. Try them sometime.
2
You make a number of allegations, Maria, most of which have been proven false. If any citations to sources exist for your allegations, please provide them.
For example:
"Media figures are inaccurately equating Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a common tax deduction on her 2015 tax return to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s $916 million declared loss in 1995, which, The New York Times reported, he could have used to virtually wipe out his federal income tax obligations over the past two decades. Several media outlets have falsely claimed Clinton “did the same thing” as Trump when, in fact, Clinton’s 2015 tax return shows that she could take only a $3,000 deduction for her reported $700,000 loss, and her campaign reports that she has paid between a 25 and 38 percent income tax rate since 2001." http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/03/media-falsely-equate-trump-s...
For example:
"Media figures are inaccurately equating Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a common tax deduction on her 2015 tax return to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s $916 million declared loss in 1995, which, The New York Times reported, he could have used to virtually wipe out his federal income tax obligations over the past two decades. Several media outlets have falsely claimed Clinton “did the same thing” as Trump when, in fact, Clinton’s 2015 tax return shows that she could take only a $3,000 deduction for her reported $700,000 loss, and her campaign reports that she has paid between a 25 and 38 percent income tax rate since 2001." http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/10/03/media-falsely-equate-trump-s...
There is a long term capital loss carryover of almost $700,000 on the Clinton 2015 tax return. However, only $3,000 is deductible against other income, resulting a in a net tax savings of around $1,200 or so. At that rate, they would need over 200 years to use up the carryover if they did not have future capital gains. Hardly a comparison to Trump's return.
3
So basically Mr. Trump is a taker.
30
"That Near Perfect Union"
We the people, forming that near perfect union
Fought for our birth and imperfect communion
Finding certain truths to be more than self-evident
Donald J. Trump should never be our president
Our fathers didn't die so he could abuse our mothers
A man without respect for our sisters and brothers
Four score and seven years ago are the lyrics of our past
With Donald Trump as president our nation wouldn't last
Martin had his dream and Franklin had his deal
Leaders with a vision, just to keep this patter real
Sweet land of liberty, not built on racist backs
If people gonna lead us they should pay some income tax
Liberty or death, he shouted with one voice
She may not be your first, but don't make her your last choice
The country must not pay for the Grand Old Party's mistake
Most of us are givers, but this man the truth forsake
We the people, forming that near perfect union
Fought for our birth and imperfect communion
Finding certain truths to be more than self-evident
Donald J. Trump should never be our president
Our fathers didn't die so he could abuse our mothers
A man without respect for our sisters and brothers
Four score and seven years ago are the lyrics of our past
With Donald Trump as president our nation wouldn't last
Martin had his dream and Franklin had his deal
Leaders with a vision, just to keep this patter real
Sweet land of liberty, not built on racist backs
If people gonna lead us they should pay some income tax
Liberty or death, he shouted with one voice
She may not be your first, but don't make her your last choice
The country must not pay for the Grand Old Party's mistake
Most of us are givers, but this man the truth forsake
13
The qualifications for President of the United States are clearly stated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. There are no other legal qualifications for that office; the Constitution is the sole standard. Disclosure of income tax returns is not listed among the qualifications. It is therefore false to assert that such a requirement exists.
3
True, but if you complain about hobbled, corroding infrastructure, lack of military funding and poor public eduacation, should you A. pay your federal income tax which helps fund all of these, or B. hire someone to find a legal path for you to avoid paying any federal income taxes while you claim bankruptcy and pay pennies on the dollar to all the people you hired, while you demand $450,000. per month to live? See NYT June25,1990" Quick, Who'd Have Trouble Living On $450,000 a Month?
2
Don't you have any requirements yourself?
1
Really, just a technicality, no? May we the people should demand that there are more qualifiers than just the ability to breathe in an out and not wet yourself in public.
I know I needed more qualifications to get my job and I'm don't have my finger anywhere near the button.
While were at it, tax returns for the past 20 years, neurological exam, full psychologic evaluation, thorough medical examination, credit report, and a basic skills test (reading, math, spelling, and vocabulary), and the citizenship test.
To get job or a loan nowadays, you practically have to submit to a colonoscopy. Why lesser qualifications for the highest office of the land?
After trump's performance (and Bush's) the need to up the ante should be abundantly clear, yes?
I know I needed more qualifications to get my job and I'm don't have my finger anywhere near the button.
While were at it, tax returns for the past 20 years, neurological exam, full psychologic evaluation, thorough medical examination, credit report, and a basic skills test (reading, math, spelling, and vocabulary), and the citizenship test.
To get job or a loan nowadays, you practically have to submit to a colonoscopy. Why lesser qualifications for the highest office of the land?
After trump's performance (and Bush's) the need to up the ante should be abundantly clear, yes?
Unfortunately anyone who doesn't already know why Trump refuses to show us his tax returns won't be persuaded by any of this. You can't fix stupid.
36
He's hiding something, I'm not sure what exactly but I know it's not something good.
13
Do we even know whether the "tax return," of only the first page of a form 1040, is actually authentic? Who actually wrote in the numbers?
So in other words this is another epic government fail?
Did Trump submit these tax forms to somewhere other than the IRS? Did the IRS allow the 1995 fail? Or did they say no, that's too much money.
And what makes anyone believe Trump himself fill out these forms.
This entire discussion is a political witch hunt by political hacks.
Did Trump submit these tax forms to somewhere other than the IRS? Did the IRS allow the 1995 fail? Or did they say no, that's too much money.
And what makes anyone believe Trump himself fill out these forms.
This entire discussion is a political witch hunt by political hacks.
5
Why not 13 Congressional hearings examining Trump's tax dealings?
3
IRS should audit DJT, or wait they are Auditing him which he is using as a flimsy excuse to not release even the one with the least false deductions. Surprised the same senator's who will not even look at DJT for any high profile Gov work are supporting him, but wait it is only the shady ones that are supporting him says a lot of DJT
6
Trump may wind up in jail. If elected, would he be required to resign the presidency?
Not a Trump voter, but this piece invites a slippery slope. It'd be just as easy to institute a rule against candidates running while under investigation for a serious crime, like say, violating Freedom of Information Act by running a private email server. This comes across as a thinly veiled shot targeting Trump. Let's not act like Clinton is squeeky clean.
8
You are free to have your own rules for who to vote for.
I never vote for juveniles who make "They did it first!" an excuse to be sleazy.
I never vote for juveniles who make "They did it first!" an excuse to be sleazy.
1
I had to sign a waiver so my bank could look at my IRS returns just to apply for a mortgage. Surely it's not too much to ask the candidates for president to let the public inspect their returns. Not that my bank didn't trust me, mind you, but they did want to verify.... So should we!
30
As ethics counsel to the current President ...you should ask how Obama can tell Americans that he will deport illegal immigrants but yet the NY Times reports today that....The Obama administration is delaying deportation proceedings for recent immigrants in cities across the United States, allowing more than 56,000 of those who fled Central America since 2014 to remain in the country legally for several more years.
The shift, described in interviews with immigration lawyers, federal officials, and current and former judges, has been occurring without public attention for months. It amounts to an unannounced departure from the administration’s widely publicized pronouncements that cases tied to the so-called surge of 2014 would be rushed through the immigration courts in an effort to deter more Central Americans from entering the United States illegally.
The shift, described in interviews with immigration lawyers, federal officials, and current and former judges, has been occurring without public attention for months. It amounts to an unannounced departure from the administration’s widely publicized pronouncements that cases tied to the so-called surge of 2014 would be rushed through the immigration courts in an effort to deter more Central Americans from entering the United States illegally.
1
Unfortunately, the establishment includes dirty politicians who sell political favors for money (or political contributions) from dirty businessmen who would bribe them.
Mr. Trump has bragged about buying political favors from politicians.
Trump is establishment as they come.
Mr. Trump has bragged about buying political favors from politicians.
Trump is establishment as they come.
13
Yes sir, Mr. Trump is not fit to be the President of the United States of America.
16
I had to provide more financial disclosure when I bought my co-op.
35
So who and when is our elected leadership going to clean up the tax code so that no millionaire or billionaire, living in luxury, can avoid paying a fair tax?
How is this legal? One year I can understand, but not 2, and certainly not 10-18 years.
How is this legal? One year I can understand, but not 2, and certainly not 10-18 years.
21
Given the way Hillary handled her emails, she could not get a national security clearance now. Does that disqualify her from being President?
2
Given the way Mr. Trump and his pals blabbed about the content of his first security briefing, he would not get security clearance, would he? Given so much of his behavior, do you really want a person as erratic and out of control as Mr. Trump in the White House? Given his self appointed status as CEO of Trump business and the mistakes he has made, do you think any board of directors of a publically owned and traded company would hire this man as CEO? As my parents continually urged all 5 of their children while raising us, "Think!" and "Think before you leap" and after a bad decision "What WERE you thinking?"
1
The authors are correct, but putting this Op-Ed in the New York Times is rather like preaching to the choir, isn't it? They should submit it to The Washington Times, the Boston Herald, and similar conservative newspapers.
8
The Repugnantcants did this to themselves. How did Donald Duck Trumpet and his Pensive Pawn get the nomination? What caused the Repugnants to select an unelectable fool?
I hereby declare Clinton/Kaine the winner--Trumpet will not even be on the November ballot. It's coming--the implosion.
I hereby declare Clinton/Kaine the winner--Trumpet will not even be on the November ballot. It's coming--the implosion.
8
"Bogus"??
Per Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders."
Still in force - still litigated - see the Grey Lady as recently as April 16, 2015.
I guess a lot of business law is bogus to those that have never actually run a - you know - real business.
Per Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders."
Still in force - still litigated - see the Grey Lady as recently as April 16, 2015.
I guess a lot of business law is bogus to those that have never actually run a - you know - real business.
2
For the Trump supporters, if Hillary wins, it's rigged, but if Trump wins, it's not rigged. Where's the logic in that? For the undecided, Hillary is dishonest, corrupt, a liar, so they're still considering Trump, who lies every 3.5 minutes, and is a proven con with his "University" and Foundation. Where's the logic in that? Tax returns are meaningless to these people. With Trump, they get an inexplicable emotional high which has tapped into their racial resentment. He just makes them feel good.
28
Mr. Trump's tax return considerations would disqualify him out-of-hand for consideration for a cabinet position.
Yet, his legions of supporters find a way to turn this perversity into another reason that qualifies him to be president. What a frightening thought to consider regarding the sanity of a major percentage of the U.S. electorate.
Yet, his legions of supporters find a way to turn this perversity into another reason that qualifies him to be president. What a frightening thought to consider regarding the sanity of a major percentage of the U.S. electorate.
12
I've read a lot of comments on this article and notice that many point out that requiring tax returns isn't in the Constitution, while others try to make some irrational false equivalence between bad decisions about emails that were determined to NOT be of a criminal nature (unless you are a conspiracy theorists and believe a the Republican Comey could be "turned").
But these things don't really matter one bit. There is no need to argue the constitution or go tit-for-tat. One, simple action will resolve this issue:
The Democratic and Republican parties should require anyone who seeks to become their party's presidential candidate to reveal their tax records. And if one party refuses to make this requirement? Great! The other party will make sure the public knows and asks why.
Dems, are you listening?
But these things don't really matter one bit. There is no need to argue the constitution or go tit-for-tat. One, simple action will resolve this issue:
The Democratic and Republican parties should require anyone who seeks to become their party's presidential candidate to reveal their tax records. And if one party refuses to make this requirement? Great! The other party will make sure the public knows and asks why.
Dems, are you listening?
7
Why stop at tax returns? Perhaps paid speeches should also be covered.
2
You can go their but, remember, many Republican politicians also make money off of paid speeches to special groups. I have a feeling that transcripts of their paid speeches would be even more embarassing to the GOP party than Clinton's to the DEMs. Think hard. Very hard.
2
Those interested in this issue should educate themselves on the larger picture surrounding Trump's tax strategies in and around 1995. In addition to accumulating almost $1Billion in losses from mismanagement of his casinos, David Cay Johnston, a Trump authority, reports that Trump bullied banks into forgiving massive loans, which is taxable income. He then used a provision of the tax code to take all the depreciation on the casino in one year (basically expensing what is actually a fictitious paper loss) which he then used to offset the debt forgiveness income thus postponing the tax by transferring it to the building. He then transferred the money losing casino and the depreciation stripped casino to a corporation thus ridding himself of the casino losses and the postponed gain to the corporation. He then sold stock in the corporation to the public at $35/share while licensing the Trump name to the casino and hiring himself as casino manager thus becoming a creditor of the casino rather than its money- losing owner and proceeded to milk the casino by taking his fees off the top while the casino inevitably went broke leaving the stock that the public had purchased worthless. If you had sympathy for his net operating loss and excused his 18 year carry forward as the legitimate offsetting of income, you probably won't mind his ripping off the banks and milking a corporation at the expense of its stockholders. Of so, you would probably buy the Brooklyn Bridge from him too.
12
Trump deducted the losses of the suckers he ripped off.
His enablers are utter fools.
His enablers are utter fools.
2
Funny article from the Times.
Preident Obama, a self admitted known drug user of both cocaine and marijuana, has the nuclear codes in his back pocket.
Let us be realistic. A known drug user or someone who dosen't need to and is not obligated to release their taxes. Which is a bigger threat ?
Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him
Preident Obama, a self admitted known drug user of both cocaine and marijuana, has the nuclear codes in his back pocket.
Let us be realistic. A known drug user or someone who dosen't need to and is not obligated to release their taxes. Which is a bigger threat ?
Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him
Oh this is rich. The self righteous rise again. The loop holes are the product of Congress who make the laws and everyone takes advantage of them. So please make a list of all the people that pay more in taxes than they are legally bound to pay and print it so we can choose our next President.
We have a national debt that is heading toward 20 trillion dollars, our infrastructure is crumbling, the middle east is in a crises, our congress is in total gridlock, our Supreme court is now making laws, our police are under siege, etc, etc, and what are we obsessed with? Donald Trumps tax returns.
If it weren't such a tragedy it would be laughable.
The insanity to all this is to elect another career politician to the White House and expecting something to change.
We have a national debt that is heading toward 20 trillion dollars, our infrastructure is crumbling, the middle east is in a crises, our congress is in total gridlock, our Supreme court is now making laws, our police are under siege, etc, etc, and what are we obsessed with? Donald Trumps tax returns.
If it weren't such a tragedy it would be laughable.
The insanity to all this is to elect another career politician to the White House and expecting something to change.
2
What else do you expect from deadbeat billionaires?
2
I think this is the most important - and often overlooked - sentiment in this opinion:
"There is also no fiduciary duty to one’s family to minimize taxes by taking advantage of loopholes. Quite to the contrary, many of us want to set an example that teaches our children the responsibilities as well as the enormous benefits of being an American."
I have always felt that being American IS a privilege, and that TAX is only a THREE-LETTER WORD (not a four-letter word)...tax is not a bad word, and tax is not a bad practice...it is how we create a community of nationhood...constantly calling for "lower taxes" is a way of saying, "let's have less of what makes America special."
Thank you for this excellent piece, but most especially for that paragraph; I wish more Americans (especially those with the greatest means, as well as corporations) would take that sentiment more to heart. We are lucky to live here, to have a society that - for all of its many issues - somehow works.
"There is also no fiduciary duty to one’s family to minimize taxes by taking advantage of loopholes. Quite to the contrary, many of us want to set an example that teaches our children the responsibilities as well as the enormous benefits of being an American."
I have always felt that being American IS a privilege, and that TAX is only a THREE-LETTER WORD (not a four-letter word)...tax is not a bad word, and tax is not a bad practice...it is how we create a community of nationhood...constantly calling for "lower taxes" is a way of saying, "let's have less of what makes America special."
Thank you for this excellent piece, but most especially for that paragraph; I wish more Americans (especially those with the greatest means, as well as corporations) would take that sentiment more to heart. We are lucky to live here, to have a society that - for all of its many issues - somehow works.
11
This assessment of Mr. Trump's reluctance to exhibit his tax returns doesn't go far enough. Why not have all tax papers from all people available to the public. After all, if it's good enough to assail Mr. Trump on, who are the authors of this article to exempt themselves from the same logical scrutiny. Perhaps they haven't paid "their fair share."
2
This rule should become law. Tax returns show much more about you than your money; they show your relationships and your allegiances and your values.
The voting public has a right to know with whom you deal, to whom you are loyal, and what you believe is important. Those three issues may affect how you do the job of the Presidency, or how you will be perceived to be doing that job, should you win the election.
The knowledge gleaned from tax returns is germaine to elections in a unique way, and without that knowledge the public is voting in the dark, which poses potential threats to national security, unknowingly allowing conflicts of interest to go unaddressed, and more.
A not-insignificant side benefit is that returns shed light on the trustworthiness and truthfulness of each candidate. These are, as we are discovering in an unprecedented way, of great importance as well.
The voting public has a right to know with whom you deal, to whom you are loyal, and what you believe is important. Those three issues may affect how you do the job of the Presidency, or how you will be perceived to be doing that job, should you win the election.
The knowledge gleaned from tax returns is germaine to elections in a unique way, and without that knowledge the public is voting in the dark, which poses potential threats to national security, unknowingly allowing conflicts of interest to go unaddressed, and more.
A not-insignificant side benefit is that returns shed light on the trustworthiness and truthfulness of each candidate. These are, as we are discovering in an unprecedented way, of great importance as well.
11
Note that the author was reviewing the tax returns of parasitic politicians, not of job creators. I'm not voting for Trump, but to compare his tax returns to that of a lifetime government parasite is deliberately misleading.
2
And trump isn't.... a lifetime government parasite. Where do you think he gets permits to build????
2
You do not consider Trump a parasite? I certainly do. What has he ever done for the American people or even the people of the cities he lives in? Everything he has done was done for himself. He has taken money from the people to enrich himself. He testified before a congressional committee in the early 90s to enrich himself. He has used money from his "charitable" Trump Foundation to enrich himself. He is consistently a taker and only a taker.
2
Tell me casino moguls aren't parasites.
2
The authors of this article have barked the wrong tree. They should have complained to the Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex of setting up and later staunchly defending the tax loopholes for capital. Instead, they wrongly attacked businessman turned candidate D.J.T. about legally not paying taxes and left the other candidate of wrongdoing alone. The authors should have known that H.R.C. and dynast’s Clinton Foundation had practiced pay-for-play scheme for some time but choose to treat it with neglect. Being dollar-a-year man and woman, the scandal-ridden dynast has accumulated over their public service years and after hundreds of millions of dollars wealth; “no one in his [or her] position would have been nominated... much less [qualified] for the highest office in the land.” They may have paid taxes but the wealth might have come in the pay of dark money, why do the ethics counsels not care a hoot? The sanctimonious and rude moral polices seem to be cherry-pickers-in-chief. Are they also part and parcel of the Complex?
“People who believe they have a legal duty to put self-interest before the public interest don’t belong in public service.” Jeez! How many in the three branches of the government belong there? Certainly the Clintons do not belong. “Unpatriotic tax-avoidance tactics” are what I.R.S. counsels everyone to faithfully follow, do you want D.J.T. to disobey I.R.S.!? Or Your Worshipper – the Counsel?
“People who believe they have a legal duty to put self-interest before the public interest don’t belong in public service.” Jeez! How many in the three branches of the government belong there? Certainly the Clintons do not belong. “Unpatriotic tax-avoidance tactics” are what I.R.S. counsels everyone to faithfully follow, do you want D.J.T. to disobey I.R.S.!? Or Your Worshipper – the Counsel?
1
There are, of course, good reasons to suspect that Mr. Trump's declared "personal" income losses of $915 million were as bogus as the man himself. While he has not offered any evidence that he is under IRS audit, it would be hard to imagine how or why he wouldn't be.
5
Funny, the average Americans' potential employers can and do pull credit reports on prospective employees, in addition to the usual vetting of resumes, references and education. Yet, so many Americans don't seem to care that a critical disclosure like tax returns isn't required for the highest elective office in this country.
9
The take away in this OP-ED is quite simple; No candidate for president, vice president or any high level cabinet post can be properly vetted without reviewing their tax returns.
4
The only criterion is if Trump is elected according to the Constitution. There are no other requirements, period.
2
I have thought this for some time: Donald doesn't want the job.
Last night Rachel Maddow listed the activity Clinton's campaign is doing in swing states. It's a massive outfit. She has every big names in politics doing events for her. Trump? He has himself, Pence, and a few surrogates doing events. That's it.
The man does not want this job. Let's all make sure he doesn't get it.
Last night Rachel Maddow listed the activity Clinton's campaign is doing in swing states. It's a massive outfit. She has every big names in politics doing events for her. Trump? He has himself, Pence, and a few surrogates doing events. That's it.
The man does not want this job. Let's all make sure he doesn't get it.
12
This Op-Ed is as much about Senate Republicans who are straddling the line of "supporting the Republican nominee" without endorsing Donald Trump. But here, Norman Eisen and Richard Painter expose the hypocrisy of that position. Senate Republicans who would have no issue spiking a nominee who refused to turnover complete tax filings spanning half a decade are enabling a candidate for the presidency refuses to disclose his taxes forms, because those forms, if provided, would likely be disqualifying.
9
The Irony here is that the man that refuses to pay his share in taxes because he is "smart" had made a fortune taking advantage off all the infrastructure that he does not help to repair or maintain but complains that same infrastructure that he does not help to maintain is in shambles and accuse the women who pays her taxes for that....The Bizarre world where we live....
9
What we need is an IRS "Edward Snowden" to dig up DJT's past tax returns and mail them to Susanne Craig. Let her take care of the rest. After that is done, our election dilemma will be solved and come January, President Obama will grant this great american a presidential pardon and the earth will return to its regularly scheduled orbit.
2
What about "Turbo Tax Tim" Geithner? He was allowed to be Secretary of the Treasury after cheating on his federal income taxes.
4
Hillary supporters are using property stolen from the US Postal Service to advance their advocacy and will face no ramifications. The Clinton’s furnished their mansion in Westchester with property stolen from the White House and faced no ramifications.
The Clinton Foundation filed fraudulent returns to both NY State and the IRS. Charity Navigator has given the CF a five star rating on those financials despite being aware that they are erroneous. Schneiderman has taken no action.
Trump is under IRS audit. We therefore have high confidence that he is not guilty of appropriating possessions or cash that belongs to the taxpayer. After spending the last year studying the records of the Trump Foundation, Schneiderman, a Hillary operative, tells Trump that he has detected a paperwork deficiency regarding the Trump Foundation. Trump is therefore barred from soliciting donations in NYS and has fifteen days to provide thousands of pages of documentation. This couldn’t have waited a month?
The Clinton Foundation filed fraudulent returns to both NY State and the IRS. Charity Navigator has given the CF a five star rating on those financials despite being aware that they are erroneous. Schneiderman has taken no action.
Trump is under IRS audit. We therefore have high confidence that he is not guilty of appropriating possessions or cash that belongs to the taxpayer. After spending the last year studying the records of the Trump Foundation, Schneiderman, a Hillary operative, tells Trump that he has detected a paperwork deficiency regarding the Trump Foundation. Trump is therefore barred from soliciting donations in NYS and has fifteen days to provide thousands of pages of documentation. This couldn’t have waited a month?
3
Excellent story.
There is no question that had there been a Republican administration in office and the Democrats presented a nominee like Donald Trump, that the GOP leadership and its constituents would rise up in unison and be all over that nominee demanding to see the returns and ask questions.
Stick a fork in Trump. He is done.
There is no question that had there been a Republican administration in office and the Democrats presented a nominee like Donald Trump, that the GOP leadership and its constituents would rise up in unison and be all over that nominee demanding to see the returns and ask questions.
Stick a fork in Trump. He is done.
3
The authors would have done us a greater service had they argued for a long-overdue overhaul of the tax code (e.g., “legal but unsavory use of tax loopholes”) and the use of political office to set oneself up for a post-government career as a lobbyist (e.g., “put self-interest before the public interest don’t belong in public service).
The authors fail to realize that business leaders use “fiduciary duty to shareholders to structure deals to minimize taxes” merely as a means to the end of self-benefit (e.g., higher salary and bonus), not as an end in and of itself (although shareholders still love the benefits derived from tax evasion).
As White House ethic lawyers I hope the authors return with a column next week regarding the donations by foreign entities to the Clinton Foundation while Mrs Clinton was Secretary of State – as well as an expose of the benefits from the U.S. those entities received in return.
And why, in heaven's name, is USPS property showing up in anti-Trump rallies?
The authors fail to realize that business leaders use “fiduciary duty to shareholders to structure deals to minimize taxes” merely as a means to the end of self-benefit (e.g., higher salary and bonus), not as an end in and of itself (although shareholders still love the benefits derived from tax evasion).
As White House ethic lawyers I hope the authors return with a column next week regarding the donations by foreign entities to the Clinton Foundation while Mrs Clinton was Secretary of State – as well as an expose of the benefits from the U.S. those entities received in return.
And why, in heaven's name, is USPS property showing up in anti-Trump rallies?
1
Savor the 47% moment.
2
As a Bernie guy, even though I detest Hillary too, I bow to no one in my dislike of Trump. That said, in the unlikely event that Trump actually wins, neoliberal Dems will have to grin and bear it exactly as the right-wing whites who hated Obama had to, twice. It will be their turn to have their heads explode this time. It was a whipsaw of historic proportions when we moved from W to Obama, but the whipsaw from Obama to Trump would be even more mind-boggling.
2
The Donald F Trump State Park is an interesting deal. It is purported that Trump purchased the land in the 1990s for 2 million to build a golf course. Unable to proceed with the project for lack of all the required permits, Trump donated the land to NYS and took a tax write off for 100 million. Now if the land were worth 100 million, then Trump could have sold it and taken a 98 million capital gains. After tax he would net 74.7 m. Instead the donation and write off could have saved 37.6 m. Thus the donation costs Trump 35 m lost income in theory. Of course the property was probably not worth 100 m, so how did he get away with that size write off?
4
Whatever Trump is or isn't hiding in his tax returns pales in comparison to the fraud committed by Clinton, the family "foundation", and its attendant pay-for-play bribery scheme.
1
Why does the NYT continue to put this criminal and corporate lackey from the illegal war criminal Bush administration, "ethics" HaHaH he cannot even spell the word nor know what it means, Republican't Painter into this respectable newspaper?! Have they not learned from his past and lies and human rights abuses?!
Tax the rich, tax the corporations, tax all Republican'ts and those who vote for and assist them out of existence. More government and regulations not fewer. No more austerity.
Tell all you know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and deplorables so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Tax the rich, tax the corporations, tax all Republican'ts and those who vote for and assist them out of existence. More government and regulations not fewer. No more austerity.
Tell all you know to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and deplorables so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
1
I would like the NYT to investigate the content of the 33,000 emails Hilary not only deleted but BLEACHED (even God can't recover them).
I'd want the Times to ask why these emails were so incriminated to warrant such extreme measure.
I'd want the Times to ask why these emails were so incriminated to warrant such extreme measure.
2
Trump's fiduciary duty defense is the height of chutzpah. In reality is saddled an entity with excessive debt and sold stock to the public. The doomed casino enterprise soon went bankrupt and the shareholders, lenders, creditors, employees, vendors and contractors were virtually wiped out. Trump unloaded his debt, paid himself millions in fees and escaped.
3
As the FBI director implied HRC could not get a security clearance because of the way she handled classified information. However, POTUS is not required to have a security clearance and is entitled to get whatever information he or she needs to know to preform their job. Getting security clearances may, however be a problem for some of HRC's top aides, by regulations, due to their involvement with her servers and computer machinations, should she be elected. Likewise Donald Trumph's tax machinations is apparently not a bar to his getting elected, GF. His choice of White House aides would likely not be influenced (except to enhance their chances) by candidates who put their own interests ahead of the public interests as long as they could get a security clearance.
3
It's called democracy. You know the kind of political system were voters are allowed to make up their own minds. I very much hope they make up their minds not to put that dangerous clown in the White House, but that doesn't mean I want to see more and more hurdles put up for running for office.
3
He's not obligated to release his returns.
We're not obligated to vote for him.
We're not obligated to vote for him.
55
Such a profound comment.
The topic is the ethics of serving in the White House. No tax returns, no job. It seems reasonable to me to require it of our presidential candidates beforehand.
The topic is the ethics of serving in the White House. No tax returns, no job. It seems reasonable to me to require it of our presidential candidates beforehand.
3
Big difference: one position is appointed. The other is elected.
Maybe the people who would vote for the candidate are upset at the current tax code and are happy that he was able to find a loophole.
Why can't we have a 1 page tax code?
What was your gross income last year?: $
Multiply by .1 for Taxes Due: $
Wouldn't that be nice? For everyone except Tax Attorneys and CPA's of course.
The graduated income tax is unconstitutional. All men are created equal, right? The current tax code treats people differently based on salary. I agree that high earners should pay more money in taxes but the rate should be equal for all...
Maybe the people who would vote for the candidate are upset at the current tax code and are happy that he was able to find a loophole.
Why can't we have a 1 page tax code?
What was your gross income last year?: $
Multiply by .1 for Taxes Due: $
Wouldn't that be nice? For everyone except Tax Attorneys and CPA's of course.
The graduated income tax is unconstitutional. All men are created equal, right? The current tax code treats people differently based on salary. I agree that high earners should pay more money in taxes but the rate should be equal for all...
1
Why does it matter whether elected or appointed? The standard is that you shouldn't hold high office if you're a tax cheat or use the tax code in ways that the authors of this piece refer to as "unsavory."
6
Can the writers of this piece please forward it to network and cable news? No one on television seems interested in doing any research. Oh, and I guess the GOP had no interest during the primary either.
3
then pass an amendment to the constitution. that will take at least a decade.but work towards an answer instead of whining
2
Let me get this straight. We can't get people to let us know if they are a felon at the beginning of the hiring process but it's okay to demand a tax return?
3
Trump harps about the wealth of the Clintons (his usual tactic for throwing the onus to his opponent and off of the scrutiny of him) ....but guess what, they earned their money....didn't inherit their daddy's money or real estate....worked through college, paid their taxes, and have been community leaders during and since college...not only community leaders but publically elected leaders. I have experienced the good that they have done. She brings me hope. Trump brings me dispare and anger.
9
If his income tax returns are the best reason these authors can find for why Mr. Trump isn't qualified to be President, they have their noses buried too deep in the minutiae. I don't want Mr. Trump to be our next President, but it's not because he has managed to make full use of the provisions of the tax code to minimize his income taxes.
If the Senate doesn't like nominees who take advantage of "loopholes" to lower their taxes (I assume that includes the mortgage interest deduction loophole, the charitable contributions deduction loophole, the loophole for personal and dependent deductions, etc.), then the Senators should take a time out from hearings designed to embarrass one political party or the other, get off their duffs, and REFORM THE TAX CODE.
And if we're using Senate "confirmability" as the standard for fitness to be President, I wonder how Secretary Clinton would fare today, given the FBI's condemnation of her handling of classified information, and revelations about the contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Do Mr. Eisen and Mr. Painter want to declare her unqualified, too?
If the Senate doesn't like nominees who take advantage of "loopholes" to lower their taxes (I assume that includes the mortgage interest deduction loophole, the charitable contributions deduction loophole, the loophole for personal and dependent deductions, etc.), then the Senators should take a time out from hearings designed to embarrass one political party or the other, get off their duffs, and REFORM THE TAX CODE.
And if we're using Senate "confirmability" as the standard for fitness to be President, I wonder how Secretary Clinton would fare today, given the FBI's condemnation of her handling of classified information, and revelations about the contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Do Mr. Eisen and Mr. Painter want to declare her unqualified, too?
1
Unfortunately, if Trump supporters don't care about his serial lying, they aren't going to care about anything his tax returns show.
7
Both Trump and Clinton think rules do not apply to them. Huge difference is that Trump acted as a private citizen on his own behalf and Clinton as an elected and appointed official on our behalf. They are both skating constantly, but the Times only headlines one. Why?
1
Clinton hides all her sins in her foundation. Trump hasn't been on the take for forty years because he hasn't been in politics. The purpose of seeing a candidates tax returns is to see if they are receiving money from special interests.
As for this so called group of investigators. What would a government employee be doing, being so partisan in an election?
As for this so called group of investigators. What would a government employee be doing, being so partisan in an election?
1
Nicely written. Especially "....these are personal tax returns we are talking about. There is no such thing as a “fiduciary duty” as a businessman to oneself. That, as we’ve said before, is called greed." I do not begrudge Trump for his wealth, taking full advantage of the extant tax code to minimize the personal taxes he paid, or his greed (everyone is greedy; it is just a matter of degree and perception). I do however, hold him accountable for not releasing his taxes while running to occupy the most powerful position in the world.
if his tax returns pass legal muster, what is he afraid of?
if his tax returns pass legal muster, what is he afraid of?
8
One of the most succinct and cogent editorials I have ever read in NYT in 40 years of readin
2
If elected, he will submit the tax returns for scrutiny, though they will not be public.
Obama is intentionally delaying deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. Forget Trump's taxes that has no impact on anyone, not enforcing our laws have significant impact. We know Hillary C. will NOT enforce the laws.
1
Biggest lie told by Pence about the missing returns from Trump is that he filed a lengthy financial statement required of Presidential candidates. How is anyone to know if these disclosures are at all accurate without seeing the returns?
Pence and Trump also would not touch the issue of conflicts of interest which we all know do exist and could be disqualifying. Without full disclosure of all business financials this would be virtually impossible to verify.
Finally no one is asking to see the mandatory blind trust that would divest all control of Trump's enterprises from him and his family. Romney tried to fake it with atrust that gave control to his wife and son. Everyone knew that would not be a blind trust.
Pence and Trump also would not touch the issue of conflicts of interest which we all know do exist and could be disqualifying. Without full disclosure of all business financials this would be virtually impossible to verify.
Finally no one is asking to see the mandatory blind trust that would divest all control of Trump's enterprises from him and his family. Romney tried to fake it with atrust that gave control to his wife and son. Everyone knew that would not be a blind trust.
6
Claptrap. Tripe.
The authors of this nonsense miss the critical point that cabinet members are APPOINTED whereas the president is ELECTED by the people.
It is very conceivable that if a nominee for a cabinet position admits to several years of drug use and membership in Choomgang, he will not be confirmed. But we have a president who did all that and more, and was TWICE elected.
Assume the worst: Trump is not as wealthy as he claims and he did not pay taxes. But can be govern and bring change from same old same old?
Sarah Palin would say, YOU BETCHA.
The authors of this nonsense miss the critical point that cabinet members are APPOINTED whereas the president is ELECTED by the people.
It is very conceivable that if a nominee for a cabinet position admits to several years of drug use and membership in Choomgang, he will not be confirmed. But we have a president who did all that and more, and was TWICE elected.
Assume the worst: Trump is not as wealthy as he claims and he did not pay taxes. But can be govern and bring change from same old same old?
Sarah Palin would say, YOU BETCHA.
1
Nah, that's not the worst.
1
Why weren't we reading sensible articles like this - and like recent, eye-popping accounts of Trump's illegal use of his so-called foundation donations and conflict-of-interest entanglements with foreign governments - BEFORE the GOP nomination? Where were people like Mr. Eisen and Mr. Painter when their voices would have mattered?
3
This piece is brilliant!!
4
Who likes to follow any leader who does not oblige him or herself to submit to the same processes they impose on and administer to others?
5
Demand that Trump release his IRS audit letter to prove there actually is a real audit. He just claims there is and had his paid accountants say so.
When Kellyann Conway was asked about an IRS audit letter, she was speachless, and then went into attack mode saying "are you calling him a liar"? But she never answered the question.
If there is an audit, he still has no reason to refuse to release the returns. But maybe this whole IIRS audit story is just another cover-up.
NYT, don't let him weasel out of this.
Keep the pressure on.
When Kellyann Conway was asked about an IRS audit letter, she was speachless, and then went into attack mode saying "are you calling him a liar"? But she never answered the question.
If there is an audit, he still has no reason to refuse to release the returns. But maybe this whole IIRS audit story is just another cover-up.
NYT, don't let him weasel out of this.
Keep the pressure on.
6
Has the White House now authorized the U S Postal Sevice to sell anti-trump rubber ducks? ?
2
How many times a day can the NYT repeat the same partisan messaging in perfect lockstep with their chosen candidate?
We get it NYT. You really, really, really hate Trump and your readers really, really, really hate Trump. Never has a choir been preached to so thoroughly.
All this nonstop repetitive partisan dreck accomplishes is to ensure that the NYT is known by all as Fox News for liberals.
We get it NYT. You really, really, really hate Trump and your readers really, really, really hate Trump. Never has a choir been preached to so thoroughly.
All this nonstop repetitive partisan dreck accomplishes is to ensure that the NYT is known by all as Fox News for liberals.
3
Release or withdraw from the race! No tax returns no job! It's a Non-Starter for me...
4
What about "Turbo Tax Tim" Geithner? He got to be Secretary of the Treasury after cheating on his federal income tax.
1
You seem so concerned. What did your While House or a White House do about the eighteen year carry forward and back? Not much it seems for what reason?
1
I blame Gerald Ford. His pardon of the sociopathic criminal Nixon set the stage. Ford taught every future crooked politician that you can overtly break laws, get caught, and face nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Horrible, horrible precedent.
2
Thank you for your service and this principled and moral explanation of why this is so important to preserving our democracy.
3
...and the Donald said "SO WHAT!!!" And everyone said "Oh Well". And then went back to business as usual??
When will there be an action taken that accounts for this despicable behavior?
When will there be an action taken that accounts for this despicable behavior?
3
I think there is a national security risk involved. If Trump owes all kinds of money to China and Russia and god knows who else, he has a conflict of interest. We need to see documents on all his financial debts...
His life history shows his loyalty is to himself and his money, not his country.
His life history shows his loyalty is to himself and his money, not his country.
100
Bill Clinton took $1.3 million in speaking fees from a Russian oligarch who was trying to persuade the State department to agree to allow the sale of US uranium resources to the Russian oligarch, which Hillary approved.
Hillary managed the "Russian reset". Russia invaded Georgia as well as the Ukraine with no response from Obama.
Bill Clinton took $1.3 million from the Kenyan government while they were lobbying to get the EX/IM bank to finance a pipeline in Kenya, which required State department approval. That $1.3 million would have paid for 40,000 poor Kenyan children's school lunches so that their parents could send them to school instead of to pick through the garbage dump. Greed outweighs poor children.
Bill Clinton used his role as leader of the Haitian earthquake recovery effort to grant consulting and contracting gifts to his cronies. Six years after the earthquake, Haitians are still qualifying for refugee status in the US because conditions are worse than ever. But the 1% who were friends of the Clintons are far wealthier.
Hillary has sold out American interests for cash. You have no evidence that even suggests that Trump has ever acted in ways that were detrimental to the interests of his country. What you have is the corrupt talking points of Democrats who project their own self-serving greed onto others.
Hillary managed the "Russian reset". Russia invaded Georgia as well as the Ukraine with no response from Obama.
Bill Clinton took $1.3 million from the Kenyan government while they were lobbying to get the EX/IM bank to finance a pipeline in Kenya, which required State department approval. That $1.3 million would have paid for 40,000 poor Kenyan children's school lunches so that their parents could send them to school instead of to pick through the garbage dump. Greed outweighs poor children.
Bill Clinton used his role as leader of the Haitian earthquake recovery effort to grant consulting and contracting gifts to his cronies. Six years after the earthquake, Haitians are still qualifying for refugee status in the US because conditions are worse than ever. But the 1% who were friends of the Clintons are far wealthier.
Hillary has sold out American interests for cash. You have no evidence that even suggests that Trump has ever acted in ways that were detrimental to the interests of his country. What you have is the corrupt talking points of Democrats who project their own self-serving greed onto others.
Where was the essay eight years ago entitled:
"No Birth Certificate, No Job"?
"No Birth Certificate, No Job"?
11
It wasn't there because there was never any serious doubt about citizenship.
2
And what other candidate was asked to show his birth certificate?
2
Right-- the same request we made of all prior presidential candidates.
2
Trump has said he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn't hold it against him. Why would they be bothered by a mere billion dollar tax scam or shady deals with Russian oligarchs?
38
From what I've read of some of his supporters' comments on right-wing websites, they're repeating Giuliani's comments verbatim. "He's a businessman. He's a genius on tax laws. Who cares about his taxes from 20 years ago? We need someone like him in the White House. He's gonna clean house when he gets in!" And of course these comments are usually accompanied by the requisite thinly veiled racist inferences as well.
2
Maybe the point of releasing taxes is so the public can do its own audit.
14
Donald should release his DNA test results to prove that he's a primate.
56
When Donald talks about "law and Order" what he means is that he is a law unto himself and he wants everyone else to be orderly and tow his line.
It should make any reasonable person sick that there is a substantial segment of the population that considers him worthy of being the President of this great country.
Listening to the Trump supporter from Arizona on NPR's Divided America series makes one wonder whether any logical reasoning would work with them.
It should make any reasonable person sick that there is a substantial segment of the population that considers him worthy of being the President of this great country.
Listening to the Trump supporter from Arizona on NPR's Divided America series makes one wonder whether any logical reasoning would work with them.
30
The answer to that is "no"
1
@pathivu: I heard her too, and was amazed at her refusal to see anything else but her own perspective! But then I recalled that she was introduced as a real estate person, and it clicked that her self-interest lies in not having the tax code altered, because it is partially written to favor the real estate industry. Then her defense of him made sense.
1
It really comes down to this.
Everyone who doesn't believe Trump should be elected because he won't release his tax returns shouldn't vote for him.
Everyone who doesn't believe Clinton should have broken State rules (yes, it was against the rules), destroyed emails (yes, she had them bleached) and claimed ignorance (no, someone that dumb shouldn't be elected) shouldn't vote for her.
Neither should lecture anyone on disclosure.
Everyone who doesn't believe Trump should be elected because he won't release his tax returns shouldn't vote for him.
Everyone who doesn't believe Clinton should have broken State rules (yes, it was against the rules), destroyed emails (yes, she had them bleached) and claimed ignorance (no, someone that dumb shouldn't be elected) shouldn't vote for her.
Neither should lecture anyone on disclosure.
7
Here we go again, to cite a former presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton did not endanger national security, and the FBI found nothing that warranted prosecution. Comey fumed a bit, probably because he had to justify the time and money they wasted on investigating Clinton's emails over and over again, that they could have spent on catching terrorists. Trump on the other hand may have serious conflicts of interests that we cannot judge because we cannot see his tax returns. He is also incompetent as a politician and a businessman, and a rabble rouser who insults women, minorities and the disabled, parents of a soldier who died for his country, and scores of others who disagree with him. He is a petty childish tyrant.
2
AACNY, how about the fact that these two writers are former chief White House ethics lawyers for George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And they are just two more individuals - of both parties - who want Trump to honor his word and release his tax returns. Now.
And I think this quote summed up part of my misgivings about Trump (but not Clinton) "People who believe they have a legal duty to put self-interest before the public interest don’t belong in public service."
And I think this quote summed up part of my misgivings about Trump (but not Clinton) "People who believe they have a legal duty to put self-interest before the public interest don’t belong in public service."
3
Kind of a random comment. Let's discuss blue. Okay, but what about red?
2
If I was DJT, I would be embarrassed to disclose a 916 million dollar loss, because it is a LOSS and losses are for losers unless you are squirming out of paying taxes. The very idea that DJT can non-nonchalantly lose a billion dollars should have people shuddering. Is this someone in which we can trust the fiduciary responsibility of the country? I think not. The self-proclaimed "king of debt" will burden each and every one of us with his fantastical notions and bad decisions. This is why running a business is not commensurate with running a country. The profits must accrue to the people as a whole, not their elected representatives. The blinding intoxication of money, DJT's drug of choice and the chief failure of present-day capitalism is a recipe for disaster.
25
I think this line of reasoning is correct, up to this point: that there is "no fiduciary duty to one’s family to minimize taxes by taking advantage of loopholes. Quite to the contrary, many of us want to set an example that teaches our children the responsibilities as well as the enormous benefits of being an American."
No one is happy and excited about spending money on taxes or anything else. And I think everyone should avail themselves of the write-offs and allowances that are there. It's a little silly to say that trying to reduce your own tax bill is a bad thing.
There is sometimes a gap between legal and ethical. Trump should show his tax returns because that's become tradition. It's one more of his many shortcomings. Don't blather on about the joy of paying taxes.
No one is happy and excited about spending money on taxes or anything else. And I think everyone should avail themselves of the write-offs and allowances that are there. It's a little silly to say that trying to reduce your own tax bill is a bad thing.
There is sometimes a gap between legal and ethical. Trump should show his tax returns because that's become tradition. It's one more of his many shortcomings. Don't blather on about the joy of paying taxes.
5
The alternative universe of not paying taxes makes for a pretty bleak society.
2
To the misbegotten Trump lickspittles, I ask:
**Would you buy a used car without looking under the hood or - at very least - perusing the registration paperwork?**
That's what they are proposing when pooh-poohing the tax avoidance ploy of the Orange Excrescence.
Talk about buying a pig in a poke...
**Would you buy a used car without looking under the hood or - at very least - perusing the registration paperwork?**
That's what they are proposing when pooh-poohing the tax avoidance ploy of the Orange Excrescence.
Talk about buying a pig in a poke...
36
The problem is his supporters are dumb and could care less!
15
. . . not care less.
Of course Trump isn't fit for President or any other position in public service. What he is fit for is an orange jumpsuit.
37
Trump has plenty to hide aside from his massive tax write-offs. What about:
His actual net worth aside from an absurd over-valuation of his brand name at $3Billion.
His ties to off-shore investors and banks since US banks won't touch him (the Russians?).
His contributions to charity.
...and any other shady business practices that have yet to come to light.
However, Trump is very clear about one thing: The rules for mere mortals do not apply to him.
Trust him with our economy, our nuclear weapons, our lives? Never!!
His actual net worth aside from an absurd over-valuation of his brand name at $3Billion.
His ties to off-shore investors and banks since US banks won't touch him (the Russians?).
His contributions to charity.
...and any other shady business practices that have yet to come to light.
However, Trump is very clear about one thing: The rules for mere mortals do not apply to him.
Trust him with our economy, our nuclear weapons, our lives? Never!!
32
I want to know his actual net worth. That is far more important than any number of businesses, real-estate holdings, or losses. Do the debts outweigh the assets?
Who thinks Trump's Republican elected enablers have ever been serious about any of their hypocritical inquisitions of Hillary now?
13
So, Republican Senators who wouldn't dream of confirming or even considering a nominee with this profile, why are you supporting Trump??
27
No tax returns, no jobs? We can say the same thing about college transcripts, which Mr. Obama has refused to release. Hmmmm.
4
I'm not sure you've thoroughly thought through this particular style of logic. This is where an individual is criticized and rather then address the criticism directly you just point to someone else and lodge the same/similar criticism.
You have in effect suggested that no tax returns and no college transcripts are an equivalency. Therefore both should preclude eligibility for the presidency.
By the way...Trump has refused to release both his college transcripts and his tax returns. So is he now doubly ineligible?
You have in effect suggested that no tax returns and no college transcripts are an equivalency. Therefore both should preclude eligibility for the presidency.
By the way...Trump has refused to release both his college transcripts and his tax returns. So is he now doubly ineligible?
2
Baloney!
Did any other candidate have to show his college transcript? Has anyone asked Trump for his since he says he's very smart??
4
And maybe we should also not be casting votes for candidates who stink of obstruction of justice, when they delete 30,000 emails apon finding out they will be investigated by the FBI.
7
Those e-mails were about personal things like birthdays, weddings, births, deaths, etc. They had no bearing on any events in Benghazi, but if they were divulged they might expose links and sources irresponsibly.
11
@Steve Bolger. How do we know that the delegated e-mailed were about birthdays, weddings, etc.? The e-mails are gone. We just have Sec. Clinton's word. Also, are we sure that her server/computer has not been hacked?
How do you know what was in those emails? They were deleted. Or did you hack Hillary's emails to see what was there?
Why doesn't the Republican leaders in Congress speak up? They are the very same ones on committees, that these authors are writing about, who agree that showing tax returns is critical to determine if someone should be nominated or confirmed to a key position in government.
14
After the VP debate, and Pence's proclivity to lie with a straight face over and over again, I am heartened to know that the Presidencies of both Bush and Obama scrubbed their candidates, and kept the faith of honor, duty, and country. The lack of experience, by both Pence and Trump, for this level of scrutiny, prior to public service, is obvious. Indiana needs a strong dose of ethical scrutiny. Clearly, like NJ, politics and virtue are not mixing well in Pence's mansion either. Thank you for the article. I agree, with a another commenter, that the content should be required reading at the voting booth, full stop.
16
Pence wouldn't lie -- he's a Christian
1
No 1040 to see, no vote from me!
13
Specifically, I think Trump files the 1040 UUGE.
I haven't read all the comments. My personal political philosophy is best described as practical social democrat; I am familiar with the Swedish approach and think it makes a lot of sense. Of course I find Mr. Trump an anathema and will vote for Ms. Clinton.
All that said, I do not like the general idea advanced by this piece that there should be some kind of vetting of Presidential candidates beyond the qualifications set forth in the Constitution. Unlike the cabinet and subcabinet positions they discuss, this is an elective, not appointive, office. I wish the article had been more specific in declaring that this is an issue voters should be paying attention to. The way it reads Messrs. Eisen and Painter are looking for some invisible hand to reach out and change the rules.
All that said, I do not like the general idea advanced by this piece that there should be some kind of vetting of Presidential candidates beyond the qualifications set forth in the Constitution. Unlike the cabinet and subcabinet positions they discuss, this is an elective, not appointive, office. I wish the article had been more specific in declaring that this is an issue voters should be paying attention to. The way it reads Messrs. Eisen and Painter are looking for some invisible hand to reach out and change the rules.
7
The Swedish approach nationalizes public education in a way that precludes local school boards deciding to teach creationism in place of civics and real history.
So don't put Trump in any cabinet positions. Case solved.
4
The President is elected by the people. Neither he nor she has to fill out a job application, or get "disqualified" by their tax returns. That's for the hirelings.
4
I clearly remember the vicious Republican attacks on Presidential candidate John Kerry after his financial reports and tax returns revealed the extent of his wealth. This was followed up with a stream of endless emails and online articles about the size of his yacht, his supposed "elitist" behavior toward the "little people," the impossibility of a man of his means understanding "regular Americans," and of course the notorious "Swift-Boat" attacks on a legitimate decorated war hero.
Today, those very same critics embrace a man who refuses to even disclose his finances, open brags about the extent of his wealth, his contempt for "suckers" who pay the taxes he refuses to pay, and who of course managed to avoid military service.
Yet, in the minds of the mindlessly hateful right, Trump is the "American Patriot" poised to return the nation to "greatness" and Kerry is still an object of contempt and ridicule.
It is unbelievable.......it is contemptible! The Republican Party has sold its very soul and voters must never forget their destructive and unAmerican hypocrisy!
Today, those very same critics embrace a man who refuses to even disclose his finances, open brags about the extent of his wealth, his contempt for "suckers" who pay the taxes he refuses to pay, and who of course managed to avoid military service.
Yet, in the minds of the mindlessly hateful right, Trump is the "American Patriot" poised to return the nation to "greatness" and Kerry is still an object of contempt and ridicule.
It is unbelievable.......it is contemptible! The Republican Party has sold its very soul and voters must never forget their destructive and unAmerican hypocrisy!
41
Everything about him is repulsive. End of story.
His money issues are the least of his repulsiveness.
Good luck all!
His money issues are the least of his repulsiveness.
Good luck all!
9
And once again we are shown an example of how Trump is from The Bizarro World where rules, behavior and background normally expected from a presidential candidate don't apply.
6
Congress can pass a law that requires presidential nominees to provide tax returns according to the same guidelines as are required for other civil servants who work at the White House. Perhaps such a law will be one good thing that comes out of this insane presidential campaign.
5
While I can guess, I am going to play Devil's Advocate...
==
1. Why is it critical that candidates release their tax returns?
2. What information is really to be gleaned from them?
3. Why stop at tax returns? After all, if bankers want to see a loan candidate's financial situation (credit rating et al.) before approving a loan, shouldn't voters have the comparable access to the candidate's financial records before they vote?
4. Continuing, shouldn't voters also see list of websites visited or purchases made or books bought or charities donated to?
5. Meanwhile, about investments... Should we scorn any politician who has any investments anywhere that are not US Treasury or other government securities? After all, if I invest in GE or UTC, I may want jobs to go overseas so my stock value goes up and I get a higher dividend. But if a politician has stocks in private corporations instead of having investments in government securities - isn't that a conflict of interest and put him/her at odds (or does it?) with what's best for America?
6. What about medical records and those of his/her spouse and children? Voters don't want a politician in office who will be distracted by medical or personal issues...
7. What about memberships in churches/organizations/societies? There may not be a religious test for office but as a voter...
==
Do I really want any of this information? No and there needs to be limits about what a candidate must reveal. I'm not sure tax returns are needed.
==
1. Why is it critical that candidates release their tax returns?
2. What information is really to be gleaned from them?
3. Why stop at tax returns? After all, if bankers want to see a loan candidate's financial situation (credit rating et al.) before approving a loan, shouldn't voters have the comparable access to the candidate's financial records before they vote?
4. Continuing, shouldn't voters also see list of websites visited or purchases made or books bought or charities donated to?
5. Meanwhile, about investments... Should we scorn any politician who has any investments anywhere that are not US Treasury or other government securities? After all, if I invest in GE or UTC, I may want jobs to go overseas so my stock value goes up and I get a higher dividend. But if a politician has stocks in private corporations instead of having investments in government securities - isn't that a conflict of interest and put him/her at odds (or does it?) with what's best for America?
6. What about medical records and those of his/her spouse and children? Voters don't want a politician in office who will be distracted by medical or personal issues...
7. What about memberships in churches/organizations/societies? There may not be a religious test for office but as a voter...
==
Do I really want any of this information? No and there needs to be limits about what a candidate must reveal. I'm not sure tax returns are needed.
5
1. Do you really not know?
2. No, seriously, you're just joking right?
3. If the Republican nominee had released their taxes and Hillary Clinton had not, would you be asking the same questions?
4. Then why are you so atwitter about her e-mails?
5. Doesn't this distinction show a touch of hypocrisy?
6. Is the whole family medical records and membership information as juvenile and misleading a strawman as it seems to be?
7. If you have determined that there is nothing Mr. Trump's taxes that could sway your vote, doesn't that evidence a mind closed to any new information that could turn you away from your party's candidate?
8. Why did I bother to spend all the time writing this?
2. No, seriously, you're just joking right?
3. If the Republican nominee had released their taxes and Hillary Clinton had not, would you be asking the same questions?
4. Then why are you so atwitter about her e-mails?
5. Doesn't this distinction show a touch of hypocrisy?
6. Is the whole family medical records and membership information as juvenile and misleading a strawman as it seems to be?
7. If you have determined that there is nothing Mr. Trump's taxes that could sway your vote, doesn't that evidence a mind closed to any new information that could turn you away from your party's candidate?
8. Why did I bother to spend all the time writing this?
2
Every candidate once elected President has placed its investments into blind trust. Mitt Romney indicated he would have done so if elected. Bush did the same. Obama and Clinton were not millionaires when elected.
Trump said he would make his children in charge of his business and his son said that would qualify as blind trust. It shows that Trump has no interest in placing his interests in a blind trust and wants his businesses to benefit from his presidency,which is illegal.
Trump said he would make his children in charge of his business and his son said that would qualify as blind trust. It shows that Trump has no interest in placing his interests in a blind trust and wants his businesses to benefit from his presidency,which is illegal.
2
No, I am not joking, but I am being a Devil's Advocate - look it up so you understand what it means. Basically, I have privacy concerns and am questioning how much of ourselves must we surrender to attain public office. I don't have an answer to that question.
Also, don't jump to conclusions - I am voting for Hillary. So, don't be a hyper-reactionary unthinking Liberal - the kind that actually gives Trump support because everybody else is irked at many Liberals being holier-than-thou.... and I am speaking as a Liberal myself.
Also, don't jump to conclusions - I am voting for Hillary. So, don't be a hyper-reactionary unthinking Liberal - the kind that actually gives Trump support because everybody else is irked at many Liberals being holier-than-thou.... and I am speaking as a Liberal myself.
OK - as long as none of the legal tax dodgers is allowed to work in the Executive Branch, let's keep those loopholes in the tax code!
Your premise is a tad one sided: We wouldn't let somebody who was so careless with state secrets hold a cabinet position requiring "Top Secret " Classification. How can we let Hillary Rodham Clinton into the White House either?
4
Aren't his tax returns reviewed and even audited by the IRS? Don't they ensure that everyone is following the law and doing their taxes correctly - nothing illegal? Do I think a presidential candidate should release their tax return - sure but I don't believe it disqualifies them.
Now, if a Secretary of State made the reckless decision to put lives of every American at risk by putting person objectives ahead of the nation and then trying to not only destroy government evidence and not release all emails and documents while committing what is essentially perjury - I could absolutely see how that might disqualify that candidate from serious consideration. Somehow it seems worse by a long shot.
Now, if a Secretary of State made the reckless decision to put lives of every American at risk by putting person objectives ahead of the nation and then trying to not only destroy government evidence and not release all emails and documents while committing what is essentially perjury - I could absolutely see how that might disqualify that candidate from serious consideration. Somehow it seems worse by a long shot.
6
Your second paragraph was false though. She was investigated and cleared. Allow yourself to accept the facts and move on.
20
America, where privacy is nonexistent. Trump has many, many problems. He would be a disaster for the US and the world if elected. But that doesn't mean he must release all his personal information. No European politician would be asked or expected to do that.
5
Anyone who wants to be the most powerful person in the world should answer every question fully and transparently.
Bad questions don't exist. Bad answers do.
Bad questions don't exist. Bad answers do.
2
Just his tax returns as is customary for American presidential candidates.
1
There is a clear and present danger to any political party or country that routinely misrepresents information, disrespects science and ignores truth at whim.
At this point the Republicans are paying the price for their elevation of ignorance/dogma over knowledge/logic. But what about next time?
What can be done to require greater honesty in political reporting and political discourse that does not also silence free expression?
At this point the Republicans are paying the price for their elevation of ignorance/dogma over knowledge/logic. But what about next time?
What can be done to require greater honesty in political reporting and political discourse that does not also silence free expression?
8
Perhaps the authors could enlighten us on how they would treat someone that bevaved "extremely carelessly" with classified information? Would that person get a cabinet level positions? Are there any ethical quandaries presented there?
I look forward to the authors next installment, where they excoriate Sec. Clinton in the same manner.
Oh, wait, this is the NYT, defector arm of the democrat party, so that won't happen.
Disgusting how biased and one sided this paper is.
I look forward to the authors next installment, where they excoriate Sec. Clinton in the same manner.
Oh, wait, this is the NYT, defector arm of the democrat party, so that won't happen.
Disgusting how biased and one sided this paper is.
3
And it is against the law for a government employee who destroys evidence to hold an office too - so I guess Kaine and Pence will have to run...
3
This compelling essay is about basic ethics and the responsibilities of citizenship. Mr. Trump has shown us in so many ways that he has no ethical center.
11
This article should be required reading for every US citizen registered to vote on Nov. 8
22
OR...you could just respond like the Trump fans who are commenting on here and say all this whole Bru-ha-ha is just because "the media" is so "liberal" and complain about the whole issue without denying a word of it!
1
> "If a presidential candidate cannot meet that standard [of submitting a tax return], then we question his qualifications for the highest office in the land."
The constitution make clear that a Presidential must be born in the US. That is why Alexander Hamilton who was born on the island Nevis in the British West Indies, could never be President despite the fact of his accomplishments for our country including being the first Secretary of the Treasury. There is nothing in The Constitution that says a President must submit their tax returns. Presumably voters take the fact that the candidate is not submitting tax returns into account when voting.
What we do know from press accounts is that Trump has been audited by the IRS and since the IRS is part of a Democratic administration, it is likely that the IRS would ensure that Trump's returns had been audited. The IRS has not gone after Trump for fines, etc.
Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment should be made to further quality that anyone running for President submit their tax returns.
Far more egregious is than not submitting tax returns is the fact that HRC when Secretary of State, deliberately tried to hide her emails from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by *** using her own personal email server at her home. *** instead of secure government email servers technically prepared for cyber security. She deliberately risked national security by having SOS business on her personal server.
The constitution make clear that a Presidential must be born in the US. That is why Alexander Hamilton who was born on the island Nevis in the British West Indies, could never be President despite the fact of his accomplishments for our country including being the first Secretary of the Treasury. There is nothing in The Constitution that says a President must submit their tax returns. Presumably voters take the fact that the candidate is not submitting tax returns into account when voting.
What we do know from press accounts is that Trump has been audited by the IRS and since the IRS is part of a Democratic administration, it is likely that the IRS would ensure that Trump's returns had been audited. The IRS has not gone after Trump for fines, etc.
Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment should be made to further quality that anyone running for President submit their tax returns.
Far more egregious is than not submitting tax returns is the fact that HRC when Secretary of State, deliberately tried to hide her emails from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by *** using her own personal email server at her home. *** instead of secure government email servers technically prepared for cyber security. She deliberately risked national security by having SOS business on her personal server.
4
You people are obviously strictly partisan with your ludicrous inquisitions. Your stance on Trump leaves no doubt that your concern for national security is just another empty sham.
9
For Pete's sake!!!! BALONEY!
1
sure. no one has ever hacked a u.s. government server?
Reminds me of Leona Helmsley, "Only little people pay taxes." That was before she went to jail for tax evasion.
12
There is no point for Mr. Trump to release his tax returns. Why should he do that when he knows he is going to lose the election? Otherwise, he will have let the world in on his financial secrets for no good purpose.
11
Great point!
1
Before giving the keys to the largest GDP country in the world, it should be mandatory that the candidate disclose all past tax returns. Perhaps this is one Constitutional Amendment that is worthy of adding. Along with requiring tax returns, I also propose that all elected officials should be subject to random drug testing. The GOP think the paltry welfare recipients should have one, why not for Congress and the President who make life and death decisions and spend billions of taxpayer money?
7
We should drug test anyone who believes in amending the Constitution based on frivolities such as those you mention.
4
Looks like Trump found another loophole. Kind of late to be requiring his returns now. They should have been required before he was nominated. They should be required from anyone who is seeking any public office.
7
So how is Donald Trump different from any other person who loses money and makes use of the tax laws to offset their losses against future earnings? Having a tax write off does not replace the $900 million that was lost. The loss was a result of bad real estate ventures which, in part, funded labor, capital, payroll and tax bills. No doubt Trump has
2
When you lose, you can only deduct on $3000 in any one tax year no matter how much you lost.
Didn't hear how that went?
He's running for president, that's why.
1
The revelations about Trump's federal tax returns are Myth Busters. For years we've been hearing that the 'poor rich' pay so much in tax, that it's just not fair to tax them anyone.
The reality is they don't pay anything in tax.
Trickle down is not only a failure, it's a fraud.
The reality is they don't pay anything in tax.
Trickle down is not only a failure, it's a fraud.
19
80% of all federal income tax collected is paid by people making more than $100K.
That's nothing?
That's nothing?
1
Well, yeah EinT, that makes sense as typically low earners pay little or nothing in taxes, but we aren't talking about $100K here. This is the league of multi-millionaires and billionaires. Trump is like a poster boy for why trickle-down economics is such a bad idea.
7
What Trump's limited tax return data makes plain is that there are two sets for tax laws, one for the very wealthy and another for the rest of this. Before the French Revolution the Crown, the Church, and the Nobility were all exempt from taxation. Then, as now, only the little people bear the cost of government. Why there isn't another revolution I can't fathom?
8
Imagine the additional tax benefits trump could get if he were president - it would be wonderful - trust me.
6
I do not understand this fixation with the taxes. Prior to 1976 no president revealed their tax returns. DId the country fall apart or did we have some terrible financial crisis because of it??? No. Everyone takes advantage of the tax laws even if it is as minor as claiming an individual deduction. Those people making more money in various ways naturally have more ways to take advantage of tax credits etc. If you want to correct this vote for Trump he would simplify the tax codes, if not then get over it. HRC took well over 500K in rollover losses, lets go after her, her foundation and those big millionaires that contribute to political campaigns. If laws are broken the IRS would catch it till then I applaud anyone who can minimize there taxes legally.
2
As most Americans who own a home, we have to provide our tax returns and sometimes a release so that a bank can obtain our tax returns directly from the IRS to qualify for a mortgage. Our tax returns, pay stubs and credit scores are used to assess our character. How can it be that someone who is seeking the highest office in the land does not have to provide any of that? Just like when banks were doing "stated income" loans that almost tanked our economy, we're now doing a "stated income" presidency?
17
"People who believe they have a legal duty to put self-interest before the public interest don’t belong in public service. Besides, these are personal tax returns we are talking about. There is no such thing as a “fiduciary duty” as a businessman to oneself."
Thank you for that concise summary of why Trump's exploitation of the tax code disqualifies him from the office.
To state the obvious: Public servants serve the public. Donald Trump serves only himself.
Thank you for that concise summary of why Trump's exploitation of the tax code disqualifies him from the office.
To state the obvious: Public servants serve the public. Donald Trump serves only himself.
16
Yes, Trump needs to be transparent on his taxes. That said, one could find no shortage of politicians who game the system for their own gain and self-interest often at the expense of others. In that regard, he's no better or worse than the rest of them. I have many other problems with Trump which far outweigh this issue though it does represent one of many serious character flaws.
1
Just curious.
Did the Obama administration hire people who had been under investigation by the FBI? How 'bout those whose husband met with the Attorney General (you know, to discuss their grandchildren) while the investigation was in process?
Did the Obama administration hire people who held classified information on their private servers? Or whose meeting list as a government employee closely resembled their private foundation donor list? Or who deleted 33l emails?
Did the Obama administration hire people who received "donations" from foreign governments? From private corporations (Booz Hamilton) whose employees stole state secrets?
Answer me these questions and I'll worry about Trump's tax return.
Did the Obama administration hire people who had been under investigation by the FBI? How 'bout those whose husband met with the Attorney General (you know, to discuss their grandchildren) while the investigation was in process?
Did the Obama administration hire people who held classified information on their private servers? Or whose meeting list as a government employee closely resembled their private foundation donor list? Or who deleted 33l emails?
Did the Obama administration hire people who received "donations" from foreign governments? From private corporations (Booz Hamilton) whose employees stole state secrets?
Answer me these questions and I'll worry about Trump's tax return.
2
The first paragraph--did something illegal happen there?
The rest--investigated--investigation is not the same as guilt (your point about Booz Allen is just plain stupid--sorry, gotta call 'em as I see 'em).
This the point. The American people know a lot about Hillary Clinton.
She released her tax returns and so should he.
The rest--investigated--investigation is not the same as guilt (your point about Booz Allen is just plain stupid--sorry, gotta call 'em as I see 'em).
This the point. The American people know a lot about Hillary Clinton.
She released her tax returns and so should he.
3
Nice try but such a rule is not retroactive to the President. The Constitution states the qualifications to be President and taxes do not make the list.
1
Donald Trump does not deserve to be President of the United States for many apparent reasons that are not worth repeating. That said he did nothing wrong when he followed the tax law. He had nothing to do with creating the law so why criticize him for following the law. Criticism should be for lack of transparency and criticizing others for following the tax law. Also, the losses created just show he is not a genius in business and absent his father giving him a huge leg up in real estate he would have probably collapsed under the weight of his business failures. The tax law is on Congress as they were the folks who passed it.
1
Really Eisen and Painter? How about keeping a private email server for government email; no job. Let's keep this in perspective when we have two of the most dishonest and corrupt candidates who have ever run for office in the history of the United States.
3
Pardon me, but if an individual were applying for any number of high security positions in government, and the applicant told the reviewer that he or she couldn't have a copy of their tax returns (to check for possible illegal money laundering, massive debt, or suspicious influence by a foreign power), I seriously doubt that this applicant could move into the next level of vetting for the job. Mr. Trump however, is asking the American people to take the word of a known scofflaw and dead beat employer (who has for years left a trial of un-paid debt scattered behind him like pigeon droppings) to take his word that he hasn't made it a habit over the years, to also stiff the American tax payer by reneging on his own massive tax bills.
14
Exactly. He is applying for a job and we are his employer. If you think he should release his tax returns and he refuses to do so, don't vote for him. If enough people feel the same way, he won't be hired.
6
Supporters of Mr. Trump apparently believe that it is correct to get everything out of the government and those citizens who do pay taxes as you can, and deny as much as you can to others by not paying your own fair share. As the writers suggest, that attitude towards one's fellow man used to be called greed, not "smart", as in Mr. Trump's retort to Ms. Clinton. (And that even applies to Warren Buffett, who has famously claimed to pay less in federal taxes than his secretary and bemoaned the fact. This is easily remedied. No need to wait for Congress. He should figure out what he considers his fair share to be, have his accountants crunch the numbers, and write a check to the US Treasury if he's so upset about the tax laws as they stand now.) Greed, I would remind Mr. Trump, is considered one of the so-called seven deadly sins, but then, Mr. Trump, has stated that in his whole life he has never found anything to ask forgiveness for, so I suppose committing a deadly sin wouldn't change his view on that. I appreciate the discussion of "fiduciary responsibilities" to rebut that contention of many business people, to some extent, at least. In particular, that defense is hardly valid when the stockholders consist of oneself and one's family. That's just more greed.
6
Warren Buffet never claimed to pay less in federal taxes than his secretary. He claimed to pay less as a percentage of income than his secretary. He paid nearly $7 million in income taxes last year. I doubt he pays his secretary that well.
2
Warren Buffett evidently believes that the Gates Foundation will spend his money more wisely than the people's representatives in Congress.
2
Nobody pays more taxes than are legally due out of patriotism, and nobody tries to minimize their taxes because they are greedy, as you suggest. These arguments are absurd. Let's also be clear that Trump is not a genius, he just employed competent tax accountants.
The blame for these tax provisions is squarely at the feet of Congress. Let's also not call them loopholes, because they were clearly intended. That's where we need to look for greed and yes, even lack of patriotism.
The blame for these tax provisions is squarely at the feet of Congress. Let's also not call them loopholes, because they were clearly intended. That's where we need to look for greed and yes, even lack of patriotism.
2
Currently voters are required to show more documentation to vote than candidates are to be on the ballot. Voters in many states have to show adoption papers, divorce decrees,various forms of residence, raised seal birth certificates, in order to obtain a photo ID. Folks requiring assistance from Medicaid for long -term nursing care are required to show 5 years of tax returns and bank statements plus documentation on citizenship to discern if client has dual citizenship etc. The Senate dumped a number of candidates for the Supreme Court because they did not pay Social Security for the nanny back in the 1990s.
But now we have Trump....who is sleazy smart....who pays no federal taxes ad infinitum..but please applaud.
No Taxes...No Vote.
Donald Trump
But now we have Trump....who is sleazy smart....who pays no federal taxes ad infinitum..but please applaud.
No Taxes...No Vote.
Donald Trump
8
There is another, perhaps more important aspect to Trump's legalized tax evasion, and this is: Who were the authors of these tax laws and codes that allowed it? Let's see the names of these enablers so their treason to average American taxpayers can be exposed to the light of day. Then let's impeach or recall them, regardless of party affiliation. If a tax system is judged to be unfair by those taxed, it eventually leads to uprising against those who shackled them with it.
2
This comment is timely and to the point: the country does not need a sleazy businessman as president who made a fortune by using outdated and immoral tax loopholes and who made a habit of conning others as much as possible by false promises (see Trump University), by refusing to pay his bills (to contractors), who insults about everybody who does not support him, and who is involved in an incredible number of lawsuits from people he has stiffed.
Trump admires Putin who amassed incredible riches after he came to power. There is no reason to believe that Trump would act differently as president.
Trump admires Putin who amassed incredible riches after he came to power. There is no reason to believe that Trump would act differently as president.
7
I finally became an American citizen last year after living here legally and paying taxes for the past 35 years. One of the many documents I had to submit to the Immigration and Naturalization Service were past 3 years of tax returns. Had I not submitted them, I would've immediately been denied of my application.
I wonder if President Trump would forgo a legal, law-abiding immigrant like myself from submitting tax returns if he/she were being under an audit? Would President Trump have granted someone like myself, an American citizenship, had they legally and "smartly" dodged paying their fare share?
I am more than thrilled to be able to cast my vote or the first time in my life. I am so honored for this privilege and participate in this democracy.
I wonder if President Trump would forgo a legal, law-abiding immigrant like myself from submitting tax returns if he/she were being under an audit? Would President Trump have granted someone like myself, an American citizenship, had they legally and "smartly" dodged paying their fare share?
I am more than thrilled to be able to cast my vote or the first time in my life. I am so honored for this privilege and participate in this democracy.
9
If you have a problem with it, you don't have to vote for him. If enough people have a problem with it, he won't win.
Whether or not a candidate would be considered to serve on Obama's cabinet is not a criteria for being elected president (thank God). And your claim that an entrepreneur who suffered a billion dollar net operating loss 24 year ago (but has done well ever since, as evinced by projects completed, owned and lifestyle as well as the Forbes list of the wealthiest Americans and Trump's federal election commission filings) would be automatically ineligible to serve on a presidential cabinet (other than the Obama cabinet, since he has endorsed Hillary) is utter nonsense. The media will never recover from their abandonment of any semblance of objectivity in this election cycle.
1
No. That is not the problem. The problem is that without revealing his tax returns you have no idea what conflicts of interest he may have or what entanglements he may have with foreign governments. And no one with good sense would vote for someone who would not reveal their tax returns.
15
JFK didn't release his tax returns. So the people who voted for him had no sense?
1
Baloney!
2
I wholeheartedly agree that Trump must release his tax returns because the People need to know what conflicts of interest Trump may have if he becomes president & if he won't release before, he certainly won't after he wins
This is compounded by the truly stupid answers given by his children on how Trump will put his "businesses into a blind trust operated by his children."
But we should not draw the line there because we have seen in the past the bad behavior of relatives of presidents seeking to cash in.
We need to know what all family members will do & they also must commit to divesting from any activities that can profit from the President.
That includes Chelsea's husband who heads a Hedge Fund. After all, anyone seeking influence can park a substantial sum in the hedge fund for which he will get 2% annually just for holding the money
So let's get real & remove all potential payoffs to a president through their family members. I would also end entities like the Clinton foundation that allows the husband of a president to maintain staff & pays travel expenses that can be used for political purposes
Being President should be sufficient reward that those who seek to hold that office should not view it as a big opportunity to cash in after holding office; after all $400,00 yearly for life, staff, paid office space & medical care may not put one into the 1% but it is enough to live well on
Truman refused the opportunity to cash in; he is the role model
This is compounded by the truly stupid answers given by his children on how Trump will put his "businesses into a blind trust operated by his children."
But we should not draw the line there because we have seen in the past the bad behavior of relatives of presidents seeking to cash in.
We need to know what all family members will do & they also must commit to divesting from any activities that can profit from the President.
That includes Chelsea's husband who heads a Hedge Fund. After all, anyone seeking influence can park a substantial sum in the hedge fund for which he will get 2% annually just for holding the money
So let's get real & remove all potential payoffs to a president through their family members. I would also end entities like the Clinton foundation that allows the husband of a president to maintain staff & pays travel expenses that can be used for political purposes
Being President should be sufficient reward that those who seek to hold that office should not view it as a big opportunity to cash in after holding office; after all $400,00 yearly for life, staff, paid office space & medical care may not put one into the 1% but it is enough to live well on
Truman refused the opportunity to cash in; he is the role model
It seems to me that in today's partisan climate, qualifications and following the rules don't actually matter. If they did, Republican leadership would have buried Trump in the primaries and pushed a more qualified candidate forward long ago -- not to mention at least giving Merrick Garland a hearing, even if a sham one.
Apparently Republican leadership wants someone in the office of the president who is popular while not really performing the functions of the executive himself, instead delegating them to others. According to Mr. Kasich, Trump's son already said as much to potential vice presidential contenders, telling them they would be "the most powerful vice-president in history."
Then they can push their anti-social security, anti-regulation, anti-abortion, and pro-militarized police agenda with Pence, a truly extreme right-wing individual who could never have won the primaries.
Apparently Republican leadership wants someone in the office of the president who is popular while not really performing the functions of the executive himself, instead delegating them to others. According to Mr. Kasich, Trump's son already said as much to potential vice presidential contenders, telling them they would be "the most powerful vice-president in history."
Then they can push their anti-social security, anti-regulation, anti-abortion, and pro-militarized police agenda with Pence, a truly extreme right-wing individual who could never have won the primaries.
6
The problem is, republican leadership doesn't select its candidate, the voters do.
1
Trump and Clinton are the TWO WORST CANDIDATES EVER. No wonder their unfavorable ratings are the highest among presidential candidates. Pro-Clinton Chuck Todd made a similar point about Clinton after the State Department released its report:
“Because of this breach, ... ‘I don’t think [Clinton] could get confirmed, for instance, to be attorney general.’ The most logical explanation is that she wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence. So they made the FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it wasn’t on a government server, putting it on a private server. I’ve never been able to accept that [Clinton had the server for convenience] because what is convenient about putting a server in your house? I hate dealing with Wi-Fi in my house. It’s a pain.”
“Because of this breach, ... ‘I don’t think [Clinton] could get confirmed, for instance, to be attorney general.’ The most logical explanation is that she wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence. So they made the FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it wasn’t on a government server, putting it on a private server. I’ve never been able to accept that [Clinton had the server for convenience] because what is convenient about putting a server in your house? I hate dealing with Wi-Fi in my house. It’s a pain.”
4
Of course she couldn't be confirmed for attorney general, heck the Republican Senate won't even consider a perfectly legal appointment to the Supreme Court. And the whole private server thing, while ill advised, is a bunch of political nonsense. She has baggage as a public servant but she also has a track record - helping back votesr registration in the South, putting together the first serious attempt at universal healthcare, champing childhood education and women's rights; and as Secretary of State putting together international sanctions on Iran's nuclear program, which was no small feat.
4
Not only does he not pay taxes he dodged the draft five times. That's about unAmerican as you can get!
52
Did Trump ever have $900 million to lose? TrumpWorld requires convoluted thinking: Remember, he used campaign funds (self-contributed?) to rent space from venues that lease his name, while his daughter showcased her products at the GOP convention. LOL. Imagine the deduction opportunities.
17
Donald lost other people's money as share price on his casino went from 35 dollars to 17 cents. What a great country that lets Donald write off other people's investment losses. He is right, the system is corrupt and rigged. Thanks for exposing the scam, now please leave the stage.
8
"Remember, he used campaign funds (self-contributed?) to rent space from venues that lease his name, while his daughter showcased her products at the GOP convention. LOL. Imagine the deduction opportunities."
On a lighter note, can one imagine what the White House will look like after Trump gets a hold of it? Imagine the gaudy, and over the top trappings of a personal Trump residence "bestowed" upon the old dear? Saudi royalty will burn with jealousy at all the gold, baubles and crushed velvet. His fabulous portrait will adorn every room, and the oval office will be plastered with all his old (while leaving some room for the new -- I mean there's gonna be a LOT of new, believe me) magazine covers. The high-rent (supposedly) trailer-trash will turn it into a old-timey Nev-aah-da bordello. Did I forget the gold-lame tuxedos for the SS, err, Secret Service? Since there will be no need for a briefing room for the press, the former pool will be restored to all of its former glory -- I mean where are all the great looking administrative assistants going to frolic? Well, that is until they "don't look so good anymore", and have to hang out back.
See, there a silver lining to every tragedy. Sure the nation loses in every conceivable fashion, but just think of all the laughs. What's a few points on the Dow? I mean it's double what it was 8 years ago, but you gotta break a few eggs, right?
America may not get-great-again, but it will get noticed, and isn't that the point?
On a lighter note, can one imagine what the White House will look like after Trump gets a hold of it? Imagine the gaudy, and over the top trappings of a personal Trump residence "bestowed" upon the old dear? Saudi royalty will burn with jealousy at all the gold, baubles and crushed velvet. His fabulous portrait will adorn every room, and the oval office will be plastered with all his old (while leaving some room for the new -- I mean there's gonna be a LOT of new, believe me) magazine covers. The high-rent (supposedly) trailer-trash will turn it into a old-timey Nev-aah-da bordello. Did I forget the gold-lame tuxedos for the SS, err, Secret Service? Since there will be no need for a briefing room for the press, the former pool will be restored to all of its former glory -- I mean where are all the great looking administrative assistants going to frolic? Well, that is until they "don't look so good anymore", and have to hang out back.
See, there a silver lining to every tragedy. Sure the nation loses in every conceivable fashion, but just think of all the laughs. What's a few points on the Dow? I mean it's double what it was 8 years ago, but you gotta break a few eggs, right?
America may not get-great-again, but it will get noticed, and isn't that the point?
1
Thanks for the clarification.
I do not believe some one who matters in this case i.e, the the GOP supporters including Speaker and Senate Majority leaders are listening.
I have only one vote and I cannot make them listen.
I am not even taking about the people who love to put a break on the political process but support the person who is doing it actually for over two decades and ironically at their cost.
I do not believe some one who matters in this case i.e, the the GOP supporters including Speaker and Senate Majority leaders are listening.
I have only one vote and I cannot make them listen.
I am not even taking about the people who love to put a break on the political process but support the person who is doing it actually for over two decades and ironically at their cost.
6
One wonders how Mitch McConnell can find any excuses besides ideology to reject judicial appointees, in view of his blind enablement of Trump.
3
Best University VP I encountered in 50 years used to tell us that "Not only must justice be done, but Justice must be SEEN to be being done." Trump fails to show himself as being just to anyone and, indeed, has not been. And he doesn't care that we do not seeing justice being done.
We're waiting, Donald, so don't duck this obligation.
We're waiting, Donald, so don't duck this obligation.
30
When it comes to the issue of qualifications for office the issue is, "How art thou
unqualified? Let me count the ways." Trump's refusal to disclose his tax returns shows without doubt that there's something there that makes him look bad (as if he doesn't have enough already). We know what's in them is bad, just not how bad. At this point, given all of what he has said and done, he might as well release them. His supporters will probably still vote for him even if he made charitable contributions to North Korea or ISIS.
unqualified? Let me count the ways." Trump's refusal to disclose his tax returns shows without doubt that there's something there that makes him look bad (as if he doesn't have enough already). We know what's in them is bad, just not how bad. At this point, given all of what he has said and done, he might as well release them. His supporters will probably still vote for him even if he made charitable contributions to North Korea or ISIS.
17
Anyone who ever treated classified, let alone Top Secret, documents the way Hillary did on her in-home mail server, would never get a security clearance, or lose it if she had it.
Now which is more important to the country, Trump's tax returns or the Top Secret documents entrusted to Clinton as SoS?
The primary system has really done a job on America. 9% of the electorate has brought us to this horrible choice.
Now which is more important to the country, Trump's tax returns or the Top Secret documents entrusted to Clinton as SoS?
The primary system has really done a job on America. 9% of the electorate has brought us to this horrible choice.
5
My understanding is that she did not have any "top secret documents" on her computer. What I read was that 3 of 30,000 e-mails contained passages marked with a C. Further, unless you see Trump's tax returns, you have no idea what conflicts of interest he may have or what entanglements with foreign governments may be involved. Bottom line, the e-mail server is an issue in the past; conflicts of interest and foreign entanglements are issues going forward. Which is more important should be obvious.
5
W.A. Spitzer:
Do us all a favor and listen to FBI Director Comey's discussion of what was in Hillary's emails.
Do us all a favor and listen to FBI Director Comey's discussion of what was in Hillary's emails.
1
We also wouldn't let an athlete compete without a drug test, so shouldn't all candidates have to take one, too? That might uncover the cause of bizarre and hyperactive antics.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/09/whats-the-deal-with-sn... Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/09/whats-the-deal-with-sn... Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
16
Trump believes that he can - and should - be allowed to ignore this commonly accepted requirement of all candidates for President because he's always lived by a double standard. Average Americans don't get to carry a big loss over years to defray their taxes, but if you're rich enough, and have good lawyers and accountants it means you don't have to follow the laws everyone else does.
Of course, he's not alone on this mindset. All of our wealthy citizens, including and especially our elected officials in Congress and the WH, believe they're different. It's why Hillary can brazenly ignore information security rules and laws and get away with it. We've bred a whole separate class in our supposedly class-blind system: Those who have to follow the laws and rules and pay taxes, and those who don't. We no longer have a democracy, we have been taken over by a plutocracy, without a single shot fired. How does the 2nd Amendment protect you from that?
I'm good with a law that says no tax returns = no office held, but we also need to require complete openness in other areas, like attempts to evade rules and responsibility. Of course then we'd have no one able to run for office.
Of course, he's not alone on this mindset. All of our wealthy citizens, including and especially our elected officials in Congress and the WH, believe they're different. It's why Hillary can brazenly ignore information security rules and laws and get away with it. We've bred a whole separate class in our supposedly class-blind system: Those who have to follow the laws and rules and pay taxes, and those who don't. We no longer have a democracy, we have been taken over by a plutocracy, without a single shot fired. How does the 2nd Amendment protect you from that?
I'm good with a law that says no tax returns = no office held, but we also need to require complete openness in other areas, like attempts to evade rules and responsibility. Of course then we'd have no one able to run for office.
4
It's not a requirement. A tradition, perhaps. But not a requirement.
That is kind of the whole point of this Op/Ed.
That is kind of the whole point of this Op/Ed.
3
I don't trust Trump and no one should unless and until he releases his tax returns. As someone who claims to know the ins and outs of the tax code it would be good to see how he used it to his advantage. In fact, as proof of his so-called 'brilliance' we could see in advance how President Trump would modify the tax code to our advantage.
I think proof of concept is the best way to reveal his brilliance since nothing else we know about Trump is an indicator.
I think proof of concept is the best way to reveal his brilliance since nothing else we know about Trump is an indicator.
7
'Trump Had "Virtually Zero" Involvement With His Tax Returns Which Were "Entirely Created By Us" '
Quote from DT's former tax accountant.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/05/cnn-trumps-former-accountant-de...
Quote from DT's former tax accountant.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/10/05/cnn-trumps-former-accountant-de...
Pardon me, New York Times, if I don't sound just the slightest bit grumpy when I say that for far too long you and your peers treated the Trump candidacy as a joke (which, of course, it is) and didn't do what I feel is the raison d'etre of responsible journalists: expose the kind of stuff you've been regaling us with for the past couple of weeks.
Darn it all, even as I say "thank you" I have to ask: why weren't we hearing this months ago?
That being said, it boggles my mind that any reasonable person could vote for Trump. He's a liar and a cheat and in no way, shape, or form qualified to be dog catcher, much less president.
If he wins, I'm moving to someplace like Belgium. You heard it here first!
Darn it all, even as I say "thank you" I have to ask: why weren't we hearing this months ago?
That being said, it boggles my mind that any reasonable person could vote for Trump. He's a liar and a cheat and in no way, shape, or form qualified to be dog catcher, much less president.
If he wins, I'm moving to someplace like Belgium. You heard it here first!
28
The tax return pages had not yet been sent anonymously to the New York Times back then.
@sarasotaliz: totally understand the frustration, but remember the teeny-tiny attention span of many voters. It's October 6th. The election is now approximately four weeks from now. Early voting is now in progress in some states. Others are still making the last push to register voters.
Now and in the next weeks, scandal is going to be dredged up by both sides, as this is the last lap before the end of the race. Anyone with serious skin in the game is timing their press releases. There have been hints that Julian Assange and Wikileaks are going to divulge "something big" about Clinton either this week or next. Who knows what the heck it's going to be - or if it really exists. Maybe whoever is spreading these rumors is hoping that simply spreading rumors of possible ill-doings is enough to bring her down.
Media outlets calculate for these things. They think long and hard about when to drop the bomb that may or may not cost a candidate an election. I don't think of it so much as a conspiracy, because I don't believe that people really plot everything that happens, but there is a kind of calculation and watchfulness going on, involving back-and-forth between political operatives and media outlets in general.
Wondering if the Times will print this. They tend to "ignore" some of my more media-critical posts. But hey, Times people, most of you are AOK by me! I trust you!
Now and in the next weeks, scandal is going to be dredged up by both sides, as this is the last lap before the end of the race. Anyone with serious skin in the game is timing their press releases. There have been hints that Julian Assange and Wikileaks are going to divulge "something big" about Clinton either this week or next. Who knows what the heck it's going to be - or if it really exists. Maybe whoever is spreading these rumors is hoping that simply spreading rumors of possible ill-doings is enough to bring her down.
Media outlets calculate for these things. They think long and hard about when to drop the bomb that may or may not cost a candidate an election. I don't think of it so much as a conspiracy, because I don't believe that people really plot everything that happens, but there is a kind of calculation and watchfulness going on, involving back-and-forth between political operatives and media outlets in general.
Wondering if the Times will print this. They tend to "ignore" some of my more media-critical posts. But hey, Times people, most of you are AOK by me! I trust you!
1
This is a matter of opinion. Neither Gaddafy nor Hussein, both ex-presidents, had ever pay taxes to their own countries. They however do pay US federal taxes for investment earning in US.
1
Actually, I doubt either of these men is still paying taxes, to the US or anywhere else, both having been casualties of American intervention in the Middle East.
Trump is un-American.
13
Your rationale that failure to disclose, tax returns, invalidates Trump from the Presidency also, by proxy, invalidates Hillary Rodham Clinton. While she has publicly disclosed her personal tax returns, she and her husband have not fully disclosed financial information of the Cliniton Foundation, most importantly the identification and nationality of the Foundation's donors and their contribution amounts. She has also not disclosed the transcripts of her well compensated Wall Street talks; the release of these transcripts was originally requested by Senator Sanders. Finally, she has failed to disclose the contents of 33,000 emails which she and her surrogates destroyed knowing they would be the subject of public scrutiny. Her aides also destroyed two laptops which contained pertinent and relevant information that all voters should know before they vote for a Presidential Candidate. By their actions, both Trump and Clinton have disqualified themselves for the Presidency. Those who value our democracy should withhold their vote for President and vote down the ballot. A dismal vote total for Presidential Office will signify our disgust with our available options and render whoever wins, a "lame duck" from their inauguration.
7
You do realize this article is just about tax returns, right? Throwing in extra things just to create a false equivalency really just highlights how little an argument you have to make on the matter.
30
The article is about cabinet members requirement to release their tax returns. Hillary has released her tax returns. Trump hasn't. Look up Form 990 for the Clinton foundation to see the same information that all charities are required to divulge. Hillary has been under far more professional scrutiny as a senator, secy of state, and wife of a sitting president than anyone probably in history.
Your attempted equivalence doesn't work.
Your attempted equivalence doesn't work.
5
The Clinton Foundation submits Form 990 to the IRS and was given an "A" rating but the neutral CharityWatch; she made speeches in a private setting and declared the income on her tax return. Those speeches are the property of the organization that paid for them and are private property. President Bush destroyed 5 million emails and no one said a word - this is all about Judicial Watch's vendetta against Hillary. Finally, many of us destroy our laptops after we download files to a thumb drive; our phones too. What else does one do with them?
8
Indeed, no tax returns, no job. That may be the rule for bureaucrats, but the rules for bureaucrats aren't the same rules through which their bosses are elected.
Hillary wouldn't be eligible for a job with the State Department, and would have been fired had she been a mere bureaucrat with the Department, when her use of an unauthorized email server and her mishandling of classified material were discovered.
But then, as the NY media intelligentsia repeatedly remind us, there is no equivalence here: Though almost half the country says they will vote for him, Trump is the essence of evil in the modern world; and though Hillary has her questionable ethics, they can't be questioned lest the essence of evil in the modern world accedes to the White House.
Hillary wouldn't be eligible for a job with the State Department, and would have been fired had she been a mere bureaucrat with the Department, when her use of an unauthorized email server and her mishandling of classified material were discovered.
But then, as the NY media intelligentsia repeatedly remind us, there is no equivalence here: Though almost half the country says they will vote for him, Trump is the essence of evil in the modern world; and though Hillary has her questionable ethics, they can't be questioned lest the essence of evil in the modern world accedes to the White House.
5
There is no requirement to release tax returns, nor should there be any such demand. The expectation of such probably reduces the pool of talented people wiling to compete for this miserable job.
3
Clearly it would have weeded Trump out. What a loss.
4
Another nail in the coffin of Trump's Presidential aspirations as seen from inside The Beltway, but will it matter to the moms and pops who will vote for him? The average Joe doesn't like to pay taxes and has a hard time wrapping his mind around ideas like the public good when he sees what Washington does (or doesn't do) with his money. We readers of the NYT will probably concur with the arguments presented here, but Trump supporters not so much.
6
There are people who enjoy paying taxes?
1
No...but we see it as a civic duty in return for living in the greatest Nation on earth. One that is still "great" by the way!
6
Why is it that those who claim to be experts in ethics have no problem producing an ethically compromised Op Ed that espouses theories as facts and shows such obvious partisanship.
Where is the balanced piece that discusses the ethical compromises of HRC and the pay to play scheme promoted during her time as SOS? These are actual facts, not theories about some unknown.
Also, it would be great that the HRC campaign people return the property of the US Postal Service that they have obviously stolen. Of course, keep passing out those Political Ducks. No conflict of ethics in this photo.
Can't make it up.
Where is the balanced piece that discusses the ethical compromises of HRC and the pay to play scheme promoted during her time as SOS? These are actual facts, not theories about some unknown.
Also, it would be great that the HRC campaign people return the property of the US Postal Service that they have obviously stolen. Of course, keep passing out those Political Ducks. No conflict of ethics in this photo.
Can't make it up.
3
Is it Eisen (Obama) or Painter (Bush) who is partisan?
Your concern for postal property is admirable.
Your concern for postal property is admirable.
3
"Also, it would be great that the HRC campaign people return the property of the US Postal Service that they have obviously stolen. Of course, keep passing out those Political Ducks. No conflict of ethics in this photo."
You do know that businesses commonly have multiple USPS letter baskets they use to ferry mail to and from post offices, right? They took a few for a "spin", which we all know is a serious ethics violation. Emails! Emails!
Secondly, you do realize these are the opinion pages, right? So "editorializing" by including pictures of rubber ducks is accepted, right?
You do know that businesses commonly have multiple USPS letter baskets they use to ferry mail to and from post offices, right? They took a few for a "spin", which we all know is a serious ethics violation. Emails! Emails!
Secondly, you do realize these are the opinion pages, right? So "editorializing" by including pictures of rubber ducks is accepted, right?
6
I thought the GOP was working hard to shut down the USPS. And let the "magic" of the "free market" deliver mail to remote rural locations!
5
Yes, his refusal to release his tax returns so trumps any emails possibly related to the Clinton Foundation, that it defies logic why he has gotten away with it so far. He should have been disqualified by the Electoral College many months ago, if they can do such a thing. Some authority should have such power, to protect the interests of the democracy. But I also blame the media for not persistently making this the major issue that it is..
However, it isn't the worst business issue that Trump has gotten away with. He has categorically refused to distance himself from his business interests, should he be in the Oval Office. His children will run his businesses? Since WHEN has the American public been so somnambulistic? Since WHEN?
However, it isn't the worst business issue that Trump has gotten away with. He has categorically refused to distance himself from his business interests, should he be in the Oval Office. His children will run his businesses? Since WHEN has the American public been so somnambulistic? Since WHEN?
6
"His children will run his businesses? Since WHEN has the American public been so somnambulistic? Since WHEN?"
Since now, apparently.
Since now, apparently.
1
Let me guess - Senator Kelly Ayotte was one of those that held up the appointment of Treasury Secretary Lew till he made 6 years of tax returns public. Is she now insisting that Trump, potentially the next boss of the Treasury Secretary do the same? Of course not - she is too busy endorsing Trump. Hypocrisy is to be expected from politicians - but complete dereliction of principles only brings shame to our country! Shame on all the Senators that support Trump!
14
"Let me guess - Senator Kelly Ayotte was one of those that held up the appointment of Treasury Secretary Lew till he made 6 years of tax returns public. Is she now insisting that Trump, potentially the next boss of the Treasury Secretary do the same? Of course not - she is too busy endorsing Trump."
Not a big fan of Ayotte, but she's been very busy NOT endorsing Trump (even though she thinks kids should look up to him, uh, a president). I'm surprised she hasn't fallen off that log she's rolling yet. Here's hoping she gets a little wet.
Not a big fan of Ayotte, but she's been very busy NOT endorsing Trump (even though she thinks kids should look up to him, uh, a president). I'm surprised she hasn't fallen off that log she's rolling yet. Here's hoping she gets a little wet.
1
Would Trump pass a standard background check to have access to routine, classified information? http://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/60321.htm#a
Schools are required to adhere to strict standards when hiring personnel who would have contact with children. Would Trump pass a background check to be a teacher or a school custodian? His behavior, values and temperament seem to indicate no.
Schools are required to adhere to strict standards when hiring personnel who would have contact with children. Would Trump pass a background check to be a teacher or a school custodian? His behavior, values and temperament seem to indicate no.
5
Let's wait and see if President Trump continues that policy.
1
I'm waiting for this fool to be soundly defeated by a suddenly sobered vast American voting majority.
12
"I'm waiting for this fool to be soundly defeated by a suddenly sobered vast American voting majority."
Hopefully, AA meetings will be packed.
Hopefully, AA meetings will be packed.
2
The "sidestepping of sales taxes on out-of-state purchases" like John Kerry did with his yacht? I forget, did he get nominated and confirmed?
2
So "a bad attitude about paying taxes" was a deal killer for a Cabinet position? And what was "a blatant disregard for the Constition"? A prerequisite?
6
How did Treasury Secretary Geithner sneak by you two?
2
Why is the senate, which is so keen on seeing people's tax returns, writing these insane tax laws, which entirely benefit the wealthiest on the backs of the middle class? I am tired of making up for what Trump and those like him didn't pay in taxes in my tax bill.
I want to know which congressmen and women have voted for laws that benefit the super rich at the expense of the rest of us, so we can vote them out. These laws are against the people, and a kind of coward's treason.
I want to know which congressmen and women have voted for laws that benefit the super rich at the expense of the rest of us, so we can vote them out. These laws are against the people, and a kind of coward's treason.
6
I am a hardcore Democrat, and a tax guy for decades now. The reporting on Drumpf's tax returns completely & totally misses the point. Yes, business losses can be carried forward for many years. Yes, real estate has some tax loopholes that allow some debt financed real estate losses to offset other income. But taking these losses and deducting them in the future is what you do - only an idiot would leave deductions on the table.
But this is NOT the problem!! The problem is with Drumpf's narrative that he is such a successful business man that he was able to lose $915 million!! THAT is the problem and needs to be repeated endlessly. The news articles painting him as a tax cheat are just plain wrong (unless you look at his foundation). And the op-ed pieces equally misleading - no one knows how long Drumpf carried these losses forward, or if he carried them back (the default unless a tax election is made). And one op-ed said that Drumpf might have reduced his tax bill by $915 million, displaying an ignorance far below the levels expected from your readers.
I get it - Drumpf is totally repulsive, but for the love of Pete, get an editor that knows something about how this stuff works; otherwise you guys sound like an anti-Trump version of Fox News. Yeesh...
But this is NOT the problem!! The problem is with Drumpf's narrative that he is such a successful business man that he was able to lose $915 million!! THAT is the problem and needs to be repeated endlessly. The news articles painting him as a tax cheat are just plain wrong (unless you look at his foundation). And the op-ed pieces equally misleading - no one knows how long Drumpf carried these losses forward, or if he carried them back (the default unless a tax election is made). And one op-ed said that Drumpf might have reduced his tax bill by $915 million, displaying an ignorance far below the levels expected from your readers.
I get it - Drumpf is totally repulsive, but for the love of Pete, get an editor that knows something about how this stuff works; otherwise you guys sound like an anti-Trump version of Fox News. Yeesh...
11
"Based on the few pages of Donald J. Trump’s 1995 tax returns that have become public, we have come to the conclusion that no one in his position would have been nominated, much less confirmed by the Senate, during either of the administrations we served. The same is true of any modern administration of a president from either party."
Based on this paragraph it is unmistakable that the author is a political hack. How can a person make such a decision based on stolen information that is so incomplete and has not been confirmed as authentic?
The rest of the essay is invalid. It is just a rambling creation of its author.
Based on this paragraph it is unmistakable that the author is a political hack. How can a person make such a decision based on stolen information that is so incomplete and has not been confirmed as authentic?
The rest of the essay is invalid. It is just a rambling creation of its author.
3
"decision based on stolen information that is so incomplete and has not been confirmed as authentic.."
well then - this misinformation is easy to rectify, isn;t it? All Trump has to do is publish the last 5 years' worth of returns. If he thinks that the issue will go away he is sorely mistaken.
He should publish. Americans are forgiving. Remember Geithner? The former Treasury Sec? He failed to pay taxes and he was forgiven, for better or worse. Unless Trump really has things to hide (illegal things) he should be a mensch and get clean with the voters.
well then - this misinformation is easy to rectify, isn;t it? All Trump has to do is publish the last 5 years' worth of returns. If he thinks that the issue will go away he is sorely mistaken.
He should publish. Americans are forgiving. Remember Geithner? The former Treasury Sec? He failed to pay taxes and he was forgiven, for better or worse. Unless Trump really has things to hide (illegal things) he should be a mensch and get clean with the voters.
3
Is that a USPS box she holding with the ducks? I am sure that's against several laws.
2
What? She's a liberal.
"Is that a USPS box she holding with the ducks? I am sure that's against several laws."
How about this? She took a basket full of mail to the post office, using containers provided by the USPS for just such a purpose, then she brought home a bunch of ducks that were shipped to their PO box from an online purchase. Perfectly legal. In fact, she may bring more mail tomorrow. I love my PO box -- I get so many wonderful things delivered there.
How about this? She took a basket full of mail to the post office, using containers provided by the USPS for just such a purpose, then she brought home a bunch of ducks that were shipped to their PO box from an online purchase. Perfectly legal. In fact, she may bring more mail tomorrow. I love my PO box -- I get so many wonderful things delivered there.
2
Yeah, she's just as bad as Trump! Who is great, the greatest ever. (Last year Trump could have taken Muhammad Ali in eleven!)
Donald Trump has been given a blank pass by the press corps
and the Republican establishment.
For the Republican party to show such a systemic lack of authority is terrifying.
The justice department needs to review the last 25 years of Donald Trump's tax returns prior to our election next month.
and the Republican establishment.
For the Republican party to show such a systemic lack of authority is terrifying.
The justice department needs to review the last 25 years of Donald Trump's tax returns prior to our election next month.
3
The IRS has had 25 years to do that. And to think they haven't represents the ultimate in naivete.
1
"Donald Trump has been given a blank pass by the press corps
and the Republican establishment."
The Republican "establishment" is too busy HIDING from Trump to give him a free pass.
and the Republican establishment."
The Republican "establishment" is too busy HIDING from Trump to give him a free pass.
1
Trump should be releasing his tax returns and if he does not, nobody should be voting for him, but there is no way to make this happen if it is not already happening.
I do not care much about how much Trump has paid or has not paid in federal income taxes. Everyone should contribute a fair share to supporting the common institutions upon which our modern national government depends but if one is provided and takes legitimate deductions, it's at most a glitch in the system that is at fault if the deductions are impractical not the taxpayer's fault. What does interest me are the businesses which the candidate has real interests which can lead to conflicts of interest. In the case of Trump, it appears that even if he sheds his ownership in all of his ventures they remain in his family and could easily force him to choose between the welfare of his family members and the welfare of strangers who he probably considers responsible for looking out after themselves. That would be a big deal and a reason to not vote to place him in the office of the President of the United States.
The problem is that forty percent of the likely electorate don't care whether Trump releases his tax returns or not because they are emotionally committed to him because they think he will do what they want regardless of his qualifications for the job of President. A lot of them think that Trump will fix the whole system to work on their behalf as his TV character did on The Apprentice, by his command.
I do not care much about how much Trump has paid or has not paid in federal income taxes. Everyone should contribute a fair share to supporting the common institutions upon which our modern national government depends but if one is provided and takes legitimate deductions, it's at most a glitch in the system that is at fault if the deductions are impractical not the taxpayer's fault. What does interest me are the businesses which the candidate has real interests which can lead to conflicts of interest. In the case of Trump, it appears that even if he sheds his ownership in all of his ventures they remain in his family and could easily force him to choose between the welfare of his family members and the welfare of strangers who he probably considers responsible for looking out after themselves. That would be a big deal and a reason to not vote to place him in the office of the President of the United States.
The problem is that forty percent of the likely electorate don't care whether Trump releases his tax returns or not because they are emotionally committed to him because they think he will do what they want regardless of his qualifications for the job of President. A lot of them think that Trump will fix the whole system to work on their behalf as his TV character did on The Apprentice, by his command.
2
Ridiculous.
Loopholes? Why is it that when a tax law seems unfair and hurts the taxpayer,it is unfortunate but it is the law, and when a tax law benefits the taxpayer it is suddenly a "loophole" rather than a law?
Congress writes the laws. Good, bad, or ugly...it is the law. A taxpayer should not be penalized for taking advantage of the laws as written.
Loopholes? Why is it that when a tax law seems unfair and hurts the taxpayer,it is unfortunate but it is the law, and when a tax law benefits the taxpayer it is suddenly a "loophole" rather than a law?
Congress writes the laws. Good, bad, or ugly...it is the law. A taxpayer should not be penalized for taking advantage of the laws as written.
1
"Loopholes? Why is it that when a tax law seems unfair and hurts the taxpayer,it is unfortunate but it is the law, and when a tax law benefits the taxpayer it is suddenly a "loophole" rather than a law?"
Congress just voted to create another loophole (455-1) to give Olympic medal winners a free pass on their bonuses. Ironically, Nobel Prize winners don't get that luxury. Good to see that the House has it's priorities straight. Loopholes, generally, only benefit those that don't deserve them. Congress creates them to serve their own, the wealthy or lobbyist's interests -- or in the case of the Olympians, through feel-good, or flag-wavy notions that it will put Congress in a good light.
Congress just voted to create another loophole (455-1) to give Olympic medal winners a free pass on their bonuses. Ironically, Nobel Prize winners don't get that luxury. Good to see that the House has it's priorities straight. Loopholes, generally, only benefit those that don't deserve them. Congress creates them to serve their own, the wealthy or lobbyist's interests -- or in the case of the Olympians, through feel-good, or flag-wavy notions that it will put Congress in a good light.
3
I am relieved to know that the Wall Street revolving door in the US Treasury and other federal positions was highly ethical and enormously above board. I would hate to think that the head duck at Coldman Sacks did not get the microscopic vetting that we hard working, tax paying Americans deserve.
It is unfortunate that the Founding Fathers did not have the foresight to include an Income Tax Revelation provision in the original Constitution. Perhaps it is time to add another Amendment to that outdated document. Let's call it the Trump Amendment.
It is unfortunate that the Founding Fathers did not have the foresight to include an Income Tax Revelation provision in the original Constitution. Perhaps it is time to add another Amendment to that outdated document. Let's call it the Trump Amendment.
1
The founding fathers had no idea what an income tax was. Income taxes were paid for a short time during and after the civil war before it was found unconstitutional. Income taxes were not made permanent until the early 20th century.
1
Mr. Trump will release his tax returns...when it is for something he really wants; like a casino license! His failure to currently release his tax returns can only mean that he values the U.S. Presidency lower than operating a casino.
1
I agree Trump should release his tax returns.
On the other hand, would we allow someone who had brazenly lied to the FBI, Congress, the American people, who had compromised classified information, obstructed justice , destroyed evidence (post subpoena), made up a wholesale lie to deceive families of the Benghazi murdered--(all to protect herself from accountability.)..to take a position in a cabinet, let alone be a presidential nominee?
On the other hand, would we allow someone who had brazenly lied to the FBI, Congress, the American people, who had compromised classified information, obstructed justice , destroyed evidence (post subpoena), made up a wholesale lie to deceive families of the Benghazi murdered--(all to protect herself from accountability.)..to take a position in a cabinet, let alone be a presidential nominee?
Your claims re: Clinton are specious.
Trump lies constantly ever day.
Have you been sleeping for the last 16 months?
Trump lies constantly ever day.
Have you been sleeping for the last 16 months?
11
There's more on Trump's list, Marcia. Like having a childish, revenge mentality. Like NOT being successful businessman, but conning and costing his investors 2/3rds of the time, and contractors much of the time. Like being a racist and a misogynist. Like idolizing Putin. Like refusing to purge his business interests (which involve foreign investors -- his debt-holders) should we all be stupid enough to elect him to the Oval Office.
6
I agree with much of what you say about Trump. But at least I am an equal opportunity observer of bad people. Now that we have a government (DOJ, FBI) that "turns a blind eye" and gives a pass to someone as obviously corrupt as Hillary Clinton, it is up to us to be the final arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not. Personally, I find her to be a truly nefarious character and one whose reflexive dishonesty would be grounds for dismissal from any entry level job.
"As ethics counsel to the current president and his predecessor...we have come to the conclusion that no one in his position would have been nominated, much less confirmed by the Senate, during either of the administrations we served."
Why, exactly? Nothing suggests Trump broke any law or regulation, or committed any ethical violation. So why, exactly, would he not have been confirmed by the Senate?
It's perfectly acceptable to criticized Trump (or any Presidential candidate). But remarks like this one are inappropriate. It suggests that Trump has done something illegal or unethical. Maybe he has, but there is nothing in his published tax returns that suggests this, nor has the IRS ever claimed he has.
Why, exactly? Nothing suggests Trump broke any law or regulation, or committed any ethical violation. So why, exactly, would he not have been confirmed by the Senate?
It's perfectly acceptable to criticized Trump (or any Presidential candidate). But remarks like this one are inappropriate. It suggests that Trump has done something illegal or unethical. Maybe he has, but there is nothing in his published tax returns that suggests this, nor has the IRS ever claimed he has.
1
Did you actually read anything below the title of this piece?
7
Oh, gawd. Really? It's because there are too many unknowns!
By the way, you mention published tax returns. Which are those? As for the IRS never having claimed he has done anything wrong, the IRS doesn't speak about anyone's tax returns. Please turn off Faux Noise.
By the way, you mention published tax returns. Which are those? As for the IRS never having claimed he has done anything wrong, the IRS doesn't speak about anyone's tax returns. Please turn off Faux Noise.
7
I think you miss a key point. Not everything that is unpatriotic, selfish, venal or immoral is illegal. The reason that past presidents would not nominate (and the Senate would not confirm) someone who did this is that they wouldn't want key governmental posts filled by people who are unpatriotic, selfish, venal or immoral.
5
Smart. The Senate, not Trump. Hard to believe I'm saying that about the collective wisdom of 100 politicians; impossible to comprehend that any patriotic American would believe it about Trump.
3
Trump's October tax surprise: file a benign 2015 return by the October 17 deadline, and disclose publicly just the amount of tax he paid. Deductions and loopholes he may have eschewed in that return? After the election, he can file an amendment, seeking a refund.
"Trump's October tax surprise: file a benign 2015 return by the October 17 deadline, and disclose publicly just the amount of tax he paid."
But he's under audit, so that would be impossible, right? /sarcasm off
But he's under audit, so that would be impossible, right? /sarcasm off
The answer to the author's question is simple. Tax returns are required for cabinet officers but not those seeking elected office because the former are appointed, while the latter require a plurality of the votes. Cabinet officers follow rules the President sets. We'll see what rules the voters apply. My guess is tax returns are a small part of their decision, no matter how large they loom in Dem/Kaine/NYT talking points. The fact that Trump used legal deductions to minimize taxes, like everybody else in the country, is of no interest to me. I'm more interested in how the Clintons acquired 200 million dollars on government salaries. Does anyone believe that half million dollar speaking fees and million dollar donations are given for any reason other than an attempt to buy influence?
1
Books. Investments. The Clintons acquired their money legally. We don't know much about Trump so how can we make a judgment, positive or negative? Trump not releasing his tax returns could hide business dealings with rogue governments or unseemly world players, show offshore accounts, how generous he is with regard to charity, etc.. Go ahead and hide your head in the sand. As for me, I want to know the facts about the voting choices. If Trump won't show us his returns that's an almost guarantee he's hiding something he fears the public will hold against him.
6
So Rudy Giuliani goes on the Sunday talk shows proclaiming Mr. Trump is a "genius" because he took this massive deduction, for which he had a "fiduciary responsibility" to take, otherwise his investors could sue him. Further, Mr. Giuliani knew what he was talking about because he is a lawyer, or so he said. Turns out everything he said was false and he knew nothing of what he was talking about because this deduction was against Mr. Trump's personal income, not some corporate income. So guess who's not a genius. But just as sad is that the talk show hosts themselves did not know enough about the subject they raised to correct Mr. Giuliani.
10
Except that real estate investments are generally partnerships or pass-through entities. The businesses themselves don't pay taxes. Rather, all income or loss is passed through to partners/members who pay taxes on the income - if any.
So if Trump had investors/LP's in these real estate ventures, their pro rata share of NOL for that given year flowed through to them as well.
So if Trump had investors/LP's in these real estate ventures, their pro rata share of NOL for that given year flowed through to them as well.
Those who intend to vote for Trump only want a wrecking ball. Only those already opposed care about his tax returns. (likely those whose snouts are deeply thrust into the Beltway or Wall Street money troughs).
That said, it should be a prerequisite for all future presidential candidates to disclose tax returns and take an impartial insurance-type physical examination & health record (with full disclosure of all past health records).
That said, it should be a prerequisite for all future presidential candidates to disclose tax returns and take an impartial insurance-type physical examination & health record (with full disclosure of all past health records).
3
It's bad enough when a corporation dodges income taxes. But when an individual does it on his personal returns, boasts about his "genuis" for getting away with it, then runs for U.S. President, he speaks loud and clear about his dearth of ethics. We know everything we need to about his tax returns.
6
Under a common principle of evidence law, when a party has been found to have withheld relevant evidence, the judge may instruct the jury to make an adverse inference as to what that evidence would show, were it produced. Such a presumption can and should be made in the case of Trump's continued failure to disclose his returns, and that it is fair to conclude: (1) that he has paid little or no income tax: (2) that he is not nearly as rich as he claims: and (3) that he is so indebted to his creditors (including foreign banks) as to render him vulnerable to economic blackmail.
3
Although I am a life-long liberal Democrat, I have friends who support Trump. I have asked each of them: knowing what you know now, would you (a) hire him for a high-level position in your company? (b) do business with him pursuant to a written contract? or (c) partner with him in a business venture? One answered, sheepishly, "no." Others looked down and didn't answer. Exactly. But the Presidency of the United States is an entry-level position?
15
Perfect!
Thank you!
I'm going to try this exact thing out on my next-door neighbor, a nice enough, hard-working man in the construction trade whose truck sports a "Hillary for Prison 2016" bumper sticker.
I'll let you know how it goes!
Thank you!
I'm going to try this exact thing out on my next-door neighbor, a nice enough, hard-working man in the construction trade whose truck sports a "Hillary for Prison 2016" bumper sticker.
I'll let you know how it goes!
4
"I'm going to try this exact thing out on my next-door neighbor, a nice enough, hard-working man in the construction trade whose truck sports a "Hillary for Prison 2016" bumper sticker.
I'll let you know how it goes!"
I'm guessing you already know. (sarcasm noted)
I'll let you know how it goes!"
I'm guessing you already know. (sarcasm noted)
1
I believe Trump should release his tax returns, however, this article is way off the mark. The people decide, via the vote, who they want in office, and eligibility is strictly set out in the Constitution. Releasing tax returns is not among the requirements. Cabinet positions are political appointments, not voted on by the people. Qualifications for office are minimally stated in the Constitution. A Supreme Court justice need not be a lawyer, however, the likelihood of getting nominated by a president and confirmed by the senate is nil. A person could be elected president without having graduated high school. In this particular situation, it's up to the people to decide if Trump's refusal to release his tax returns is material to their decision. As far as the "loophole" discussion: they are provisions of the awful and unfair tax code. Lawful leveraging of those provisions are precisely what was intended by the corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle, that have carved these out over decades. The fault lies with them, not with those who use those provisions to minimize tax.
1
This is a man who has used debt and tax loopholes to make money and leave others with the fiscal pain when he declares bankruptcy. How can anyone make excuses for this con man to not release his tax returns ? Of course he's hiding something because if it made him look like a genius the tax returns would have been released. Unbelievable that people make excuses for this fraud(Pence).
7
There is only one qualification needed for Mr. Trump to become president: 270 electoral votes. Naysayer attempts to construct barriers are meaningless.
1
Not exactly the only requirement. Or do you fall into the camp that Barack Obama was born in Kenya?
4
I wonder why he didn't form a C corporation that would take the loss. If I'm not mistaken, a C corporation could use the loss a lot faster than a person who has to basically amortize it with an annual ceiling on the allowable deduction. Would some CPA or tax attorney like to comment?
3
This essay is flawed.
While I agree that Mr. Trump should release his tax returns the idea that he should not avail himself of the full benefits of the current tax laws is ludicrous. He didn't make the rules, he's simply abiding by those rules in playing the game. As long as what he's claiming is true and legally applying the correct tax laws, I see no issue with his minimizing or avoiding his tax. The idea that he should do so out of a "public service interest" is far fetched and misguided. One has a duty to prompted and accurately pay their taxes they owe. That's it.
HRC used the same carryover losses in 2015 with a loss of almost $700K to minimize her taxes. Is this hypocrisy news? Of course not, but perhaps lends to why no one trusts her.
While I agree that Mr. Trump should release his tax returns the idea that he should not avail himself of the full benefits of the current tax laws is ludicrous. He didn't make the rules, he's simply abiding by those rules in playing the game. As long as what he's claiming is true and legally applying the correct tax laws, I see no issue with his minimizing or avoiding his tax. The idea that he should do so out of a "public service interest" is far fetched and misguided. One has a duty to prompted and accurately pay their taxes they owe. That's it.
HRC used the same carryover losses in 2015 with a loss of almost $700K to minimize her taxes. Is this hypocrisy news? Of course not, but perhaps lends to why no one trusts her.
29
And the same logic should be applied to Trump's six bankruptcies as well? And if no, then why not? As you said, not availing the full benefits of the current laws is ludicrous. And the ludicrous is something we can't stand!
1
Ben, I think it is your thinking and arguments that are flawed. First, an opinion piece is not "flawed" because you don't agree with it; it's just a different opinion than yours. Second, the statement that not using any and every tax writeoff one can is "misguided" barely sounds like English; not being as selfish and self-serving as one can is not an example of being misguided. Last, and most important, you note Hillary Clinton's loss and deduction (I will take your word that this figure is correct) but you fail to see the irony in the fact that that information is available to all to judge, unlike Trump's. (By the way, $700,000 seems like a lot less of a writeoff than $900,000,000, but maybe I'm misguided.)
1
Excuse me. Trump has used his "huuuge success" in business as the main reason he is qualified to be our president. When and if you claim a $900 million tax LOSS, however, you aren't exactly a success of any size. Legal or not, "genius" or not, a $900 MILLION loss is a failure in anybody's eyes, except, I suppose, in yours.
2
Wake up American Voters. Although Democrats & Republicans disagree on political strategies, as human beings we ALL have a basic understanding of Human Ethics. It doesn't really matter if Donald Trump is not legally obligated to release his taxes, ETHICALLY he is obligated to do so. Every Presidential Candidate for the past 30 years has released their taxes. Why is it important? Every American Voter, Democrat, Independent and Republican needs to know with WHOM and with WHAT ORGANIZATIONS Donald Trump has business interests. No matter what the one's political affiliation is... we all deserve the facts before deciding who we will vote for. Would you buy a house without having it inspected? Would you schedule a complicated medical procedure without consulting a doctor. The American Public deserves the FACTS. If Mr. Trump refuses to release his taxes, he should not even be running in the 2016 Presidential Campaign. America is a Democracy... We all need this information to make the wisest choice in the next election.
3
Good, agree with WH Rule #1. Now let's add White House Rule #2: You Destroy Evidence (e.g., deleting 30,000+ emails) No Job. While we're at it, let's also add White House Rule #3: You take donations for your foundation from foreign countries while you're a United States cabinet member No Job.
9
Is it the only argument you have? Give it a break.
1
Another shining example of a Trump supporter's incisive ability to analyze, evaluate, and cogently respond to a reasonable argument.
Two great ideas! Henceforth, we are going to confine our charitable giving and taking to the US and forget those in need of charity in the rest of the world Who cares about foreigners anyway? Maybe we should go further and scrutinize the sources of American donations and not accept money from any of them until the donors pass a stringent ethical test. We surely don't want to be distributing money from left-leaning people. Maybe only Repubicans and the NRA can be trusted to offer "clean" money.
And the other notion--deleting 30,000 emails over the course of four years. I don't know about GMHK, but I delete the bulk of my emails everyday and save only the few that will be needed as reference-points in the future. Or do you think that Hillary et al deleted them all at once, as soon as they learned that an investigation would be in progress? What makes you think so.
Donald Trump has pledged to reveal his tax returns just as soon as Hillary recovers and makes public all those lost emails that changed the hour of the daily coffee-break from 10:30 to 11:00.
And the other notion--deleting 30,000 emails over the course of four years. I don't know about GMHK, but I delete the bulk of my emails everyday and save only the few that will be needed as reference-points in the future. Or do you think that Hillary et al deleted them all at once, as soon as they learned that an investigation would be in progress? What makes you think so.
Donald Trump has pledged to reveal his tax returns just as soon as Hillary recovers and makes public all those lost emails that changed the hour of the daily coffee-break from 10:30 to 11:00.
How on earth did we get to this? The system where media usually work to ferret out lies and improper entanglements took entirely too long to get to this point. Of the contenders for President put forth by the Republicans, only Mr. Trump was left standing. It seems that polling and its economic connotations came to dominate fact finding by the media. A person who has the skill and knowledge of media and polling manipulation that Mr. Trump has, was able to put the media in a neck hold where this new novelty of the personality of Mr. Trump blew them away. What to do now seems to be coming, albeit a bit late, where articles such as this are appearing which show the extent of Mr. Trump's dishonesty and lack of general courtesy, as well as his highly questionable economic skills, all of which show him to be unfit to lead the Unite State of America.
7
Mr. Trump won the nomination because he was the choice of the voters. As the field narrowed, it was clear he had majority support against a limited number of contenders, and plurality support against the field. That's what it takes to get a presidential nomination, either voter support or having the DNC create an unfair playing field.
Presumably, no tax returns, no security clearance.
5
Between giving the government and its confidential security contractor your tax returns, as necessary for a clearance, and publishing them on the Internet for all to see, as Mr. Trump would have to do, there is a difference. But I think he should, and I think he's just waiting for the right moment.
Presidents don't have a security clearance, no background checks. It's the law.
Not so. Then-CIA Director G.H.W. Bush famously told President Jimmy Carter he "didn't have a need to know", when he asked Bush to show him CIA UFO files.
All of your points are valid. However, Trump is thumbing his nose at you (because you are so mean and unfair to him!) and all Americans. He does not care what the normal operating procedure is. Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus, and Mitch McConnell long ago submitted to him because he's the only one they got and even if they peeped, Trump still wouldn't release his tax forms. He is indicating with malevolent chutzpah that he can do absolutely what he wants.
4
Next thing you know, we'll find out he has a private e-mail server in Trump Towers. Then, we'll find out he gave lots of lucrative speeches to Wall Street types. Where will the scandals lead us?
Moving a corporation abroad to avoid paying U.S. taxes is legal. So, apparently, too is doing what Trump has all but admitted doing, exploiting the loopholes that come from paper losses to avoid paying U.S. taxes. How can he not see how that dodging taxes is dodging taxes? The answer is that Trump has no moral center, no sense of civic duty, no inclination to help the public, no sign of that he is fit or even interested in running this country. Even his charity is a fraud, first filling its coffers with other people's money, then using it to pay off personal debts. Who needs to wait to see his taxes?
10
Both the NYT and Hillary Clinton used the same "tax dodge" in the past two years. It's legal, ethical and very common. The IRS actually encourages people to take advantage of any deductibles they qualify for. Read your tax form instructions.
1
The Net Operating Loss provision taken by Donald Trump is one of the tax law's most important job preservers for both small and large businesses. GM's use of this provision in 2008 saved tens of thousands of American jobs. This is effective tax policy, not an unfair loophole.
Most of these commenters miss the premise; it's not about Mr. Trump's right as a businessman to maximize his efficiencies with the tax code. It's an article about the real-life selection process for serving in the upper tiers of the federal government. You cannot get these jobs unless you meet established standards of transparency so that public critics can pick apart your credentials to serve. It's called "vetting", which is the process we're going through now with a year-and-a-half presidential selection process.
You can be for Trump and still comprehend this article; if he releases his tax returns and it shows he maximized his efficiencies, then it makes his point that the system works as intended and that he is capable of working within the system. But the reason he doesn't release them is he is confident that public perception, right or wrong, will see it differently. And when it comes to selecting a president, that is the public's right.
He can't release his taxes. The details of those tax returns would undermine his core campaign strategy of positioning Clinton as one who cannot be trusted, his most-effective wedge issue. Trump retains his unenviable standing as a long-shot for President so long as he keeps his tax returns private; making them public confirms that he has absolutely no chance at all.
You can be for Trump and still comprehend this article; if he releases his tax returns and it shows he maximized his efficiencies, then it makes his point that the system works as intended and that he is capable of working within the system. But the reason he doesn't release them is he is confident that public perception, right or wrong, will see it differently. And when it comes to selecting a president, that is the public's right.
He can't release his taxes. The details of those tax returns would undermine his core campaign strategy of positioning Clinton as one who cannot be trusted, his most-effective wedge issue. Trump retains his unenviable standing as a long-shot for President so long as he keeps his tax returns private; making them public confirms that he has absolutely no chance at all.
15
“fiduciary duty” appears to be a paradox in it's definition. Go simpler to find out what it means. If not, change the rules and make them brittle.
2
Trump rarely owns stuff 100%. As an officer and director of the corporation, though, he has a responsibility to the shareholders and employees to maximize profits consistent with today's standards, thus corporations often give to charity and the like whereas they might not have in 1880.
This is music to my ears and is the perfect reason why his taxes should be released. If he does not release them, he is unqualified in just another way.
4
It was designed to be music to your ears so you keep up your subscription. Lawyers could have been found with the opposite opinion, too, but the times would not have printed their views.
Trump is an example of how ineffective and dangerous Republicans' strategy is on winning the White House at all costs. In Trump, the Republican establishment has felt that if the Republicans presidential nominee is able to attract new voters, i.e. the white working class, the White House is theirs because the Republican base is so solid that the base would vote for any Republican nominee. In pursuing this strategy, they have ignored all the warning signs why Trump is such a poor general election candidate, e.g., Trump's continuous flip-flops, lack of credibility, questionable business practices, unnecessarily boastfulness, racism, sexism, etc., etc. Now, as November approaches, Trump might just take down the establishment- as he has promised- of the Republican Party.
4
It's only a matter of time before the Trump campaign seizes on the picture accompanying the article and convinces the devoted that the USPS is responsible for the ducks being handed out. This truly was a poor choice of an image.
3
The rule you state is a fantasy. There is no White House Rule. The only rule that exists is in the Constitution, and it consists of, after age and citizenship requirements, getting a majority of the electoral votes. Period. Full stop. End of story. Stop wasting readers' time.
6
Hear, hear! Thousands give two hoots for the returns and rightly do.
How about this rule: An oath/assurance that op-eds were not written under the influence of marijuana. Smells strong in here!
How about this rule: An oath/assurance that op-eds were not written under the influence of marijuana. Smells strong in here!
1
What I took from this revealing article was not that a White House "Rule" was in effect, but rather a recognition that paying taxes, or dodging them, even by exploiting legal deductions, leaves potential nominees dead in the water even before they reached the Senate for confirmation. It also recognizes that the American public doesn't like rich people paying taxes at rates lower than theirs as Mitt Romney learned in 2013.
That's a reality, not a rule.
Of course, Trump has managed to remain immune from all of this by his dogged refusal to release his tax returns and his peddling of ludicrous excuses that have no relationship with reality.
My fear, if he is elected President, that we will as a nation will find out who he is beholden, whether foreign banks or Russian oligarchs by the way he pursues foreign policy. He and his cronies can call it "genius." I call it being an abysmal role model for all of us who support our democracy with the hard-earned money we relinquish to our government for the services--roads, schools, health, military, care of our veterans, etc.--we enjoy.
That's a reality, not a rule.
Of course, Trump has managed to remain immune from all of this by his dogged refusal to release his tax returns and his peddling of ludicrous excuses that have no relationship with reality.
My fear, if he is elected President, that we will as a nation will find out who he is beholden, whether foreign banks or Russian oligarchs by the way he pursues foreign policy. He and his cronies can call it "genius." I call it being an abysmal role model for all of us who support our democracy with the hard-earned money we relinquish to our government for the services--roads, schools, health, military, care of our veterans, etc.--we enjoy.
2
Candidates for cabinet positions are not elected.
1
These people and these corporations benefit enormously from living and doing business in this country. They are protected by the US Military. Their water is clean and their food and drugs are safe, due to the work of the federal agencies that monitor compliance with and enforce our laws and regulations. They either benefit from our public school system directly, or hire workers who have been educated in public schools. They use our roads, railways and airways to travel and transport their goods. They benefit from the federal government's investments in medical, scientific and technological innovation.
In the case of DJT, in addition to all of the above, he is currently protected by the federally paid for Secret Service. It's likely that some of his developments, especially those that laid the foundation for his family's wealth (without which he would be a failed nobody) were subsidized with money from HUD.
To suggest that a failure to pay taxes, for any period, let alone a two decade period, is defensible because it's technically legal -- but only legal because of our bought and paid for congress people, who sell tax credits, corporate subsidies and other loopholes and corporate welfare programs to the highest bidders -- is, indeed, deplorable. To brag about it hubristic, and we know how well that worked out for the ancient Athenians.
If DJT doesn't feel obligated to help fund these vast federal government services, maybe he shouldn't be protected by the Secret Service.
In the case of DJT, in addition to all of the above, he is currently protected by the federally paid for Secret Service. It's likely that some of his developments, especially those that laid the foundation for his family's wealth (without which he would be a failed nobody) were subsidized with money from HUD.
To suggest that a failure to pay taxes, for any period, let alone a two decade period, is defensible because it's technically legal -- but only legal because of our bought and paid for congress people, who sell tax credits, corporate subsidies and other loopholes and corporate welfare programs to the highest bidders -- is, indeed, deplorable. To brag about it hubristic, and we know how well that worked out for the ancient Athenians.
If DJT doesn't feel obligated to help fund these vast federal government services, maybe he shouldn't be protected by the Secret Service.
170
How do you feel about Apple parking >$200Billlion offshore? Apple is supporting Trump's opponent.
So? Apple should pay their rightful share taxes as every corporation should. Do you think if Trump were elected President, he would toughen up laws requiring corporations to pay taxes? Think again. If Clinton were elected, it is much more likely that her administration would pass such laws than Trump. In that case, Apple's donations are working against their own interests potentially, yes, for the good for the nation. Perhaps something Trump supporters can't understand.
2
It's not a "failure" to pay taxes that aren't owed in the first place because someone took advantage of the tax laws. If you want to pay more tax than you're obligated to pay then go ahead.
If you don't like wealthy people or corporations using loopholes in the law to avoid taxes, then argue for changing the laws.
If you don't like wealthy people or corporations using loopholes in the law to avoid taxes, then argue for changing the laws.
The rule you state is a fantasy. There is no White House Rule. The only rule that exists is in the Constitution, and it consists of, after age and citizenship requirements, getting a majority of the electoral votes. Period. Full stop. End of story. Stop wasting readers' time.
4
If you're unwilling to even try to understand the point of the article, I guess it did waste your time.
Nobody says he doesn't have the right to refuse to release them, but under no administration would that be allowable for a senior position.
If you don't care about what's in his returns, so be it.
If you don't care that he can't demonstrate that he cares one iota about the country he professes to love (if he did, he might consider that taxes pay for the intrastructure he uses like everyone else, or show he actuall gave to charities, rather than using his own charity for his private gains), so be it.
If you don't care that the US tax payers had to foot the bill for his losses, so be it.
If you don't care that he claimed he is poorer than a homeless person, yet lives in luxury (meanwhile, republicans love to lecture people about living within their means), so be it.
If you don't care that he may have major debt to foreign nations, so be it.
But many of is do care. Just don't complain if he drives the country in bankruptcy or sells out to the Russians.
Lastly, none of his supporters ever answer this question: if he is the genius he is, and as charitable as he is, why won't he just prove it?
Nobody says he doesn't have the right to refuse to release them, but under no administration would that be allowable for a senior position.
If you don't care about what's in his returns, so be it.
If you don't care that he can't demonstrate that he cares one iota about the country he professes to love (if he did, he might consider that taxes pay for the intrastructure he uses like everyone else, or show he actuall gave to charities, rather than using his own charity for his private gains), so be it.
If you don't care that the US tax payers had to foot the bill for his losses, so be it.
If you don't care that he claimed he is poorer than a homeless person, yet lives in luxury (meanwhile, republicans love to lecture people about living within their means), so be it.
If you don't care that he may have major debt to foreign nations, so be it.
But many of is do care. Just don't complain if he drives the country in bankruptcy or sells out to the Russians.
Lastly, none of his supporters ever answer this question: if he is the genius he is, and as charitable as he is, why won't he just prove it?
4
Trump has one main arguments why he won't show his returns: 1) He is being audited, and releasing may expose him to audit findings that the IRS has not found. Of course, if he does have an error, whether found by the IRS or not, then the tax is due and he should pay it. Another of his tax related points is that he is a genius for avoiding taxes. In that case, he should release his returns proudly to show us what a genius he is. Also, he says he would fix the law, but his proposal is to actually lower his own tax rate! Plus he says he had a fiduciary duty to his investors. This is true for his businesses, but is not true for his personal tax return. Lastly I would point out that he complains that giving more to the wealthy would encourage employment. But the wealth have a greater share of income now than ever, and it hasn't, according to Trump, worked. This man is very far from a genius businessman. I have met many, and Trump is not even close to their league.
4
We wouldn't let a person with Hillary Clinton's record receive a security clearance. So how can we make *her* president?
10
Yes we would and we did. And we can.
3
The Net Operating Loss (NOL) provision used by Mr. Trump is one of the most important job preservers for the smallest to the largest businesses. The tens of thousands of GM employees whose jobs were saved after the 2008 market crash would not consider it a loophole. This provision was initially passed decades ago by a Democrat Congress and permits taxpaying businesses to recover 5 years of back taxes and reduce future income for 15 years. To benefit from the provision, a business with a loss had to be profitable in the past and must be profitable again in the future. Without the cash flow generated from this provision, many businesses would have had to contract or close at the cost of large numbers of jobs. On balance, this provision is good for the government and the economy as a whole.
4
Another desperate, silly NYT editorial disparaging Trump. There is no "White House rule" regarding taxes. He didn't release them, so don't vote for him if you don't like it. Here's a better idea for a white house rule; mandatory release of your long form birth certificate so voters know you are really a citizen.
7
BearBoy
Nobody has seen Trump's long form birth certificate.
He must be a secret Muslim from a foreign country like Russia.
We all KNOW that birth certificates from New York are all phony, right? You betcha.
Nobody has seen Trump's long form birth certificate.
He must be a secret Muslim from a foreign country like Russia.
We all KNOW that birth certificates from New York are all phony, right? You betcha.
1
Last I heard, DJT has refused to release his long form birth certificate also.
So, as per your argument, we can safely assume that he's not a citizen!
So, as per your argument, we can safely assume that he's not a citizen!
1
Yes he doesn't have to, the article didn't say he did. But people can write editorials criticizing that and discussing his decision not to do it. That's free press, something he very much would love to abolish.
Plus, I still haven't heard any good argument from his supporters why he won't (he himself said a year ago, he would love to release them). If you want to just believe him that he is fabulously rich, charitable, a business genius, and in now debt to foreign entities, that's your right too. I don't.
Plus, I still haven't heard any good argument from his supporters why he won't (he himself said a year ago, he would love to release them). If you want to just believe him that he is fabulously rich, charitable, a business genius, and in now debt to foreign entities, that's your right too. I don't.
3
This is what cable news and newspapers should be reporting instead of normalizing Trump's abhorrent behavior. The Clinton campaign could also better tuneup its message along the lines of this story.
3
I suspect Trump won't release his returns because he lied about his finances in the paperwork he filed with the Federal Election Commission.
4
Financial Disclosure laws are written by Congress, and signed by the POTUS, not by grandstanding Professors and ThinkTank-Fellows
Based on the wildly dishonest response to the one return that we have access to, I now agree with DJT's son, that releasing anything more would only lead to more & more dishonest analysis by people who know nothing about Tax-Law, Tax-Policy, or standard Business Practices
Mr. Trump was shown to have had a large business loss, carryover. There is only one thing unusual, the size. In fact, the Clintons recently took a substantial business-loss deduction, and nobody yet has accused them of anything unethical,
In a recent piece, the NYT-Editorial Board dishonestly referred to this standard, legal deduction as: Bailout, Handout, and Tax-Scheme
IMHO, we ought to amend the Disclosure Laws to require 5 years documentation of the following items from the Tax-Returns: Total-Income, Adjusted-Gross-Income, Taxable-Income, Tax, AMT, Foreign-Tax-Credits, & Total-Credits.
We COULD mandate by law that the Tax-Returns themselves be released, but my guess is that THIS, would never get through Congress
These two authors tell us that nobody like Trump would be confirmed by the Senate today:
1) Trump is being vetted by more than a hundred million voters
2) Certainly HRC would NEVER be confirmed NOW, either
NO RIGHT TO MINIMIZE TAXES?
"nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands
, , taxes are not voluntary contributions" Judge Learned Hand 1947
Based on the wildly dishonest response to the one return that we have access to, I now agree with DJT's son, that releasing anything more would only lead to more & more dishonest analysis by people who know nothing about Tax-Law, Tax-Policy, or standard Business Practices
Mr. Trump was shown to have had a large business loss, carryover. There is only one thing unusual, the size. In fact, the Clintons recently took a substantial business-loss deduction, and nobody yet has accused them of anything unethical,
In a recent piece, the NYT-Editorial Board dishonestly referred to this standard, legal deduction as: Bailout, Handout, and Tax-Scheme
IMHO, we ought to amend the Disclosure Laws to require 5 years documentation of the following items from the Tax-Returns: Total-Income, Adjusted-Gross-Income, Taxable-Income, Tax, AMT, Foreign-Tax-Credits, & Total-Credits.
We COULD mandate by law that the Tax-Returns themselves be released, but my guess is that THIS, would never get through Congress
These two authors tell us that nobody like Trump would be confirmed by the Senate today:
1) Trump is being vetted by more than a hundred million voters
2) Certainly HRC would NEVER be confirmed NOW, either
NO RIGHT TO MINIMIZE TAXES?
"nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands
, , taxes are not voluntary contributions" Judge Learned Hand 1947
3
I was a Bernie supporter and to some degree I still am. One of the points that Hillary and Bernie engaged during the primaries was the fact that Bernie had not released his tax returns at the time. He countered by asking Mrs. Clinton to release the transcripts of the speeches she made for $$$ to Wall Street. Ultimately, Bernie released his tax return, but Hillary didn't keep her part of the bargain. Even the Times asked Clinton to release those transcripts in a strong editorial to make her more transparent in what she has done in the past. But somewhere along the line the media (including the Times) has swept this under the carpet and instead focuses on Trump's failure of disclosure.
C'mon guys, I want to vote for Hillary, but she's been given a free ride on this thorny subject by the media. If they were disclosed. I might have less concerns about her trustworthiness as POTUS, If the Times can come up with 20+ years old returns from Trump, then your investigative staff should be able to find her Wall Street transcripts. As Bernie once said, "Show us the transcripts".
C'mon guys, I want to vote for Hillary, but she's been given a free ride on this thorny subject by the media. If they were disclosed. I might have less concerns about her trustworthiness as POTUS, If the Times can come up with 20+ years old returns from Trump, then your investigative staff should be able to find her Wall Street transcripts. As Bernie once said, "Show us the transcripts".
7
LOL
Bernie did NOT release his tax returns.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=did+bernie+release+his+tax+returns%3F
And what "bargain" are you imagining was made by Bernie and Hillary?
A speaker makes a bargain with a firm or a trade association to deliver a speech at an agreed-on fee. It would be unfair/unjust to then make public that paid-for speech. Why would anyone pay any speaker for something that would then be freely available? And why would anyone be so clueless as to think a third party, Bernie, would have anything to say about that paid-for speech?
Bernie and Jane obviously have their reasons for concealing their financial shenanigans from the PUBLIC, but they have nothing to do with any speaker's presentations to PRIVATE audiences.
Bernie did NOT release his tax returns.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=did+bernie+release+his+tax+returns%3F
And what "bargain" are you imagining was made by Bernie and Hillary?
A speaker makes a bargain with a firm or a trade association to deliver a speech at an agreed-on fee. It would be unfair/unjust to then make public that paid-for speech. Why would anyone pay any speaker for something that would then be freely available? And why would anyone be so clueless as to think a third party, Bernie, would have anything to say about that paid-for speech?
Bernie and Jane obviously have their reasons for concealing their financial shenanigans from the PUBLIC, but they have nothing to do with any speaker's presentations to PRIVATE audiences.
3
For all we know, the Times may have Clinton's speeches locked away in its Not Fit To Print Vault. The Times does have a giant conflict of interest in "reporting" this election cycle. When you endorse one candidate TWICE, why would anyone think you are bringing objectivity to the public forum?
1
Bernie did release his income tax return for 2014 this year.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-tax-return-222041
As to whether a bargain or agreement was made belies the point that both discussed this during their last TV public primary debate. So yes, it is in the public interest - in the voters interest - to know what was in those speeches.
My point is that if Hillary were more forthcoming as to why she will not or can't reveal the content of the speeches, many voters and the Times would feel more confident about her honesty. As it stands, according to CNN, polls show that Trump is more honest and trustworthy among registered voters.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-tax-return-222041
As to whether a bargain or agreement was made belies the point that both discussed this during their last TV public primary debate. So yes, it is in the public interest - in the voters interest - to know what was in those speeches.
My point is that if Hillary were more forthcoming as to why she will not or can't reveal the content of the speeches, many voters and the Times would feel more confident about her honesty. As it stands, according to CNN, polls show that Trump is more honest and trustworthy among registered voters.
What ever happened to the demands that Clinton release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches?
5
Apples and poppy seeds.
3
What demands? What transcripts? What speeches? Who is this Goldman Sachs fellow? Clinton? Did Bill deliver some speeches?
What in the world are you talking about?
What in the world are you talking about?
In a word, "no". Candidates at any level, including the Presidency, should not be required to disclose tax returns, medical records, marriage/divorce certificates, or anything else of a personal nature. We elect them to lead --hopefully based on their ideas -- and not on their suitability as a role model or model citizen. Disclosing tax returns has an almost communistic sort of vibe to it -- how much money made or lost is too much? Your place on the political spectrum probably influences how you view that.
3
JTFJ2
We have every right to know about the health, the financial entanglements, the ethics, and other personal attributes of people who put themselves forward as candidates.
You want to run for office? Fine. Put up or shut up. Wh have a right to know who we are voting for.
We have every right to know about the health, the financial entanglements, the ethics, and other personal attributes of people who put themselves forward as candidates.
You want to run for office? Fine. Put up or shut up. Wh have a right to know who we are voting for.
How, then, do we know if the candidate handles his own finances responsibly?
And how, then, do we know that he is not beholden to debtors outside the United States, debtors who could have influence on foreign policy?
Releasing ones 1040s has nothing to do with "role modeling" and everything to do with responsible decisionmaking - the kind of decisionmaking a president is required to exercise every day.
And how, then, do we know that he is not beholden to debtors outside the United States, debtors who could have influence on foreign policy?
Releasing ones 1040s has nothing to do with "role modeling" and everything to do with responsible decisionmaking - the kind of decisionmaking a president is required to exercise every day.
i completely disagree. If a person has major debt that might make them vulnerable to sell out their power, so that is very much part of the equation. Their shouldn't be rule about how much is too much, but it should be part of the consideration. Ideas alone are not enough.
I would not fell very safe not knowing if a high ranking government official owes money to foreign entities.
I would not fell very safe not knowing if a high ranking government official owes money to foreign entities.
If you think that Trump does not have a fiduciary duty to his investors and his lenders try this experiment: qualify for a home mortgage loan based on your certain income, and then make an obligation to give 1/3 of your disposable income to a third party every year. Once your lender finds out that you made yourself much less able to pay for your loan and much more likely to default - do you think they will be happy? If it is a very sizable mortgage, do you think they just going to do nothing about you wasting money and putting them at risk ?!
1
Trump would have to show those lenders a LOT of financial information.
He has done so poorly that the vast majority of banks will no longer do business with him. Deutsch Bank has lent him money, and that bank is in trouble.
He says the Chinese have lent him money. Ok. Which Chinese? How much money?
He says the Russians do a lot of business with him. Ok. Show us what obligations you have to which Russians.
Show your tax returns, Donnie.
He has done so poorly that the vast majority of banks will no longer do business with him. Deutsch Bank has lent him money, and that bank is in trouble.
He says the Chinese have lent him money. Ok. Which Chinese? How much money?
He says the Russians do a lot of business with him. Ok. Show us what obligations you have to which Russians.
Show your tax returns, Donnie.
2
And qualifying for a security clearance should be prerequisite as well. Since neither candidate can meet even these minimums, I am willing to give the parties a chance to choose new standards bearers. They couldn't be worse than the ones they chose the last time!
The Republican't Party did not chose Trump. He ambushed them and made off with their loot. Ask Bush I and II who gets their votes.
This is an easy one.
The WH also would not have permitted someone accused of felony record destruction and misdemeanor lying to Congress to be employed as a cabinet secretary or to possess sensitive national data.
Except for Hillary.
The WH also would not have permitted someone accused of felony record destruction and misdemeanor lying to Congress to be employed as a cabinet secretary or to possess sensitive national data.
Except for Hillary.
3
To repeat: HRC has been thoroughly investigated, and has been found not to have committed a crime; ergo; no felony. Give it up.
5
To Sally B-
"Hillary has been thoroughly investigated"
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,Ha.
Thanks for the laugh.
"Hillary has been thoroughly investigated"
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,Ha.
Thanks for the laugh.
1
So Trump never fined for his Federal returns is unfit but Clinton who reportedly asked for Julian Assange to be droned and voted to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq and all funding votes after plus being the main architect for the Libya intervention is fit to serve?.
2
The crucial question is: how could Trump a legitimate candidate at all? To blame are the Republicans of course. And why isn't there an instrument to initiate an impeachment for a candidate?
If there is an impeachment for the president there should be an impeachment for a candidate too. I mean the impeachment of Bill Clinton (who otherwise did well) because of an affair feels like a banality compared to what Trump did, does and first of all plans to do.
I increasingly doubt that the U.S. constitution is up to date to face social media powered populists and demagogues.
A constitution is not a religion - it should be adapted (not even talking about the out-dated almost archaic second amendment)
If there is an impeachment for the president there should be an impeachment for a candidate too. I mean the impeachment of Bill Clinton (who otherwise did well) because of an affair feels like a banality compared to what Trump did, does and first of all plans to do.
I increasingly doubt that the U.S. constitution is up to date to face social media powered populists and demagogues.
A constitution is not a religion - it should be adapted (not even talking about the out-dated almost archaic second amendment)
Bill Clinton wasn't impeached because of an affair, he was impeached and disbarred for lying under oath.
1
If you take this article and what it is saying and apply it to classified information, then Hillary Clinton should not be President. The way she handled classified information does not meet the basic standard that is given to all military personnel. If you know the information is classified, why would you write it down and email it. If you didn't know the information you are writing is classified, then you are just plain stupid. You should know what information you possess is sensitive and if it were reviewed would be labeled classified. If anyone in the military did what she did, they would have had their security clearance take away from them permanently. The White House Rule: No Security Clearance, No Job
2
This is not what the article says at all. It says that the information needs to be there when the appointment is considered. You are very much free to consider what you know about Hillary in your decision to vote against her.
The point of the article is that trump would never be nominated for a senior position unless the information is released. You can still vote for him once he does.
The point of the article is that trump would never be nominated for a senior position unless the information is released. You can still vote for him once he does.
Well the Republicans have always wanted to starve the beast of government and now they have found their man. Little do the Republicans worry about failing infrastructure but Donald Trump does. Little do the Republicans worry about paying their fair share but Warren Buffet does. Little do the Republicans worry about the poor getting adequate health care, that's why there is no state income tax in Texas. Why do so many people support Republicans? My guess is that they're afraid of women, black people, gay people, and atheists.
1
8 other states have no income tax.
And if Warren Buffet wants to voluntary pay more in taxes than he legally owes, the Treasury will gladly take his money.
And if Warren Buffet wants to voluntary pay more in taxes than he legally owes, the Treasury will gladly take his money.
I appreciate readers who note the role of the Constitution and the qualifications for president spelled out therein. But, perhaps we should look at those as minimum qualifications. Voters look to the campaign cycle, conventions, and debates to see what else the candidates bring to the table, in terms of experience and temperament and desire and ability to move the country forward.
If a candidate has been using loopholes to avoid paying taxes, however legal that may be, it sends the signal that they are not concerned about the welfare of the rest of the country. I only wish I could pay more taxes to help those in need here and abroad and to maintain the infrastructure required of a first-world country.
If a candidate has been using loopholes to avoid paying taxes, however legal that may be, it sends the signal that they are not concerned about the welfare of the rest of the country. I only wish I could pay more taxes to help those in need here and abroad and to maintain the infrastructure required of a first-world country.
1
If you want to pay more in taxes than you legally owe, the Treasury Dept. will gladly take your money.
So why has congress still not made it law that anyone running for President must release his or her tax returns? Surely there are enough Republicans with a shred of integrity left to support this. We must act now, before this is no longer the case.
4
Sorry, I don't buy it. The Constitution does not say that the NYT Editorial Board, much less guest columnists, get to ad lib qualifications for the presidency. You're confused; the USA is not some figment of your imagination, or necessarily subject to your whims. Or even your heartfelt political opinion. Every voter has an opinion.
The idea that HRC is an upstanding candidate is outrageous. Her campaign is framed with impropriety and corruption as its basis. Her campaign of lies and crimes is obscene. Trump is simply somebody you do not like; he is not any more obscene or recklessly narcissistic than your candidate. No one could be. If anything, he is simply more forthcoming about his obscenity and his narcissism.
The idea that HRC is an upstanding candidate is outrageous. Her campaign is framed with impropriety and corruption as its basis. Her campaign of lies and crimes is obscene. Trump is simply somebody you do not like; he is not any more obscene or recklessly narcissistic than your candidate. No one could be. If anything, he is simply more forthcoming about his obscenity and his narcissism.
4
" he is simply more forthcoming about his obscenity and his narcissism. "
Is that supposed to be an argument?
Is that supposed to be an argument?
1
Trump is a selfish, narcissist. As the article points out, selfish people should not engage in public service. We've seen this lead to cronyism, nepotism, and widespread corruption in countries all over the world. Why would the US be any different under Trump?
6
And a low level government employee who mishandled classified info as Secretary Clinton did would be fired and never allowed to work in government again. Yet she is soon to be Comander in Chief.
Both major party candidates are seriously flawed. God help America!
Both major party candidates are seriously flawed. God help America!
2
No, A GOP president would nominate a Trump, and a GOP senate would confirm, sleaze and all.
2
So do you require applicants for jobs at the White House to provide academic records? If you do, then by your logic, Barack Obama should never have been president.
2
Neither would have George Bush. What's your point? This is about taxes, public service and the welfare of most of America.
1
"Peter Kiernan, former U.S. Marine, and founder of the Ivy League Veterans Council, talks with Rachel Maddow about his crowdfunding project that would donate millions to veterans charities if Donald Trump makes his taxes public."
Is this very important story getting any/much play on your side of the border? If this can't shame Trump into releasing his returns I don't know what will!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry4MEoXUlvc
Is this very important story getting any/much play on your side of the border? If this can't shame Trump into releasing his returns I don't know what will!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry4MEoXUlvc
1
This could be a devastating line of attack for Clinton in the next debate.
3
Why should someone have to outdo the law the prove their patriotism? Plus, ethics doesn't seem to be Donald's redeeming factor.
In my opinion, no tax returns is small fish when considering DT's overall fitness for the job he's seeking. Whatever he's hiding by not being forthcoming doesn't hold a candle to his other gargantuan issues that scream loud and clear he doesn't possess the "right stuff" on any level, to be president, commander in chief, and leader of the free world.
And that includes the fact that he's uninformed, he lacks self-discipline and empathy, he's developmentally immature, he obsessively character assassinates anyone who criticize him, he refuses to ever admit he's wrong or has something to learn, he's bigoted and lacking in self-awareness. In other words, in the role he's seeking, he would place us and the entire globe in grave danger.
Also, a specialist in learning disabilities suspects that DT has a "Mixed Perceptive Expressive language disorder." Symptoms include rambling; an inability to speak linearly, a short attention span, difficulty finding the right words, substitution of broad platitudes like "great" and "unbelievable" for more precise words, trouble completing sentences, confusion about abstract ideas and so on. It's possible that a learning disability is the reason he acted out as a child and was sent to a military academy. It's also possible that's the reason he doesn't read and overcompensates by being loud and obnoxious hoping no one will notice.
Thus, more than tax returns, it's all these critical short-comings that need attention on November 8.
And that includes the fact that he's uninformed, he lacks self-discipline and empathy, he's developmentally immature, he obsessively character assassinates anyone who criticize him, he refuses to ever admit he's wrong or has something to learn, he's bigoted and lacking in self-awareness. In other words, in the role he's seeking, he would place us and the entire globe in grave danger.
Also, a specialist in learning disabilities suspects that DT has a "Mixed Perceptive Expressive language disorder." Symptoms include rambling; an inability to speak linearly, a short attention span, difficulty finding the right words, substitution of broad platitudes like "great" and "unbelievable" for more precise words, trouble completing sentences, confusion about abstract ideas and so on. It's possible that a learning disability is the reason he acted out as a child and was sent to a military academy. It's also possible that's the reason he doesn't read and overcompensates by being loud and obnoxious hoping no one will notice.
Thus, more than tax returns, it's all these critical short-comings that need attention on November 8.
13
One thing I've noticed when talking to Trump and Clinton supporters during this election is, that Democrats admit to Clinton's flaws. I hear the, 'The email scandal, while it doesn't really bother me, was not something she should have done - it's a little bit sketchy' or 'she really shouldn't have said that deplorables comment, not half of Trump's supporters are deplorable.
In contrast, Trump supporters rarely, if ever, admit to any of his flaws or wrong doings. While talking to those folks I hear, 'He's doing the right thing by NOT releasing his tax returns' or 'he speaks his mind, he's not racist, political correctness has taken over America'.
If this was Clinton, Republicans would try to bring her in front of congress to testify for 14 hours. There's a double standard in this election, and some of it starts with admission of wrong doing, where republicans have not held Trump accountable.
In contrast, Trump supporters rarely, if ever, admit to any of his flaws or wrong doings. While talking to those folks I hear, 'He's doing the right thing by NOT releasing his tax returns' or 'he speaks his mind, he's not racist, political correctness has taken over America'.
If this was Clinton, Republicans would try to bring her in front of congress to testify for 14 hours. There's a double standard in this election, and some of it starts with admission of wrong doing, where republicans have not held Trump accountable.
16
OK, America! Drop your drawers and grab your ankles! Trump is going to "fulfill his fiduciary responsibility"! (Yes, Virginia, that is the same as "hiking the Appalachian trail".)
2
Filing a tax return is not a constitutional requirement to become president. However, voters if they choose, can impose additional requirements.
Comparing presidential electability to working as a presidential appointee is a stretch. A president who appoints someones less than stellar will be rebuked by the senate and/or by the American people. But if the people elect, for president, someone less than stellar, rebuke would come from the opposition party, and this practice is as old as the Republic.
Comparing presidential electability to working as a presidential appointee is a stretch. A president who appoints someones less than stellar will be rebuked by the senate and/or by the American people. But if the people elect, for president, someone less than stellar, rebuke would come from the opposition party, and this practice is as old as the Republic.
All fair points that further demonstrate that Mr. Trump shouldn't be president. But if the test is how a nominee would fare, how do you think one with Sec. Clinton's record regarding classified documents do? I would hope that that would also be disqualifying.
1
Presidents can ignore White House ethics counsels and appoint anyone they like to the Cabinet, including those refuse to release tax returns. They would run the risks the Senate might disapprove appointees who refuse to submit tax returns. Candidates can run for president without releasing their tax returns. They run the risk that Americans will not vote for them because of their refusal to release tax returns. The authors assert no president would dare nominate anyone to the Cabinet who refuses to release a tax return, but Trump might dare to make such a nomination if he becomes president.
True.
But also true is that no President would have appointed Ronald Reagan to a Cabinet office at the time he was elected President.
No President would have appointed George W. Bush to a Cabinet post either.
The junior Senator Barack Obama would not likely have been anyone's Cabinet pick in 2008.
We can be quite certain that nobody in his right mind would pick Trump for any Cabinet post, entirely apart from his tax returns.
Cheney's past service as a reasonably good Sec of Defense did not make him good as an influential VP, nor would anyone have wanted him as President, which is why he sought power via the back door to W's empty head.
Apples and oranges.
But also true is that no President would have appointed Ronald Reagan to a Cabinet office at the time he was elected President.
No President would have appointed George W. Bush to a Cabinet post either.
The junior Senator Barack Obama would not likely have been anyone's Cabinet pick in 2008.
We can be quite certain that nobody in his right mind would pick Trump for any Cabinet post, entirely apart from his tax returns.
Cheney's past service as a reasonably good Sec of Defense did not make him good as an influential VP, nor would anyone have wanted him as President, which is why he sought power via the back door to W's empty head.
Apples and oranges.
3
It's unacceptable that Donald Trump will not release his tax returns. In 1995 he "claimed" almost one BILLION dollars in losses. That's huge for one individual! What's in the last decade of tax returns? Trump is such a braggart, that if there was something good in those returns they already would have been disclosed. Donald Trump is certifiable. A liar, a fraud and a know nothing, and definitely not a genius.
8
So much for Mr. Trump's derision of government and the so-called bureaucrats he will dispense with if he wins the election. Your commentary reveals our need for good government, which must be reinforced by a high regard for the honor of public service. "Bureaucrats" such as you help to keep our government as clean as possible. Do you suppose that Trump industries employ such gatekeepers? Woe is us should his standards become the standards of public service.
2
Memo to every reporter:
{1} Print out a copy of the waiver allowing IRS tax data release.
{2} Bring it to every interview with Trump, along with a pen.
{3} Ask him to sign it.
{1} Print out a copy of the waiver allowing IRS tax data release.
{2} Bring it to every interview with Trump, along with a pen.
{3} Ask him to sign it.
You guys are in need of a little fact checking:
1. Failure to pay social security taxes are at least a civil violation if not a crime. Trump did not do that.
2. Tax laws do allow deductions for certain reasons. Trump may have done that, we don't know despite what you are saying.
3. Any corporation that does not do the best for its shareholders can find itself on the wrong end of a judgement.
4. It is illegal to disclose the returns of others by certain persons or entities who gain access of them by virtue of their job.
1. Failure to pay social security taxes are at least a civil violation if not a crime. Trump did not do that.
2. Tax laws do allow deductions for certain reasons. Trump may have done that, we don't know despite what you are saying.
3. Any corporation that does not do the best for its shareholders can find itself on the wrong end of a judgement.
4. It is illegal to disclose the returns of others by certain persons or entities who gain access of them by virtue of their job.
1
Anyone supporting Donald Trump should not use the term "fact checking". Have a nice day.
1
Alan
As regards your 4 points:
1. If someone did fail to pay required taxes, we should know about that failure.
2. It is informative to know the BASIS for tax deductions, and such details as to whom interest is paid, so that we can assess the business contacts and potential conflicts of interest that might arise.
3. Trump is arguing about his PERSONAL tax return. There are NO shareholders, and there will be no legal actions, because there are NO entities to whom Trump is responsible.
4. If you want to run for office, the voters are entitled to know who you are, what you do, and whether you are ethical or not. If you don't want to disclose that, DO NOT run for office.
As regards your 4 points:
1. If someone did fail to pay required taxes, we should know about that failure.
2. It is informative to know the BASIS for tax deductions, and such details as to whom interest is paid, so that we can assess the business contacts and potential conflicts of interest that might arise.
3. Trump is arguing about his PERSONAL tax return. There are NO shareholders, and there will be no legal actions, because there are NO entities to whom Trump is responsible.
4. If you want to run for office, the voters are entitled to know who you are, what you do, and whether you are ethical or not. If you don't want to disclose that, DO NOT run for office.
Trump will not release his taxes because:
From what we know from Trump’s own words (and his released 1995 taxes), He runs businesses into the ground and then pleads poverty.
Trump basically uses the family name to gain leverage but when the businesses fail (as they often did), he refuses to pay up.
He calls this smart.
For a private business to operate like this is probably very unethical; but to use this resume for the Presidency is asinine. Trump is a victim of his own con.
From what we know from Trump’s own words (and his released 1995 taxes), He runs businesses into the ground and then pleads poverty.
Trump basically uses the family name to gain leverage but when the businesses fail (as they often did), he refuses to pay up.
He calls this smart.
For a private business to operate like this is probably very unethical; but to use this resume for the Presidency is asinine. Trump is a victim of his own con.
1
Well then the New York Times is unethical a well. In 2014 it had a pretax profit of $30 million and received a $3.5 million refund.
It's incredible that there are more stringent application requirements for most entry level jobs then for President. Some require a valid passport or birth certificate, college transcripts,SAT scores, background checks, credit checks, drug tests, etc. Tax returns are occasionally requested. To be President, all you need is to be 35 and a natural born citizen, whatever that means. It's time for extreme vetting of Presidential candidates, including all of the above as well as a deep dive into the candidate's health. The same should apply for the VP role.
1
Normanomics – agreed, and perhaps standards will be set for 2020.
It's a mystery that a major party allowed someone with a lot(?) of money and a big name on TV to say "I'm running as a Republican" without the party bigs vetting him thoroughly to find out if they want him to be their standard-bearer.
(Of course, one could say the same about Dems who allowed a not-Dem to appropriate their label.)
It's a mystery that a major party allowed someone with a lot(?) of money and a big name on TV to say "I'm running as a Republican" without the party bigs vetting him thoroughly to find out if they want him to be their standard-bearer.
(Of course, one could say the same about Dems who allowed a not-Dem to appropriate their label.)
Nice thought, which a previous comment of mine addressed and not only supported, but made specific suggestions, but the Republican Congress would never allow this to fly.
We need to remember those in Congress who support Trump also support his ideas - that it is genius to rip off middle class taxpayers by law. Let the little guy pay for the military (that Trump says is horrible), road repair (when you have your own airline who needs roads?), schools (when you can rip people off with your own university), or National parks (really, vacation with the poor slobs in those hideous camper things, or a tent?).
That is the difference folks. Republicans support all of the above in paraentheses.
We need to remember those in Congress who support Trump also support his ideas - that it is genius to rip off middle class taxpayers by law. Let the little guy pay for the military (that Trump says is horrible), road repair (when you have your own airline who needs roads?), schools (when you can rip people off with your own university), or National parks (really, vacation with the poor slobs in those hideous camper things, or a tent?).
That is the difference folks. Republicans support all of the above in paraentheses.
3
To those lamenting the drop in standards in this presidential election, blame the Clinton.
Every single charge against Trump can be topped by some action on her part. Whether it's his piggish treatment of a young beauty queen contrasted with her "war room" to destroy Bill's "bimbo eruptions" or his refusal to turn over his tax return, while complying with the IRS, contrasted with her bleaching disks to destroy evidence, it just NEVER ENDS.
With Hillary Clinton there are always worse scenarios, uncovered one after another. Take Benghazi and her email scandals and multiply them by the number of years she'll be in office. That's what a Clinton presidency will look like. I hope people enjoy defending the indefensible.
And, please, we don't want to hear another word about "standards".
Every single charge against Trump can be topped by some action on her part. Whether it's his piggish treatment of a young beauty queen contrasted with her "war room" to destroy Bill's "bimbo eruptions" or his refusal to turn over his tax return, while complying with the IRS, contrasted with her bleaching disks to destroy evidence, it just NEVER ENDS.
With Hillary Clinton there are always worse scenarios, uncovered one after another. Take Benghazi and her email scandals and multiply them by the number of years she'll be in office. That's what a Clinton presidency will look like. I hope people enjoy defending the indefensible.
And, please, we don't want to hear another word about "standards".
2
NOT even close! it would take a 1000 more questionable acts by HRC to even come close to matching donald's.
2
Funny opinion considering Timothy Geithner didn't file tax returns and Obama appointed him Secretary of the Treasury. What a double standard.
3
In addition to requiring disclosure of one's tax returns, why not make 2 years of military a/o public service a prerequisite for the office of POTUS, thus screening out the Trump-like creatures ab initio?
4
Soo, no Clinton 1 or 2, and no obama! Unless of course you decide what constitutes public service?
1
No Clintons. No Obama.
Selfless public service, e.g. Peace Corp, Habitat for Humanity.
Selfless public service, e.g. Peace Corp, Habitat for Humanity.
Maybe it should be an actual law that candidates submit their tax returns because the public should know of possible conflicts of interest. I also think it should be a law (this has not occurred to me until this election) that candidates' mental health is formally evaluated and their mental health evaluation released, too.
5
Thank you for a well-articulated statement of what exactly is wrong with these people who keep positioning themselves as "smart" for avoiding taxes, Trump, Apple, and so on.
While I felt that there was something wrong about it, couldn't pin it down. They share the morality of criminals in that they want to "maximize" their value, even if it hurts others, and, more importantly, even if it is not really necessary for their well-being.
What really is the quality-of-life improvement for a person with a few more millions, if he's already worth a few billions?
While I felt that there was something wrong about it, couldn't pin it down. They share the morality of criminals in that they want to "maximize" their value, even if it hurts others, and, more importantly, even if it is not really necessary for their well-being.
What really is the quality-of-life improvement for a person with a few more millions, if he's already worth a few billions?
5
Thanks Mr. Eisen and Mr. Painter. I just wish placing the anomalies of this election into context were helpful, but they don't seem to be. It seems to be taking place in an alternate reality where any number of blunders and unsavory dealings that would have sunk any other candidate evaporate into smoke. He's the one who said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose supporters. I'm thinking that's about the only thing that might dissuade a Trump supporter, and maybe not all of them! Just the very early mocking of a disabled journalist should have sunk him, but here we are months later with even more on the pile and he's still almost even. Shocking.
3
Actually, I think the media is deceiving us about the closeness of this race. They benefit if we are all anxious and read everything they print about Trump. I think Hillary will demolish Trump on election day. But, I'll admit I'm still anxious. November can't come soon enough!
The other angle not often discussed is that the tax returns are likely to show a long history of contributions to liberal causes. He only became a "Conservative" in the last 4 or 5 years publicly speaking. Such a thing would be a potential poison pill for many in the conservative base.
Although perhaps not since the anti-Hillary sentiment is very strong as well.
Although perhaps not since the anti-Hillary sentiment is very strong as well.
Yes but the only Constitutional qualifications for becoming President of the United States are being at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen of the United States.
While the oath of office that any and every POTUS takes simply requires them to faithfully execute the duties of their executive office along with preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.
Our valued way of life in a divided limited power democratic republic transcends our bodies, our flag, our buildings and our national anthem.
While the oath of office that any and every POTUS takes simply requires them to faithfully execute the duties of their executive office along with preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.
Our valued way of life in a divided limited power democratic republic transcends our bodies, our flag, our buildings and our national anthem.
2
Fortunately, private organizations -- the political parties -- control the nomination and election process, so not every 35 year old natural born American is eligible. The GOP process failed us all.
1
Gee, I'm over 35 and a natural born citizen. Those are my only qualifications for the office. I guess I'll take office next January!
Trump is an ethical disaster, a model of self-dealing and self-interest. Forgetting the $916 million NOL, which may or may not be justified (we have no way to know, do we?), his reported $6,000 in reported social security-liable wage income in 1995 is a clear tax-dodge, an insult and offense to all working Americans who do pay the taxes they owe.
14
The job of president is special. What may exclude you from other forms of employment in terms of morals or criminal experience is an asset when it comes to being president. "Democracies" main activity lies in deluding the public.
Trump is the poster child for a rule that candidates must release tax returns. Besides surely revealing more tax avoidance and conflicts of interests, his returns may indicate he that he owes his soul to Russian oligarchs.
7
Can someone please identify the young lady in the photograph? She is holding her Trump Ducks in an official United States Postal Service bin. That's theft of Postal Service Property and punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and 5 years in prison.
2
Looks like Ivana.
1
That's utter nonsense. We have several of these bins in our office. Seems the mailman doesn't always take them back. Or sometimes they're used for mass mailings. Whatever the reasons. There are plenty of those bins around just about everywhere.
Funny that you are makin fuss about postal bin. Any business owner with substantial mailings can get this bins from mailmen or postal facilities. I know it as I was in mailing business before retiring and used to keep dozens of bins at my place with the consent of postal officials.
The Person with the most power in the land has to be the most scrutinized.
Obviously.
Being over 35 and a naturalized citizen is not enough of a qualification. We need test scores from kindergarten and to know if he ever pulled Kathy's pig-tails in class. (or) if she ever batted her eyes while telling a lie about homework. We need to have background tests, psychological evaluations and turn over every rock and see what's under. We need to know that having such awesome power will not corrupt our fearless ( they have to be fearless ) leader.
~ And we need to see if they actually paid taxes with those returns.
Obviously.
Being over 35 and a naturalized citizen is not enough of a qualification. We need test scores from kindergarten and to know if he ever pulled Kathy's pig-tails in class. (or) if she ever batted her eyes while telling a lie about homework. We need to have background tests, psychological evaluations and turn over every rock and see what's under. We need to know that having such awesome power will not corrupt our fearless ( they have to be fearless ) leader.
~ And we need to see if they actually paid taxes with those returns.
4
Yeah, I guess that being in the White House can generate great wealth by selling influence.
1
Interesting view. We permitted an admitted soft and gard drug user to become president!
Could we also have the same rule for a Candidate that has killed 4 Americans?
George W Bush killed over $2,000 Americans when he ignored evidence that Osama BinLaden was going to attack America on 9/11, do you really want to go there?
2
"George W Bush killed over $2,000 Americans when he ignored evidence that Osama BinLaden was going to attack America on 9/11, do you really want to go there?"
You left out the little matter of thousands, upon thousands of dead civilians and military AFTER 9/11. But yeah, you don't want to go there.
You left out the little matter of thousands, upon thousands of dead civilians and military AFTER 9/11. But yeah, you don't want to go there.
2
Most jobs, including government contractor jobs, require a credit check. Renting a place to live often times requires a credit check. Since no American bank will do business with him, what kind of credit score do you think trump has? Lower than most people that have lost their houses in the recession I would wager. Shouldn't be able to buy your way into the top job and living abode in the country.
5
Credit checks don't look at tax returns.
Most jobs also require passing a drug screen. Anybody elected to a government office should have to pass a drug screen first.
Doesn't Trump require credit checks to potential renters of his apartments?
This lucid article should be all one needs to say "no" to Mr. Trump at the voting booth, and to elect Mrs. Clinton. Of course, it will not get the readership it so richly deserves, and the Trump camp would argue the phony "fiduciary duty" argument until the lights go out.
The unfortunate truth is that Mr. Trump, and many of his closest allies, are so lacking a moral compass that they believe the fallback position of "he did nothing illegal" is enough. But, we simply do not know that he did noting illegal. We hear his hollow mantras "trust me" and "believe me" many times a day. That should be a signal: do not trust him.
The unfortunate truth is that Mr. Trump, and many of his closest allies, are so lacking a moral compass that they believe the fallback position of "he did nothing illegal" is enough. But, we simply do not know that he did noting illegal. We hear his hollow mantras "trust me" and "believe me" many times a day. That should be a signal: do not trust him.
10
It is ethical to take advantage of so-called loopholes in the law.
This is no more than an unprincipled attack on Donald Trump for taking a tax deduction permitted by law.
If the authors had their way, Americans would be taxed on their Adjusted Gross Income and be required to forego any legally authorized deductions whether the standardized deduction or those from Schedule A.
Utter nonsense!
This is no more than an unprincipled attack on Donald Trump for taking a tax deduction permitted by law.
If the authors had their way, Americans would be taxed on their Adjusted Gross Income and be required to forego any legally authorized deductions whether the standardized deduction or those from Schedule A.
Utter nonsense!
2
To David S in Kansas
You completely missed the point of the well-thought-out article.
You completely missed the point of the well-thought-out article.
3
What principles do you have in mind? Could it be the same the ones that have beggared Kansas, wrecked their public schools and then reelected the lunatic fringe that brought all that really is "the matter with Kansas?"
2
"What principles do you have in mind? Could it be the same the ones that have beggared Kansas, wrecked their public schools and then reelected the lunatic fringe that brought all that really is "the matter with Kansas?""
Ironically, all in the name of lower taxes. You just can't make this stuff up!
Ironically, all in the name of lower taxes. You just can't make this stuff up!
2
Why isn't anyone asking what will happen to the Donald empire if he is elected? Surely a man who has been so hands on his business all is life will not release the reins. Will he have time to govern or will he be cutting the ribbon on a new Trumpet and skip the security briefings?
5
He said he's put his organization into a "blind trust" Then he said that trust would be run by his kid. He obviously has no clue about what a blind trust actually is and, to put a cap on that, one of his sons said the same thing in an interview. He tough he and his siblings would be able to continue being in charge of all operations in the blind trust.
If ignorance is bliss, these people are living in nirvana.
If ignorance is bliss, these people are living in nirvana.
2
"Will he have time to govern or will he be cutting the ribbon on a new Trumpet and skip the security briefings?"
As it is a family business, his stated plan is to "leave it to his kids" to run while in office. I'm good with that -- no conflict of interest there. Now, move along. Nothing to see here.
As it is a family business, his stated plan is to "leave it to his kids" to run while in office. I'm good with that -- no conflict of interest there. Now, move along. Nothing to see here.
1
There is NO RULE stating that anyone who is being audited by the IRS cannot release their tax records. And the IRS has NOT stated that the "candidate"'s records are being audited. I believe they said they are "under review", a fairly innocuous statement, with no legal restrictions.
The candidate's son has stated that, were the tax records to be released, they would raise "questions". No kidding, Mr. Holmes!
Any evidence of tax fraud? Any evidence of yuge foreign investment money (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia)? Any evidence the candidate's net worth is way less than he has boasted?
Come clean!
The candidate's son has stated that, were the tax records to be released, they would raise "questions". No kidding, Mr. Holmes!
Any evidence of tax fraud? Any evidence of yuge foreign investment money (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia)? Any evidence the candidate's net worth is way less than he has boasted?
Come clean!
7
Great, thoughtful article. Everyone who plans to vote in the 2016 election should read and think about this very seriously. Many thanks to Eisen and Painter for writing it.
6
Exactly. Let's all get out there and vote on November 9th.
It's November 8th. Elections are always on Tuesdays. V0TE for sanity and Hillary on November 8th.
1
All these objective and thoughtful critiques of Donald Trump explaining why he is not qualified to be President of The United States, are missing one important point! The millions of Americans who support him are too busy following the exploits of The Kardashians, watching Dancing With The Stars, seeing if they can get themselves on America's Favorite Home Videos, and saving up enough money to purchase their next S.U.V.'s and pick up trucks, to drive on America's well maintained roads, which their high taxes pay for, to bother about such distracting facts!!!
10
HRC has also been following the Kardashians, and just expressed her heartfelt sorrow over the loss of $10 million in jewelry.
2
The rest of the country is talking about how the FBI cut side deals, allowed the destruction of evidence, and gave immunity to people who knowingly destroyed public records.
I have looked far and wide in the New York Times for this story, but what do I find? More Trump taxes.
Do we care about Trump taxes or the fact that the Rule of Law is being put in the Department of Justice's shredder?
New York Times, make sure you write more editorials about Miss Venezuela 1999.
I have looked far and wide in the New York Times for this story, but what do I find? More Trump taxes.
Do we care about Trump taxes or the fact that the Rule of Law is being put in the Department of Justice's shredder?
New York Times, make sure you write more editorials about Miss Venezuela 1999.
1
"The rest of the country?"
Let me guess: Fox is your primary news source?
Let me guess: Fox is your primary news source?
Hey Solomon - Are you talking about Hillary Clinton's emails? If you're saying the rest of the country is still talking about them, you're probably watching Fox News or reading a Breitbart website. They keep talking about them because that's all they've got. And they want you to hate Hillary because it keeps you from opening your ears and paying attention to the disastrous history of your Beloved Trump.
Are you aware that multiple congressional committees have investigated the Clinton email issue? They FBI conducted an investigation. They couldn't come up with a single prosecutable offense. All those Republicans. Even the Republican FBI director. Came up with nothing. Same with Benghazi. Zip. Nothing. Somehow your news sources still think there really IS something there even though all of Clinton's adversaries couldn't find it.
Tell me, were you this indignant when the Bush administration shredded literally tens of thousands of documents in the White House Basement? Documents showing how they fabricated and manipulated evidence in order to start a war in Iraq that has cost tens of thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars? Now tell me more about your concern for the Rule of Law.
Seems you don't let facts get in your way when you make up your mind. Whenever there's a dirty bit of information on your candidate make sure you close your eyes, cover your ears and shout "BENGHAZI!!! EMAILS!!! MONICA!!!". I'm sure you'll feel just fine.
Are you aware that multiple congressional committees have investigated the Clinton email issue? They FBI conducted an investigation. They couldn't come up with a single prosecutable offense. All those Republicans. Even the Republican FBI director. Came up with nothing. Same with Benghazi. Zip. Nothing. Somehow your news sources still think there really IS something there even though all of Clinton's adversaries couldn't find it.
Tell me, were you this indignant when the Bush administration shredded literally tens of thousands of documents in the White House Basement? Documents showing how they fabricated and manipulated evidence in order to start a war in Iraq that has cost tens of thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars? Now tell me more about your concern for the Rule of Law.
Seems you don't let facts get in your way when you make up your mind. Whenever there's a dirty bit of information on your candidate make sure you close your eyes, cover your ears and shout "BENGHAZI!!! EMAILS!!! MONICA!!!". I'm sure you'll feel just fine.
1
I can't imagine you or the New York Times brushing off such corruption under a Republican administration.
We would have months of headlines: CONSTITUTION UNDER SIEGE, with dramatic pronouncements on how the Republic was dead.
Let's just be honest. To the New York Times, corruption, incompetence, hate speech, and slander is acceptable for Democrats.
We would have months of headlines: CONSTITUTION UNDER SIEGE, with dramatic pronouncements on how the Republic was dead.
Let's just be honest. To the New York Times, corruption, incompetence, hate speech, and slander is acceptable for Democrats.
The Republican party is really the "Greed Over the People" party. Don the Con is their perfect candidate. I teach in a middle school with 12 year-old textbooks and Don the Con has NOT paid one cent in Federal taxes over the past 20 years!
14
Trump is playing us all for chumps. He could easily nip this issue in the bud by releasing his tax returns, yet he refuses. His reasons are bogus. He must believe that if he just waits this one out and continues to stonewall, people will get bored and forget, like we have supposedly forgotten the uncountable lies and myriad inanities spewed for years.
But this one is not going away. He disrespects the American voters by cheating us of information we are entitled to.
This should be a deal breaker for all Americans. Even if you can somehow accept the racism, xenophobia, sexism, nativism, no-knowledge, anti-science; and can rationalize that Trump is the ultimate and unrepentant beneficiary of unfair tax laws and the embodiment of the wealth inequality that outrages you; that he will likely continue tax policies that maintain wealth inequality; that he operates on the level of threats and cheating; and you can point to Trump as a role model for your children; still, even you must wonder why his refusal should be treated differently. The same refusal to disclose basic tax information would put a screeching halt to any cabinet member’s nomination. Why is that fair to all the others who must disclose their taxes? How do we justify special treatment for one individual?
Why should Trump get a pass? Don’t you want to know the truth?
But this one is not going away. He disrespects the American voters by cheating us of information we are entitled to.
This should be a deal breaker for all Americans. Even if you can somehow accept the racism, xenophobia, sexism, nativism, no-knowledge, anti-science; and can rationalize that Trump is the ultimate and unrepentant beneficiary of unfair tax laws and the embodiment of the wealth inequality that outrages you; that he will likely continue tax policies that maintain wealth inequality; that he operates on the level of threats and cheating; and you can point to Trump as a role model for your children; still, even you must wonder why his refusal should be treated differently. The same refusal to disclose basic tax information would put a screeching halt to any cabinet member’s nomination. Why is that fair to all the others who must disclose their taxes? How do we justify special treatment for one individual?
Why should Trump get a pass? Don’t you want to know the truth?
15
maybe the entire candidate eligibility profile needs reform. maybe there should be a real requirement of elected legislative experience of at least 15 years (and not counting political appointments), so that the voters aren't forced to make comparisons that have no real basis. maybe there should be a 1 per family limit (to prevent anyone from running on a parent or spouse's record): one and done. maybe there should also be laws against profiteering through holding office (no book contracts, no speeches, just a nice average and taxable pension for public service). that would weed out celebrities, dynasties, and vested interest in creating "legacies" pretty fast. and it would have given us two totally different candidates than these.
1
Far worse than the nonsense about him being a "genius" for using tax rules (written for the rich by their lackeys in Congress - and Trump's accountant said yesterday that Donald wasn't even involved in making his own tax decisions) is what I just read about Trump's comments on 9/11.
I'll make this quick. It goes to his character.
He has been quoted as saying he, "lost hundreds of friends" on that terrible day.
Would you say that if it wasn't true?
Especially knowing the heartache of so many people who did lose loved ones that day?
Well, I just read a great story in Politico about where each candidate was on that day and their recorded statements.
Not one word from Trump about his massive loss of hundreds of friends. Don't you think you would have been grief stricken? Maybe mentioned your loss? Not Donald. Cause the assertion is bull.
Instead, he actually mentioned that his building at 40 Wall Street was now "the tallest building in New York."
Dead friends? Nonsense, he made it up.
Not one peep that day about friends.
His building was now the tallest!
Taxes aside, this man is a shameful excuse for a human.
Huxter, liar beyond anything we've seen.
No self-respecting person would call him friend.
Or vote for him.
I'll make this quick. It goes to his character.
He has been quoted as saying he, "lost hundreds of friends" on that terrible day.
Would you say that if it wasn't true?
Especially knowing the heartache of so many people who did lose loved ones that day?
Well, I just read a great story in Politico about where each candidate was on that day and their recorded statements.
Not one word from Trump about his massive loss of hundreds of friends. Don't you think you would have been grief stricken? Maybe mentioned your loss? Not Donald. Cause the assertion is bull.
Instead, he actually mentioned that his building at 40 Wall Street was now "the tallest building in New York."
Dead friends? Nonsense, he made it up.
Not one peep that day about friends.
His building was now the tallest!
Taxes aside, this man is a shameful excuse for a human.
Huxter, liar beyond anything we've seen.
No self-respecting person would call him friend.
Or vote for him.
48
ON that topic-- I've lived in NYC for 40 years and I've never heard of him having friends. Have we seen any personal friends speak on his behalf-- at the conventions, nothing. He only has other sleazy self-serving associates. He has lived in the same town he grew up in.
Clinton on the other hand has kept in touch with elementary school and college friends--she still is in contact with them and they have spoken for her. She has lived all over the US-- as governor's wife, First Lady of US, US Senator, Secretary of State, and could easily have lost touch.
Says a lot about their characters.
Clinton on the other hand has kept in touch with elementary school and college friends--she still is in contact with them and they have spoken for her. She has lived all over the US-- as governor's wife, First Lady of US, US Senator, Secretary of State, and could easily have lost touch.
Says a lot about their characters.
I wonder why we dont have strict rules to prevent a Thug from running for POTUS and Congress related jobs. I mean if we leave it to people to judge then we already have a case study. Its been a disaster of an election cycle with all the insults and bigotry. Trump is a good satire on our political system. DC must learn and ensure potential POTUS candidates go thru rigorous vetting(review of tax returns/strict background checks etc)before they apply.
1
Wouldn't it be nice if our horrible gop-controlled congress actually did their job, and appointed a new member of the SCOTUS?
1
There is something called 5th amendment. Trump doesn't have to release his tax returns if he doesn't want to. The blame should be on established politicians who took money from lobbyists and created tax loopholes for them. Those loopholes is one liners in a thousand page tax code. He found all those loopholes and drove a truck through it. Let us stay away from moral standards of not paying taxes. None of us will pay taxes if we don't have to. Trump is very good at finding loopholes, he can close them down if he decides to do that. Clinton can't close them because she practices the establishment politics, viz., provide aid and comfort to lobbyists.
36
The tax deduction in question is not a loophole. It was deliberate.
1
He doesn't have to release his tax returns and the American electorate doesn't have to vote for him because he doesn't...
3
No, Trump doesn't have to release anything. (I'll leave it to the law school grads to address your Fifth Amendment reference, but if my memory of civics class holds, pleading the 5th only applies in court. And not the court of public opinion.) But if he wants to be president, he has to play the game by the established rules.
He seems to have a real problem understanding that democracy is a 'game' whose rules he can't ignore or jury-rig to serve his goals. Whether he likes it or not, as president (perish the thought), he will serve us. We, the people, ultimately set the rules.
He seems to have a real problem understanding that democracy is a 'game' whose rules he can't ignore or jury-rig to serve his goals. Whether he likes it or not, as president (perish the thought), he will serve us. We, the people, ultimately set the rules.
2
All this talk of showing old tax returns is messing up Trump's planned strategy of combining zero income taxes with zero estate taxes. Just imagine, in a few decades, Trump children would be able to name Walmart to Trumpmart and the General Motors to Trump Motors.
4
The mind tricks here amaze me.
You smile at a candidate who intentionally exposed THOUSANDS of national security secrets that even got the Ambassador to Libya and that Iranian scientist KILLED.
You then smile at her never telling the truth ONCE about her email system set up to hide activity that she knew was going to be immoral and corrupt even as it made her hundreds of millions of dollars. Somehow, THAT never triggered your hate-the-rich reflex.
The stupid part is that the only people who will care are already decided on their vote from months ago because only the progressives seeking reaffirmation ever bother to come to the obviously politicized Times.
You smile at a candidate who intentionally exposed THOUSANDS of national security secrets that even got the Ambassador to Libya and that Iranian scientist KILLED.
You then smile at her never telling the truth ONCE about her email system set up to hide activity that she knew was going to be immoral and corrupt even as it made her hundreds of millions of dollars. Somehow, THAT never triggered your hate-the-rich reflex.
The stupid part is that the only people who will care are already decided on their vote from months ago because only the progressives seeking reaffirmation ever bother to come to the obviously politicized Times.
1
Hi. You failed to mention hurricane Matthew. She did it.
5
Don't let actual facts get in the way of your diatribe.
You're here.
I despise Trump and everything he stands for. Really and truly. But I fail to understand the fracas over his tax loss carry forward. If it was done legally, there is no issue and the fault lies with the tax system, not the filer. Accountants and CPAs get paid to minimize taxes - legally - for both individuals and corporations. That's their job. What, exactly, is an "unsavory loophole?" Blame those who created it, not those who take advantage of it. The matter of releasing current tax returns, however, is another matter entirely, and I concur that no candidate should even be considered for the office of the President without sharing this information with the voting public.
3
Well, I think the whole thing is pretty unsavory--someone claiming to be so brilliant because he can lose a billion dollars and get even richer from it! I guess I may be confusing tax code and bankruptcy laws, but just the fact that he gamed the system to stiff his contractors and leave pennies on the dollar to his stockholders makes him despicable. This isn't a referendum on how business people use the tax code--any accountant who doesn't tell them to do this is in fact breaching their duty to their client--it's the total picture of this failed business debacle. And I'm sure you see the problem with how Trump's actions correlate to the failure of trickle-down economics? I don't care if everything he did was legal, he's the perfect example of how greedy people will use any break they can to increase their own personal wealth. But I agree, I'm thinking there may be something much more unsavory in those tax filings--ties to Russia perhaps. I don't think we're going to see them though and I hope in one month plus 2 days it won't matter anymore.
Oh, for Gawd's sake NYT editorial board! Trump used the same accounting tool used by both the NYT and the opposing candidate, Hillary Clinton. You both did it in the past two years on your own taxes.
You even run an article of Trump's many failed development projects, which are not unique to him alone. Many development projects fail due to circumstances beyond the control of those initiating them. That is why Trump, and other developers, use the completely legal , ETHICAL, common, pedestrian accounting technique of taking a tax deduction on losses in business. It's not a loophole. It was designed for that purpose.
You even run an article of Trump's many failed development projects, which are not unique to him alone. Many development projects fail due to circumstances beyond the control of those initiating them. That is why Trump, and other developers, use the completely legal , ETHICAL, common, pedestrian accounting technique of taking a tax deduction on losses in business. It's not a loophole. It was designed for that purpose.
2
There's a big difference between legal and ethical. Trump is an unscrupulous businessman who manages to do everything legally. And yes, there are many more like him which is why this theory of trickle-down economics is so flawed. If he had a "fiduciary duty" to his own personal wealth (how disingenuous to foist this mumbo-jumbo on his ignorant supporters), don't all the wealthy people who will get a tax break under Trump have the same?
And about failed business ventures--there is always accountability at the top. Blaming failure on circumstances beyond your control is really a cop-out. Isn't this how CEO's justify their huge bonuses? The buck stops with them. Trump made many bad decisions. From what I know about his casino years, it sounds like his arrogance kept him from reading the writing on the wall. He just kept digging himself in deeper.
But most importantly, let's not forget that besides using the tax code to save himself tax liability, he also gamed the system to stiff his contractors and stockholders--and even the banks. Legally, sure, but ethically?
Nope, you can rationalize all you want, but this kind of unsavory history from someone who claims to be so brilliant does not inspire confidence.
And about failed business ventures--there is always accountability at the top. Blaming failure on circumstances beyond your control is really a cop-out. Isn't this how CEO's justify their huge bonuses? The buck stops with them. Trump made many bad decisions. From what I know about his casino years, it sounds like his arrogance kept him from reading the writing on the wall. He just kept digging himself in deeper.
But most importantly, let's not forget that besides using the tax code to save himself tax liability, he also gamed the system to stiff his contractors and stockholders--and even the banks. Legally, sure, but ethically?
Nope, you can rationalize all you want, but this kind of unsavory history from someone who claims to be so brilliant does not inspire confidence.
But you are ranting and railing based on hearsay
Maybe Trump's casinos would have been successful if he allowed prostitutes and pimps to operate in them.
Maybe Trump's casinos would have been successful if he allowed prostitutes and pimps to operate in them.
What a load of clap- trap. For example, this red herring " a fiduciary duty to shareholders to structure deals to minimize taxes is false. The law does not require corporate officers and directors to avoid taxes" - a false equivalency and likely intentional misdirection. Fiduciary duty is not defined by a particular law, these 'ethics gurus' should stick to their knitting (literally).
3
Won't Trump have to release his tax returns as President?
Powerful OP-ED. Donald Trump is so unpatriotic in so many ways and yet supposedly very patriotic Republicans continue to support him. What gives? Could it be hypocrisy?
9
"Donald Trump is so unpatriotic in so many ways and yet supposedly very patriotic Republicans continue to support him. What gives? Could it be hypocrisy?"
Is that that newfangled thing called sarcasm?
If it looks like a Republican. Talks like a Republican. It must be a hypocrite.
Is that that newfangled thing called sarcasm?
If it looks like a Republican. Talks like a Republican. It must be a hypocrite.
1
There should be far more stringent requirements to become President. I don't mean this in a way to suggest only the wealthy or well connected are eligible. Yet we need to view the process practically. In the regular job market, most employers require experience relevant to the open position. Scrutiny often includes background checks, review of finances and tax returns, sometimes even physicals and drug testing. Increasingly, we read of employers checking the social media of applicants to discern their character. Why do we allow employers across the land to legally implement such criteria, yet do not for POTUS, the most demanding and important job in the world? Donald Trump would have been vetted long ago and our election would not have become an embarrassing circus.
4
Wealthy people are unqualified for the presidency because they do not understand the real America. The elite bubble is irrelevant to most American voters. What makes America special is its vast middle class, NOT its elitist cliques, which are a dime a dozen. Every country in the world has those. By themselves, elites accomplish nothing and are worth nothing.
1
"Wealthy people are unqualified for the presidency because they do not understand the real America."
And yet, wealthy presidents are elected all the time. How'd that happen? TR, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush and W had varying degrees of large wealth and also success as president. The first four I mentioned had a solid rapport and empathized with the people (well, other than that Vietnam thing). The latter three, well, the less said, the better.
And yet, wealthy presidents are elected all the time. How'd that happen? TR, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Bush and W had varying degrees of large wealth and also success as president. The first four I mentioned had a solid rapport and empathized with the people (well, other than that Vietnam thing). The latter three, well, the less said, the better.
1
Messieurs, please convert this article into letter form and send to every republican member of Congress who has endorsed Mr. Trump or claimed that while not endorsing him, they will vote for him. Thank you.
6
When corporations were first created their articles of incorporation stated their specific reasons for their creation (e.g.; to make furniture.). This is what the law provided. Currently a permissible legal corporate objective is to maximize profit. Thus, any legal reason that exists to not pay a tax necessarily aids in maximizing profit. This is what the law provides. Obviously, people that make the law have seen fit to make such behavior lawful. To change the law, if that is your desire, change the people that make the law. Don't be a hypocrite by scolding people for doing what is legal and thus perpetuate this corrupt "legal" system. Legal should be that which the majority desires and is fair to all.
1
Some posters are missing the point of this article. The bottom line is neither a Republican president nor Democratic president would have appointed a cabinet member with Trump's tax returns. Nor would they appoint someone who refused to reveal his or her returns. The next president of the United States should be held to that same, exacting standard.
7
Disaster of an article that will hurt HIllary. You have set Trump up to make a fool out of you by releasing his 2015 taxes on Oct 17. He is a con man and your "sincerity" and trying to be fair and "reasonable" is just laughable.
2
"Disaster of an article that will hurt HIllary. You have set Trump up to make a fool out of you by releasing his 2015 taxes on Oct 17. He is a con man and your "sincerity" and trying to be fair and "reasonable" is just laughable."
This isn't a win-win for Trump, by any stretch. The fact is that it's a lose-only proposition. He won't gain any voters by being shown to be a "good businessman", because "they" already knew that, and love him for it. He can only lose here, because his taxes will only show how big a fraudulent shark he is. If you (the generic you) think he's worth his stated $10 billion, then, as some one so eloquently put it, I've cause a causeway in the Florida Keys that I can sell you.
This isn't a win-win for Trump, by any stretch. The fact is that it's a lose-only proposition. He won't gain any voters by being shown to be a "good businessman", because "they" already knew that, and love him for it. He can only lose here, because his taxes will only show how big a fraudulent shark he is. If you (the generic you) think he's worth his stated $10 billion, then, as some one so eloquently put it, I've cause a causeway in the Florida Keys that I can sell you.
1
Thank you for explaining. I am worried about an "October Surprise" and if as WSJ reported Trump might be getting ready to release his 2015 taxes later this month it will at the very least create confusion and "pull the rug" from under a major line of attacks on him and many people who only sort of like him will be satisfied that he is good enough. I thought the article should have been written in a way that can criticize Trump now while also pre-empting any trick he might pull later this month.
Perhaps the authors of this article should have remembered when the Clintons took tax deductions for donating their used underwear:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/16/us/clinton-taxes-laid-bare-line-by-lin...
(article in NY Times)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/12/28/bill-clinton...
(article in Washington Post)
Tell us, Mssrs. Eisen and Painter, What does taking a deduction for used underwear tell us about the individuals who filed the returns?
From an ethical perspective, I am much more concerned about Ms. Clinton intentionally using a private email sever to send classified emails while in public office than Mr. Trump availing himself of the full benefit of our US tax laws for his personal advantage while a private citizen. The former practice is illegal and unethical; the latter is neither.
In future articles and opinion pieces, I would be grateful if the New York Times and its writers were a bit more even-handed when reporting and editorializing.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/16/us/clinton-taxes-laid-bare-line-by-lin...
(article in NY Times)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/12/28/bill-clinton...
(article in Washington Post)
Tell us, Mssrs. Eisen and Painter, What does taking a deduction for used underwear tell us about the individuals who filed the returns?
From an ethical perspective, I am much more concerned about Ms. Clinton intentionally using a private email sever to send classified emails while in public office than Mr. Trump availing himself of the full benefit of our US tax laws for his personal advantage while a private citizen. The former practice is illegal and unethical; the latter is neither.
In future articles and opinion pieces, I would be grateful if the New York Times and its writers were a bit more even-handed when reporting and editorializing.
2
No charitable organisation accepts undergarments for donation. They cannot be sold or given away. Therefore you cannot take a tax deduction for something that cannot be donated.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
You win the false equivalency award of the day. A $2 underwear deduction? You do realize that both Bill and Hillary came from humble backgrounds, right? Hillary was/is a very frugal person and always worried about the future -- Minnie Pearl was grandiose in comparison. Ridiculous as this is, it's no bankrupt casino. The Clintons came into the White House with very little wealth, and left it with very little wealth, unlike the country they left to W.
You win the false equivalency award of the day. A $2 underwear deduction? You do realize that both Bill and Hillary came from humble backgrounds, right? Hillary was/is a very frugal person and always worried about the future -- Minnie Pearl was grandiose in comparison. Ridiculous as this is, it's no bankrupt casino. The Clintons came into the White House with very little wealth, and left it with very little wealth, unlike the country they left to W.
2
But not having to show proof of natural citizenship is okay?
Tax returns are never read or understood and are inconsequential insofar as any wrongdoing would have been noted and acted upon by the IRS. Especially under this administration, which invents all sorts of crimes to against its perceived enemies.
Tax returns are never read or understood and are inconsequential insofar as any wrongdoing would have been noted and acted upon by the IRS. Especially under this administration, which invents all sorts of crimes to against its perceived enemies.
4
Lonely, you need to get over this. Obama didn't need a birth certificate to have proof of being a natural citizen. You are aware of the fact that Obama's mother was an American citizen, right? That makes him a natural citizen, no matter where he was born (which was Hawaii, by the way..). You can be a natural citizen and not be born on American soil, as was the definite case for Ted Cruz. No, the Birther movement had more to do with the implication that it was Kenya where Obama was born and that this somehow made him Muslim (which also by the way, Muslims are allowed to be president of the United States, according to the first amendment of the constitution). And so this was a purely racist effort--for which Trump claims to be very proud.
3
@Lonely Republican
"But not having to show proof of natural citizenship is okay?"
The loneliness is explained.
"But not having to show proof of natural citizenship is okay?"
The loneliness is explained.
1
"You are aware of the fact that Obama's mother was an American citizen, right? That makes him a natural citizen, no matter where he was born (which was Hawaii, by the way..). You can be a natural citizen and not be born on American soil, as was the definite case for Ted Cruz."
Republicans, especially lonely ones, can't count past 49, so the "Hawaii thing" will always be suspect. Oh, any why did you have to bring up Lucifer Cruz again? The curse of indigestion.
Republicans, especially lonely ones, can't count past 49, so the "Hawaii thing" will always be suspect. Oh, any why did you have to bring up Lucifer Cruz again? The curse of indigestion.
1
Trump's refusal to release his taxes is the point, not whether this is in the US Constituition, or Hillary's emails, or any other false analogies to the question asked. The real point is that the GOP and its choice of nominee for the US presidency agree that government is the problem, an idea that's probably as old as Thomas Jefferson's argument with Alexander Hamilton. This idea has been beefed up by the likes of Grover Norquist and others who believe government is the enemy of us. Why then do those folk run? To do damage to the idea that we are in this together from the poorest of us to those who have been both lucky or hard-working or as someone once said "born with a silver spoon" somewhere in their anatomy. The authors of this article speak to a particular truth. And to the quote that "[t]here is no such thing as a 'fiduciary duty' as a businessman to oneself" should make it clear.
8
Why not have the IRS vouch that the individual is current on their taxes? Afterall, that is their job. Mark
2
This is good opinion, but don't forget about his plans for the family buisness if elected. The second rule for occupying the White House is to place your investments in a blind trust. Trump's plan is to have the kids handle his investments.
4
Neither the candidate nor his "kids" have any idea what a blind trust actually is, nor do they seem at interested in learning (anything).
1
Until it is a legal requirement, there is nothing that we can do about trump's ducking release of his tax returns. We are wasting our energy going in this direction. The best direction is to mandate disclosure of tax returns as a matter of law.
trump has set a precedent that others will likely follow, therefore, this should be the first and last time this sorry situation is ever allowed to occur.
trump has set a precedent that others will likely follow, therefore, this should be the first and last time this sorry situation is ever allowed to occur.
A lot of pundits and pols are trying to present this picture about Trump’s tax dodge – both, on the partial 1995 state tax returns revealed by the NY Times and on his refusal to release any of his federal returns using a dubious “audit” excuse – as not a big deal from the voter’s perspective.
Actually, it is a big deal to the average Joe that a filthy rich man can avoid paying any taxes for god knows how many years? Hundreds of millions of Americans on a payroll don’t have a choice as their taxes are deducted at source. They do not have the luxury of these fancy loopholes to avoid paying more than fair share. It is an absolute outrage that billionaires like Trump (as he claims to be) use a nonsensical “fiduciary duty” excuse to avoid paying taxes on personal returns. We might not be rich, but we aren’t stupid, Mr. Trump!
So with apologies to Johnnie Cochran, I’d suggest:
In the Oval Office, if you want to sit
Your tax returns, you must submit!
If the people working in the White House are legally bound to submit their tax returns in order to be able to work there, I don’t see how Trump can be excused from doing so? If there are skeletons in Trump’s tax closet, it is imperative that we the people know about them now, before we cast our votes rather than face some sort of constitutional crisis later?
Actually, it is a big deal to the average Joe that a filthy rich man can avoid paying any taxes for god knows how many years? Hundreds of millions of Americans on a payroll don’t have a choice as their taxes are deducted at source. They do not have the luxury of these fancy loopholes to avoid paying more than fair share. It is an absolute outrage that billionaires like Trump (as he claims to be) use a nonsensical “fiduciary duty” excuse to avoid paying taxes on personal returns. We might not be rich, but we aren’t stupid, Mr. Trump!
So with apologies to Johnnie Cochran, I’d suggest:
In the Oval Office, if you want to sit
Your tax returns, you must submit!
If the people working in the White House are legally bound to submit their tax returns in order to be able to work there, I don’t see how Trump can be excused from doing so? If there are skeletons in Trump’s tax closet, it is imperative that we the people know about them now, before we cast our votes rather than face some sort of constitutional crisis later?
5
His refusal to disclose more speaks volumes, and if there's anyone left out there who actually believes that the fictitious "audit" is taking place, they deserve Trump as their president.
4
Thanks to the authors for clearing this up.
Trump's "fiduciary responsibility" excuse never made sense to me because the benefits went to himself and his family. Too bad Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, and Rep. Chris Collins, among others went out of their way to defend this practice, showing us that Donald Trump isn't the only one that lies.
Trump's "fiduciary responsibility" excuse never made sense to me because the benefits went to himself and his family. Too bad Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, and Rep. Chris Collins, among others went out of their way to defend this practice, showing us that Donald Trump isn't the only one that lies.
6
Funny article from the Times.
Preident Obama, a self admitted known drug user of both cocaine and marijuana, has the nuclear codes in his back pocket.
Let us be realistic. A known drug user or someone who dosen't need to and is not obligated to release their taxes. Which is a bigger threat ?
Preident Obama, a self admitted known drug user of both cocaine and marijuana, has the nuclear codes in his back pocket.
Let us be realistic. A known drug user or someone who dosen't need to and is not obligated to release their taxes. Which is a bigger threat ?
4
He can't be that well known as a drug user since I'd never heard of it.
I have a feeling you didn't have any problem voting for w., an admitted alcoholic and cocaine user, did you?
How about we drug test the candidates? What do you think we'll learn?
How about we drug test the candidates? What do you think we'll learn?
1
Peter
I'm sorry you are not informed about the Presidents youth, however, you can read in his autobiography:
Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him. In an interview
I'm sorry you are not informed about the Presidents youth, however, you can read in his autobiography:
Obama had written in his first book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him. In an interview
As long as the candidate complies with the law and turns over everything to the IRS, I have less of an issue with this. The question is whether "legal but unsavory" is a threshold for presidential candidates. If so, Hillary Clinton would be automatically disqualified given the number of times she has used this defense.
By all means, change the laws, but stop with this selective application of outrage.
By all means, change the laws, but stop with this selective application of outrage.
4
Good, agree with WH Rule #1. Now let's add White House Rule #2: You Destroy Evidence (e.g., deleting 30,000+ emails) No Job.
4
Are you kidding?? The W. Bush administration destroyed millions of emails before W. left office. Republicans keep thinking that the rules don't apply to them.
THANK YOU. This is probably the most significant statement to come out of this whole pathetic mess.
7
Trump is a sorry candidate who has mesmerized forty percent of the people likely to vote, and that is the problem, not his failure to release his tax returns. Sorry to remind the authors but we live in a country with democratic institutions which pretty much entitle anyone that a majority of the people want to be in the top spot the right to assume office and responsibilities and authority that come with it. If you do not want ignorant or deceptive or unethical people serving, then you had better change the way the electorate goes about determining who that they want to serve. To do that you need to crackdown on businesses that use up the electronic media for their own purposes instead of providing a source of news and background information that is relevant to the interests of society. It means providing everyone with much better educations so that they have a much better grasp of their world and of the people in it, so that they can determine their needs and elected representatives who can serve those needs with enlightened minds. It also means that the electorate does not reelect people who don't serve their interests, that they hold elected officials accountable for what the do.
Change your system. Subject all presidential candidates to a higher standard. Give them physicals, mental health tests, knowledge of current affairs, background checks, must produce last 5 tax returns, etc. Without this you end up with Trump and Johnson-two men totally unsuited for the office of president.
9
I wish just one reporter would ask Trump exactly which tax years are under audit. It would be fair to assume that is the most recent two or three years. Then that reporter could ask him why he isn't releasing the years no longer under audit. Seems simple enough?
18
Even more to the point, ask Trump to produce his letter from the IRS stating the audit. The Times simply *assumed* that Trump was telling the truth about being audited. Given Trump's reflexive mendacity, this was a yuge mistake.
When asked about the audit letter by a TV talking head, Kellyanne Conway sputtered and stammered, and could only come up with "are you calling Donald Trump a liar?" That reaction indicates that either Conway knows he's lying about the audit, or she doesn't know and suspects he could be lying. Not to put too fine a point on it, but given his record, my default position is that Trump is lying, unless proven otherwise.
When asked about the audit letter by a TV talking head, Kellyanne Conway sputtered and stammered, and could only come up with "are you calling Donald Trump a liar?" That reaction indicates that either Conway knows he's lying about the audit, or she doesn't know and suspects he could be lying. Not to put too fine a point on it, but given his record, my default position is that Trump is lying, unless proven otherwise.
7
Totally agree with you on this. Trump never was and never will release his tax returns. He thought it wouldn't be an issue or he could bluster his way around it. Its one of the many character defects that will keep him out of the White House.
That crooked lying Trump is unfit for the presidency, and for that matter to any public office, has been shown repeatedly. I suspect we remain complicit in supporting this sneaky bully by not denouncing him in real time, as he continues to lie indiscriminately, unscrupulously, and with the willful ignorance that characterize him. The republican party, hypocritical to no end, does not deserve viability nor respect for its corrupted ways. And his surrogates, Pence, Gingrich, Giuliani, Christie, even some women (Kelly Ann?), unprincipled and bullies themselves, shameless thugs that lost all credibility, are the scourge, like a pestilence, the majority is trying to avoid. Not releasing his tax returns, Trump has shown that, thus far, he is able to get away with 'murder'. How is that even possible? Are we that stupid, that irresponsible, unlimited brainwits?
27
Pence? Gingrich? Giuliani? Christie?
So I guess it appears that Trump HAS been "palling around" with terrorists, as well. I didn't think it was possible for someone to make the same mistake as President Obama did, eight years back.
So I guess it appears that Trump HAS been "palling around" with terrorists, as well. I didn't think it was possible for someone to make the same mistake as President Obama did, eight years back.
2
Some people seem to be saying that Mr Trump is not responsible for his tax arrangements because he has a CPA. The notion that he does not know what his CPA is doing is absurd to anyone who has worked with a wealthy businessman who is committed to tax avoidance. He may not know the text of the regulations but the entities he has his tax attorney set up are structured to facilitate tax avoidance from the beginning and he knows exactly what is being done.
The point is that Mr Trump’s refusal to disclose would disqualify him from serving in any position in government requiring the consent of congress, since he does not meet the accepted ethical standard for public service.
This is about character, not politics or finance. Anyone who thinks this is irrelevant is part of the problem.
The point is that Mr Trump’s refusal to disclose would disqualify him from serving in any position in government requiring the consent of congress, since he does not meet the accepted ethical standard for public service.
This is about character, not politics or finance. Anyone who thinks this is irrelevant is part of the problem.
20
"The point is that Mr Trump’s refusal to disclose would disqualify him from serving in any position in government requiring the consent of congress, since he does not meet the accepted ethical standard for public service."
Worse still, he wants to be the boss of people who have to undergo this amount of rigor. The hypocrisy is on an endless loop.
Worse still, he wants to be the boss of people who have to undergo this amount of rigor. The hypocrisy is on an endless loop.
1
The past is a good predictor of the future. Those who have created and benefitted from a tax system that enshrines inequality are not good candidates for the reform that is so desperately needed. This why Trump and his defenders in the Republican Party must be defeated. Nobody thinks Hillary and a Democratic congress will be the second coming, but the possibilities for change to the system that gave us the sick Trump empire will be so much greater.
14
The US was founded by people who were running away from taxes to the British monarchy. So, an aversion to paying taxes is coded in our DNA. The irony is people like Trump are now the modern day monarchy. The masses pay taxes on their behalf.
5
"Taxation without representation is tyranny!"
Trump supporters, no doubt, would echo that 260 year old phrase with great passion. Odd, then, that they want to elect a tyrant (based upon his personality, words and past behavior) to lead them. This really is the "Dead Zone".
Trump supporters, no doubt, would echo that 260 year old phrase with great passion. Odd, then, that they want to elect a tyrant (based upon his personality, words and past behavior) to lead them. This really is the "Dead Zone".
1
The authors make a good point. There is no such thing as fiduciary duty to oneself. It's just greed.
13
How do we know if Trump broke the law if he doesn't release ALL his tax returns? This newspaper published Trumps return from almost 20 years ago which showed he payed no taxes. Since the Trump campaign has not contested what was printed, then release the rest of his returns. Not releasing them after this discovery leads me to believe that there's alot more in subsequent returns to sink this candidate even further.
5
jc LI, NY:
How do we know if Trump broke the law if he doesn't release ALL his tax returns?
****
The same way Hillary expected us to believe her destroyed emails didn't contain classified information. Benefit of the doubt.
Hillary believed it was acceptable to withhold her emails from Americans. She even destroyed them to make sure they were not seen by Americans. Many defended her right to privacy.
In this campaign, withholding information is standard practice. Only one candidate, however, destroyed "evidence."
How do we know if Trump broke the law if he doesn't release ALL his tax returns?
****
The same way Hillary expected us to believe her destroyed emails didn't contain classified information. Benefit of the doubt.
Hillary believed it was acceptable to withhold her emails from Americans. She even destroyed them to make sure they were not seen by Americans. Many defended her right to privacy.
In this campaign, withholding information is standard practice. Only one candidate, however, destroyed "evidence."
1
I guess from your response you are agreeing that there is alot more to hide in Trumps subsequent tax returns. GO HILLARY!!!!!
Many of those commenting here are trying to suggest there is something partisan about the demand to see Trump's tax returns. But much to the contrary, the article avoids partisanship and simply highlights the reasons why this disclosure by all presidential candidates is so important.
Discussing a candidate's past errors is fair game, but is not relevant to the topic at hand. By not being able to see Trump's tax returns ahead of the election the country is at risk of electing a president with serious conflicts of interest and other ethical concerns that should matter as much to Republicans as they do to Democrats.
All candidates for decades have released their tax returns to the public. Every American should be concerned by Trump's disregard for this important tradition. What does he have to hide?
Discussing a candidate's past errors is fair game, but is not relevant to the topic at hand. By not being able to see Trump's tax returns ahead of the election the country is at risk of electing a president with serious conflicts of interest and other ethical concerns that should matter as much to Republicans as they do to Democrats.
All candidates for decades have released their tax returns to the public. Every American should be concerned by Trump's disregard for this important tradition. What does he have to hide?
15
The 916,000,000+ number has everyone's attention and because of it we're all missing the point. That kind of loss should have made Trump bankrupt, but that didn't happen. Why?
In the numerous stories about the failures in Atlantic City there have been reports that the two Trump casinos made regular payments to many of the over 200 Trump owned LLC's while stiffing non-Trump business invoices. Essentially, the Trump LLC's bankrupted the casinos while pocketing the profits.
When the auction of the properties was settled the non-Trump businesses holding unpaid invoices got pennies on the dollar as a settlement.
Meanwhile, the LLC's managed to pass through the losses to Trump's personal taxes.
Meanwhile "The" Donald and Marla lived the high life despite the meager wages that Trump reported for 1995. None of his LLC's went bankrupt and a whole lot of creditors got stiffed. All perfectly legal and all highly unethical.
How does one manufacture a success out of what appears to be a total failure? Through unethical behavior.
Does that make Trump a genius? Does that make him an ethical person who is simply protecting his fiduciary responsibilities? No.
In the numerous stories about the failures in Atlantic City there have been reports that the two Trump casinos made regular payments to many of the over 200 Trump owned LLC's while stiffing non-Trump business invoices. Essentially, the Trump LLC's bankrupted the casinos while pocketing the profits.
When the auction of the properties was settled the non-Trump businesses holding unpaid invoices got pennies on the dollar as a settlement.
Meanwhile, the LLC's managed to pass through the losses to Trump's personal taxes.
Meanwhile "The" Donald and Marla lived the high life despite the meager wages that Trump reported for 1995. None of his LLC's went bankrupt and a whole lot of creditors got stiffed. All perfectly legal and all highly unethical.
How does one manufacture a success out of what appears to be a total failure? Through unethical behavior.
Does that make Trump a genius? Does that make him an ethical person who is simply protecting his fiduciary responsibilities? No.
22
There's a lot we don't know. Losing $917 million doesn't mean he must be bankrupt. If he was originally worth more than that amount (a big if), then he still would have a positive net worth. If the banks restructured his debt, then forgiveness of that debt may be taxable income. Any such income would offset the losses. Did that income get included? This is all speculation because we don't have enough information. Donald, release your tax returns!
1
"Meanwhile "The" Donald and Marla lived the high life despite the meager wages that Trump reported for 1995. None of his LLC's went bankrupt and a whole lot of creditors got stiffed. All perfectly legal and all highly unethical."
It's also been reported that, just prior to the casinos' collapse, Fred Trump sent a "representative" to one of the casinos, who purchased $3.5 million in chips, then delivered the unused chips to the Donald. Yes, that's pure business genius -- getting daddy to keep your LLCs afloat. Ethics? That's for the little people.
It's also been reported that, just prior to the casinos' collapse, Fred Trump sent a "representative" to one of the casinos, who purchased $3.5 million in chips, then delivered the unused chips to the Donald. Yes, that's pure business genius -- getting daddy to keep your LLCs afloat. Ethics? That's for the little people.
2
I believe that Donald Trump is temperamentally, intellectually and by background and training unfit to serve as president. However, complying with the tax code as written by Congress, interpreted by Treasury and enforced by the IRS adds nothing to the discussion of his fitness to serve. Politicians and rich people are subject to the same tax laws as the rest of us.
Judge Learned Hand said it as well as it can be said:
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."
Judge Learned Hand said it as well as it can be said:
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes."
4
How you fail to look at his refusal to allow access to the returns, combined with how the substance of what we now have through no cooperation of his own contradicts obviously disingenuous explanations of how his proposals for tax reform will benefit the average American, and not see how all of this illustrates just how "temperamentally, intellectually and by background and training unfit to serve as president" he is frankly baffles. At least he doesn't have your vote. Now if only this one particularity of his unfitness didn't have your blind eye. On the other hand, I suppose, it shows that Trump can't even count on his fellow loophole artists for support. Now that's encouraging!
1
Your point is so true - and could not be better said!!
Jeff: greatly admired, Hand never got a shot at the Supreme Court. I prefer the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
3
It's rather ironic that there is little criteria to meet in order to become president let alone mandating showing one's taxes. Think about what most professional jobs ask us to have: a college degree and many times a masters or higher, proper credentialing and licensing, job experience or internship. And yet none of the above is required to become president. There are more regulations to become a real estate agent than the president. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, social workers, teachers, etc., all have to hold specialized degrees and training, licensing and pass a knowledge test before they can ever be hired. Why should it be any different to hold the highest job of our country as president?
13
Who will gate-keep the gatekeepers?
In democracies, the responsibility falls to the voters.
In democracies, the responsibility falls to the voters.
1
It is absolutely necessary to see where conflicts of interest may exist. This is why he must deliver his tax returns if he wants to continue his candidacy.
I can't believe there is even a question. Any job of significance involving money requires a background check that includes a credit report, and an assessment of a person's risk to the industry. Without a clear understanding of where a president gets his money, how can we be sure he is not using his office to enrich his businesses?
I can't believe there is even a question. Any job of significance involving money requires a background check that includes a credit report, and an assessment of a person's risk to the industry. Without a clear understanding of where a president gets his money, how can we be sure he is not using his office to enrich his businesses?
16
Donald Trump has no obligation to pay more taxes than the law requires nor to disclose his return to me. He has the right to withhold that information. But he wants something from me.....he wants my vote. And I condition my vote on, among other things, disclosure of both his income taxes and other business-related information to assure myself there are no conflicts that might tempt him to act for his personal benefit instead of the national interest. I condition my vote on knowing he does not have financial entanglements with foreign governments, criminal syndicates, or devious bankers who might pressure or induce him to act on their behalf and not mine. And I condition my vote on knowing that his wealth is not the result of illegal or unethical behavior, behavior that would render him unfit for office. Those are the conditions. I believe it is called The Art of the Deal. I have something Donald Trump wants, i.e., my vote. He may have something that I want, i.e., a capacity for leadership and problem-solving. if he can convince me he has those qualities and in turn can supply what I require of him then we may have a deal. But if he refuses to meet my base conditions then I do not care about his jet nor his flamboyance nor his branding; he has not met my minimal requirements so there is no deal. As a Republican with a long career in international business I am very aware of the kinds of financial entanglements than can enmesh Donald Trump. I want evidence they do not exist.
429
Do you apply these conditions to every politician who gets your vote? If you did, you wouldn't need to bother to register to vote. You may have noticed a strange phenomenon. Just about every hack who gets elected manages to increase her/his net worth considerably on a meager government salary. Strange, huh?
1
"disclosure of both his income taxes and other business-related information to assure myself there are no conflicts that might tempt him to act for his personal benefit instead of the national interest."
I believe we can call a spade a spade on his tendencies. Enjoyed your comment - if people began reasoning their way through their voting decision and not reacting viscerally to all of the scandal I do not think it would be a race at all.
I believe we can call a spade a spade on his tendencies. Enjoyed your comment - if people began reasoning their way through their voting decision and not reacting viscerally to all of the scandal I do not think it would be a race at all.
1
Trump-Putin "bromance"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing
Trump-Christy "bromance"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/trump-chris-christie-casin...
Trump-New Jersey Mafia
http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-story-youre-not-hearing/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3716125/How-Trump-Mob-offer-not-...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing
Trump-Christy "bromance"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/trump-chris-christie-casin...
Trump-New Jersey Mafia
http://billmoyers.com/story/donald-trump-story-youre-not-hearing/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3716125/How-Trump-Mob-offer-not-...
1
I think there is also a White House rule about having sex in your office with subordinates. But we let Bill Clinton remain president for doing something that would have gotten any Army captain prosecuted, and any CEO or mail clerk fired.
And, as the Wall Street Journal thoroughly limns today, Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted under facts that would have gotten almost anybody else charged.
Turns out, presidents -- and Clintons -- can do a lot of stuff the rest of us can't. Why should Trump be different?
And, as the Wall Street Journal thoroughly limns today, Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted under facts that would have gotten almost anybody else charged.
Turns out, presidents -- and Clintons -- can do a lot of stuff the rest of us can't. Why should Trump be different?
13
Well, this is about tax returns and pre-office qualifications, so your comparison is off the mark. Further, Bill Clinton was subjected to impeachment proceedings, just like your hypothetical Army captain's hypothetical discipline. So I fail to see the relevance of the comparison. So, back to your question -- why should Trump be treated any differently regarding his tax returns?
1
@Philboyd
Typical Trump supporter--change the subject. Stay on topic! Trump fails the minimum ethical standard that would be required of one of his subordinates. All the money (tens of millions) that's been spent on investigating the Clintons by career prosecuters has not resulted in any finding that the Republicans desire, so give it a rest.
Typical Trump supporter--change the subject. Stay on topic! Trump fails the minimum ethical standard that would be required of one of his subordinates. All the money (tens of millions) that's been spent on investigating the Clintons by career prosecuters has not resulted in any finding that the Republicans desire, so give it a rest.
2
So Demagogue~Don stealing from the public is OK?
2
You can't borrow ten cents in this country without showing the bank your tax return. Why? Because they have to learn if they can trust you.
'Nuff said.
'Nuff said.
50
That's just a lie. Why are you lying?
1
True That! You can't even rent an apartment without showing your returns!
Simple. I'm not.
Trump doesn't want his tax returns shown not because he's doing anything illegal (shady, but not illegal), but because they show his failure as a skilled business person.
17
SIX Bankruptcies is proof of his failure as a businessperson; the Tax Returns show how entangled he is with other Oligarchs in Russia and China....something he'd rather hide.
1
The only thing more depressing than reading another article about why Donald Trump is not fit to be president is seeing so many comments from well-spoken, well-educated readers who still support him.
69
Well-spoken, well-educated doesn't always translate into responsible or thoughtful members of society. At this juncture, there is a very low-level of compassion and large measure of selfishness and greed as America's norms. "It's all about me".....is really what America is all about.
Those supporters know that the continued existence of the United States is clearly at risk in this election. Does the Bill of Rights even merit your concern?
3
Trump has gotten a pass on so many norms we expect from a Presidential candidate, his hiding his tax returns is no surprise. It's possible he avoided taxes legally but maybe not. If he thinks it was justified, why won't he share it with us? Maybe it's because tax avoidance may be something we could accept in a businessman but not necessarily in a Presidential candidate.
5
Maybe Trump's reluctance stems from the simple fact that it would tarnish the "brand". He, obviously, has no fear of failure -- this is something stiffed creditors and employees, everywhere, can attest to. Being found out to be a failure is his stifling fear.
1
"We wouldn’t have let someone with Trump’s returns serve in the cabinet, so how can he be president?"
Really? Tim Geithner was appointed by President Obama as Secretary of the Treasury despite neglecting to pay Medicare and Social Security taxes for several years. He also "forgot" to file for two years. But I guess that's OK.
Really? Tim Geithner was appointed by President Obama as Secretary of the Treasury despite neglecting to pay Medicare and Social Security taxes for several years. He also "forgot" to file for two years. But I guess that's OK.
8
The Golden Pen Award! Thanks for that memory jog.
White House is very hypocritical. Obama hired Wall Street players back in 2009; their allegiance was with the banks and financial institutions, not addressing the needs of the American people, reeling from the The Great Recession. Geithner and Summers policies were awful for Americans, who had underwater mortgages.
1
Were Trump the ''Media Party's'' candidate we would have never heard his taxes being an issue. Hillary takes advantage of EVERY tax provision as well.
The Constitution gives three eligibility requirements to be president: one must be 35 years of age, a resident "within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen," a term not defined in the Constitution. After that, the voters can decide. It seems that the media just want to snoop so they have another story to run on and exploit. By the way, I’m reluctantly voting for Clinton because I think she’ll is slightly less risky that Trump – however I don’t need to see his taxes to understand that.
7
The very fact that there is no law requiring candidates to reveal their tax returns enables slime like Trump to reach this level. He has been dodging litmus tests all his life. Trump is an excellent example of a flawed individual who came from a wealthy family and has never had to take risks and decided early on he was above everyone else and didn't have to follow the rules. He never could have made it by himself; his father kept him afloat for years. Even with the help of his family, he was a financial failure.
42
"He never could have made it by himself; his father kept him afloat for years. Even with the help of his family, he was a financial failure."
Right, and after all that propping-up, he had to use the ultimate con to avoid bankruptcy. He put the burden of his casinos on outside investors (hey, it's a CASINO, why worry?) -- while shoveling money into his personal accounts -- before they got stiffed in the inevitable bankruptcy. I say "inevitable" because the Donald knew it was going to happen, and even greased the skids to make it happen (How? See money->personal accounts). With Trump it's ALWAYS a zero-sum game. He can't just enrich himself in obscene fashion, he relishes in taking his "opponents" down at the same time -- "I win. You lose. HA HA" With that modus operandi, shouldn't voters be terrified that this "negotiation" tactic will be used in matters of national security? Deal maker, my sweet Fanny Adams. The man is clearly not stupid -- hey the con's working BEAUTIFULLY, trust me -- but his outwardly destructive tenancies are a danger to anyone that crosses him. He can't let Miss Venezuela go; what's he going to do or say when his buddy Putin slights him? And he will, believe me.
All this, because his father sent him to military school (because he was OUT OF CONTROL) when he was 12? An age that he never, emotionally, left behind? I've heard many a story about how hard Fred Trump was on him, but for a nation to pay for his "daddy issues" is beyond all rational thought.
Right, and after all that propping-up, he had to use the ultimate con to avoid bankruptcy. He put the burden of his casinos on outside investors (hey, it's a CASINO, why worry?) -- while shoveling money into his personal accounts -- before they got stiffed in the inevitable bankruptcy. I say "inevitable" because the Donald knew it was going to happen, and even greased the skids to make it happen (How? See money->personal accounts). With Trump it's ALWAYS a zero-sum game. He can't just enrich himself in obscene fashion, he relishes in taking his "opponents" down at the same time -- "I win. You lose. HA HA" With that modus operandi, shouldn't voters be terrified that this "negotiation" tactic will be used in matters of national security? Deal maker, my sweet Fanny Adams. The man is clearly not stupid -- hey the con's working BEAUTIFULLY, trust me -- but his outwardly destructive tenancies are a danger to anyone that crosses him. He can't let Miss Venezuela go; what's he going to do or say when his buddy Putin slights him? And he will, believe me.
All this, because his father sent him to military school (because he was OUT OF CONTROL) when he was 12? An age that he never, emotionally, left behind? I've heard many a story about how hard Fred Trump was on him, but for a nation to pay for his "daddy issues" is beyond all rational thought.
2
There are so many reasons not to vote for Donald Trump that his tax returns don't make the top five. But, all things being equal, if he were otherwise qualified, I wouldn't vote for him just for this reason alone.
Make all the false-equivalency and deflective arguments you want about Hillary Clinton and a private mail server, but at least I can go to her website and see how much money that she and the first President Clinton have made, the sources of that money, and the deductions taken for almost forty years. Ditto the Clinton Foundation.
Make all the false-equivalency and deflective arguments you want about Hillary Clinton and a private mail server, but at least I can go to her website and see how much money that she and the first President Clinton have made, the sources of that money, and the deductions taken for almost forty years. Ditto the Clinton Foundation.
35
But can you read what promises she (and Bill) have made in their private speechifying to Wall Street that justified upwards of $200,000 for each performance, plus demands of private jet transportation and a Presidential Suite at the hotel? LOL, Hillary Antoinette!
1
Tovarish Brezhnev, No, I haven't. But I can't read anything at all about the actual sources of Trump's income. Who's buying, er licensing, his name? Who does he owe money to? What is his actual income? Who are his partners? Who attends his fund raisers and how much do they donate? All of that is an open book with the Clintons. All of that is a stone wall from Trump. Do Svidania and regards to Tovarish Putin
I get the point of this article, and it's nice to know that Presidents of all parties try their best to avoid serious conflicts of interests by vetting their nominees' tax returns. However, Article II of the Constitution merely states that in order to hold the Office of President, one must be a citizen, 35 years old, and a resident for 14 years. The people choose the President, and if the President opts to enforce rigid standards for those he or she appoints to high positions, then we are all better off. But no one is required to release tax returns. Yes, it is bad politics and terrible optics, especially when the billionaire candidate had to write off nearly a billion dollars before he allegedly earned a billion dollars. But it's not required. Congress is free to pass a Constitutional Amendment or amend election laws requiring the release of tax returns for anyone seeking federal office. States are free to do the same. But until it is required by law, I wouldn't be surprised if future candidates - especially outsiders - decline to release their returns as well.
7
Andrew, of course it's not required. But the Constitutional requirements are a minimum. There is nothing to say that we can't have requirements over and above that before we seriously consider a candidate, and I believe the founders would have been shocked at the argument that those requirements were all that was ever necessary. (For one thing, I don't believe the founders ever contemplated, or anticipated anyone contemplating, a woman running for president; and that's a good thing, b/c they might have added "male" if they had.)
3
Yes, formally you are right, but there is also something as precedent and custom. That being said, indeed, Trump could be elected president and remain in office while in prison for tax fraud, murder on 5th avenue, treason or anything else for that matter. Heck, even Bernie Madoff could run for president of the United States! But wait - presidents can be impeached, can't they?
We have to make it the law that to run for president (and all other public office), the candidates must release their tax returns.
1
As a retired military enlisted man whose job, while serving, required I handle and safeguard classified information, I was taught from the beginning the regulations regarding classified information. Every test for advancement I took, I completed a series of questions on the proper identification of classified material, how it was to be stored, for how long, in what type of storage unit (safe), what type of lock to be used, how often a lock or combination was to be changed as well as but not limited to, how long to maintain a classified designation. I was taught and tested on how to transmit classified materials from command to command as well.
Now, I ask this question. How is it that a former Secretary of State and potential Commander-in-Chief, does not know what a classified document designation should look like yet mean?
It is my opinion that a future POTUS/Commander-in-Chief and former Secretary of State that says she thought a (C) was a paragraph designation should not be allowed to hold the position for which she seeks.
Now, I ask this question. How is it that a former Secretary of State and potential Commander-in-Chief, does not know what a classified document designation should look like yet mean?
It is my opinion that a future POTUS/Commander-in-Chief and former Secretary of State that says she thought a (C) was a paragraph designation should not be allowed to hold the position for which she seeks.
36
Perhaps she didn't have the extensive training you had. But should have had.
9
Does this have to do with tax disclosure?
12
Were you taught the difference between confidential and classified?
And were you instructed how to properly label documents if you were sending them up the chain of command?
And were you taught the difference between a minor mistake and a nuclear explosion?
And were you instructed how to properly label documents if you were sending them up the chain of command?
And were you taught the difference between a minor mistake and a nuclear explosion?
9
Here's novel insight: may be, just may be, the Trump voter couldn't care less about Trump's tax history even if they divulged a 10 million dollar contribution to Hamas and an equal amount to Hezbollah?
18
Hey, I also bet that if he pulled out a gun and shot somebody on Fifth Avenue, he wouldn't lose any votes. Imagine that.
1
When I see comments by Trump supporters defending him for hiding his tax returns, I despair for this country. How can people be so gulled? We need a bill calling for release of tax returns to be law of the land for presidential candidates. Voters need to be saved from themselves.
60
When I see ignorant comments, such as yours, I despair for this country. Your lack of understanding of our Constitution is appalling. We need a bill calling for mandated classes that require people to know and understand the most important document in this country.
If you had ever bothered to learn something beyond your misguided interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you would know that Article II, Section I, Clause V specifically, and without any ambiguity, spells out the requirements for a person wishing to be President. And, since there are only three, it shouldn't be too difficult for most people to learn what those three requirements are: 1) Natural born citizen, 2) age 35, and 3) been an inhabitant of this country for at least 14 years. That's it. Just three requirements! No mention of tax returns!
Therefore, any law that mandated more than that would be struck down as being unconstitutional. If you wish to mandate candidates to release their returns, then you're going to need far more than a law; you're going to need a constitutional amendment!
If you had ever bothered to learn something beyond your misguided interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you would know that Article II, Section I, Clause V specifically, and without any ambiguity, spells out the requirements for a person wishing to be President. And, since there are only three, it shouldn't be too difficult for most people to learn what those three requirements are: 1) Natural born citizen, 2) age 35, and 3) been an inhabitant of this country for at least 14 years. That's it. Just three requirements! No mention of tax returns!
Therefore, any law that mandated more than that would be struck down as being unconstitutional. If you wish to mandate candidates to release their returns, then you're going to need far more than a law; you're going to need a constitutional amendment!
2
No, ''gulled'' is when supposed adults believe all this made-up stuff about Trump to keep the most gullible Left 2% of the country upset all the time as if the sky were falling.
This placid simple-mindedness may have been cute or endearing when you were thirteen, but you were expected to have more adult judgment by now. This election is one thing, but many of those posting here don't appear to be able to handle everyday life in a free country.
This placid simple-mindedness may have been cute or endearing when you were thirteen, but you were expected to have more adult judgment by now. This election is one thing, but many of those posting here don't appear to be able to handle everyday life in a free country.
2
Mr. Trump's refusal to release his tax returns speaks volumes about his character and may condemn him more than the actual documentation would. His refusal reveals that, at best, he does what is legal, but no more. That indicates both disrespect for the American people and lack of a moral compass.
Others have noted that Mr. Trump's ability to avoid paying taxes for 18 years after an enormous business loss may be a function of savvy accountants and tax lawyers coupled with a very broken tax code. This is certainly a problem in desperate need of redress.
Right now, though, our task is to elect our next President. In this context, perhaps even more than his not paying taxes for 18 years, Mr. Trump's failure to produce his tax returns shows that he holds himself only to the minimal legalistic standard of what is legally required, or not illegal. No responsible person--let alone one seeking the highest public office--believes that a citizen's only obligation is to do what the law requires. No one is legally obligated to say "please" and "thank you," to help someone who has slipped on an icy sidewalk, etc. We do it because we hope to live lives somewhat better than "nasty, brutish, and short."
If Mr. Trump had a principled objection to providing his tax returns, I might still disagree with him, but his repeated stalling and ever-changing smokescreen excuses show him to be a thoroughly amoral candidate with no sense of civic responsibility or respect for American voters.
Others have noted that Mr. Trump's ability to avoid paying taxes for 18 years after an enormous business loss may be a function of savvy accountants and tax lawyers coupled with a very broken tax code. This is certainly a problem in desperate need of redress.
Right now, though, our task is to elect our next President. In this context, perhaps even more than his not paying taxes for 18 years, Mr. Trump's failure to produce his tax returns shows that he holds himself only to the minimal legalistic standard of what is legally required, or not illegal. No responsible person--let alone one seeking the highest public office--believes that a citizen's only obligation is to do what the law requires. No one is legally obligated to say "please" and "thank you," to help someone who has slipped on an icy sidewalk, etc. We do it because we hope to live lives somewhat better than "nasty, brutish, and short."
If Mr. Trump had a principled objection to providing his tax returns, I might still disagree with him, but his repeated stalling and ever-changing smokescreen excuses show him to be a thoroughly amoral candidate with no sense of civic responsibility or respect for American voters.
1
There are countless issues that prove Trump is unfit to serve as President.
It is laughable that anyone would vote for this con artist and pathological liar.
The GOP has been done in with a hostile takeover by a snake oil salesman
who just happens to be a liberal Democrat from NYC.
It is laughable that anyone would vote for this con artist and pathological liar.
The GOP has been done in with a hostile takeover by a snake oil salesman
who just happens to be a liberal Democrat from NYC.
15
When there is a candidate with no experience, no background, there has to be a stellar something abut that candidate.
He has new legal and ethical scandals coming out almost every few hours. He has the temperament of a petulant 6 year old raised by klansmen. He literally hired a guy who is on SPLC Hate Watch list for ties to white power groups for a campaign manager. He steals from workers, lies more than 90% of the time (according to independent fact checkers) and will viciously attack anyone who dares call his bluff.
He has no ideology. Just an incessant need to con people so he can aggrandize himself.
Totally unfit for any public service, although it is a dream to see him in prison orange on a roadside work crew as his many recently unearthed civil and criminal violations start to work into the justice system.
He has new legal and ethical scandals coming out almost every few hours. He has the temperament of a petulant 6 year old raised by klansmen. He literally hired a guy who is on SPLC Hate Watch list for ties to white power groups for a campaign manager. He steals from workers, lies more than 90% of the time (according to independent fact checkers) and will viciously attack anyone who dares call his bluff.
He has no ideology. Just an incessant need to con people so he can aggrandize himself.
Totally unfit for any public service, although it is a dream to see him in prison orange on a roadside work crew as his many recently unearthed civil and criminal violations start to work into the justice system.
with respect, this is silly the white house probably wouldn't have hired franklin roosevelt as a lawyer, but he made a pretty decent president more generally, the gratuitous "piling on" trump by elitist democrats and republicans is only making is appeal stronger it may succeed once, but in the long run it comes off as forced and counter-productive
6
I guess you think it would be elitist to ask to see a used car before you bought it.
24
You didn't read it. This is not just Obama's ethics people, it is also Bush people. Not political, just a statement that he is wholly unqualified on the standard that would be used for people subordinate to the president in the executive branch, let alone for the top job.
1
So your opinion is: the less qualified he obviously is, the better president he will be? Really? Are you serious?
1
The authors of the article are, of course, free to moralize as much as they wish, but the key problem is not sleazy individuals, of which Trump is a particularly conspicuous example, it is a political problem. Our tax laws have been written by Congress and signed by presidents to assure that capital will pay very little of the costs of social reproduction--health, welfare, education, infrastructure, etc. That burden falls on the rest of us and until the rest of us wake up to how and why we shoulder it, it will continue to do so. And as long as very rich people and corporations are free to purchase politicians, those in public office will continue to write tax laws that favor their purchasers.
32
Neither credible nor convincing. Trump also signs tens of thousands of paychecks. I could care less about his taxes.
9
Also routinely stiffs those who work for him, sometimes ruining their businesses.
4
And has reneged on signing many. Would it matter to you if you were on the short end of that stick?
1
And yet Trump is constantly saying "Trust me...". Political office is a position of trust, I don't care how many paychecks he signs.
2
And cue the Trump nationalists using Breitbart talking points to whine about Hillary Clinton and President Obama.
No amount of actual evidence could ever convince that batch that Trump is undeserving of the Presidency.
Luckily, there is a lot more to this nation than their warped view of the world.
No amount of actual evidence could ever convince that batch that Trump is undeserving of the Presidency.
Luckily, there is a lot more to this nation than their warped view of the world.
41
Trump is hiding important facts in his tax returns, possibly many embarrassing facts that would destroy his candidacy. Until he releases his returns, let's not assume the best -- let's assume the worst.
There's an inherent lie in all of this in answer to a simple question: "What are you hiding?" His answer has been a consistent, "Nothing." It's a lie.
But lying is the backbone of his campaign. Everything revolves around it -- whether he makes statements about himself, or statements about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and more.
And his running mate, Mike Pence, was chosen as his running mate partly because he's such a polished liar. No need to take my word for it: Pence is more than happy to demonstrate with his own words:
https://youtu.be/qZOWItkanDs
There's an inherent lie in all of this in answer to a simple question: "What are you hiding?" His answer has been a consistent, "Nothing." It's a lie.
But lying is the backbone of his campaign. Everything revolves around it -- whether he makes statements about himself, or statements about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and more.
And his running mate, Mike Pence, was chosen as his running mate partly because he's such a polished liar. No need to take my word for it: Pence is more than happy to demonstrate with his own words:
https://youtu.be/qZOWItkanDs
77
Greed Over People and Donald Trump stand proudly and ignorantly for "no new taxes"...or any taxes, for that matter.
Republicans would dispute the late Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes' (a Republican in his day) statement that "taxes are what we pay for civilized society",
Republicans pretend that 'government is the problem' and that we need to get rid of it.
What Republicans are really saying with their tax nihilism is that civilization is the problem and we need to get rid of civilization.....except for the part where government can look in every bedroom window and monitor the nation's uteruses.
Donald Trump's award-winning tax dodging and zero disclosure policy is a Picasso painting of right-wing tax nihilism wrapped in classic Republican obfuscation inside a giant vat of sedition and hypocrisy.
The man pays no income taxes for the government he wants to lead.
The man pays proportionally less income taxes than the average American he wants to lead.
The man refuses to acknowledge that the income tax code itself is arguably the fundamental building block of public policy, completely reflective of the nation's character and its regard for society.
The man refuses to release his tax returns because his tax returns reflect the fact that Donald Trump has a shady character that holds society and civilization in utter contempt.
The man believes that taxes and civilization are for little people.
Trump is a tax anarchist, and so is the bankrupt Republican tax philosophy.
Republicans would dispute the late Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes' (a Republican in his day) statement that "taxes are what we pay for civilized society",
Republicans pretend that 'government is the problem' and that we need to get rid of it.
What Republicans are really saying with their tax nihilism is that civilization is the problem and we need to get rid of civilization.....except for the part where government can look in every bedroom window and monitor the nation's uteruses.
Donald Trump's award-winning tax dodging and zero disclosure policy is a Picasso painting of right-wing tax nihilism wrapped in classic Republican obfuscation inside a giant vat of sedition and hypocrisy.
The man pays no income taxes for the government he wants to lead.
The man pays proportionally less income taxes than the average American he wants to lead.
The man refuses to acknowledge that the income tax code itself is arguably the fundamental building block of public policy, completely reflective of the nation's character and its regard for society.
The man refuses to release his tax returns because his tax returns reflect the fact that Donald Trump has a shady character that holds society and civilization in utter contempt.
The man believes that taxes and civilization are for little people.
Trump is a tax anarchist, and so is the bankrupt Republican tax philosophy.
254
@Socrates
Hit the nail on the head...as usual.
GOP tax "philosophy" (if you can call it that) is simply redistribution up the ladder; when it goes down the ladder to the "little people," it's branded "socialism" or worse...yet these Darwin-worshippers do the same thing in reverse and we're called upon to acknowledge the "genius" of someone like Donald Trump...complete GOP hypocrisy.
Hit the nail on the head...as usual.
GOP tax "philosophy" (if you can call it that) is simply redistribution up the ladder; when it goes down the ladder to the "little people," it's branded "socialism" or worse...yet these Darwin-worshippers do the same thing in reverse and we're called upon to acknowledge the "genius" of someone like Donald Trump...complete GOP hypocrisy.
Thank you, Soc. You're a CPA. You know the score. Bravo for this and your other comments properly excoriating Dodgin' Donald!
If everyone followed Trumps' attitude toward paying (er, that is not paying) taxes, no one would pay taxes. I wonder what the government would run on...fumes? Clouds? Air? Maybe another country would pave our roads and build our bridges and fix our trains as well as build a wall? Sure. And I have a bridge I can sell you, too. If no one pays taxes, nothing gets fixed or even started. It's truly unbelievable that Trump has gotten this far in his journey toward the White House, and I hope that this op-ed piece opens more eyes to the fact that Trump is not a realistic choice for President. People presumably have their areas of expertise. People are not experts in all areas. Trump is not a viable choice, not matter what he says and promises and thinks about that fact.
31
What? He took a loss, as did Hillary, as did the NYT. If he did something not allowed by our tax code please enlighten us.
As far as I can ascertain, he followed the law, a law that no one in our government, from the president on down, seems to have any problem with.
Are you suggesting that he should have lied on his return and perjured himself by signing it?
As far as I can ascertain, he followed the law, a law that no one in our government, from the president on down, seems to have any problem with.
Are you suggesting that he should have lied on his return and perjured himself by signing it?
1
The law allowed Trump to potentially not pay taxes for 18 years. Although his attitude may have been the motivation to do so (which we don't even know that he did - we only know it was an option available to him), it is a fallacy to claim that the general population could achieve the same outcome through mindset only. As the Atlantic points out, this option is available to a select few:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/how-rich-do-you-have...
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/how-rich-do-you-have...
Let's be fair, with Hillary's email server, she wouldn't be able to get hired for most federal jobs either.
Obama's ties to Bill Ayers would have also been a problem, though one that might be overcome, for him applying for federal jobs.
I'm not saying Donald shouldn't release his taxes. He should. I just think we should be honest that Hillary and Obama also fail the "if you can't get this federal job, you shouldn't be president" test.
Obama's ties to Bill Ayers would have also been a problem, though one that might be overcome, for him applying for federal jobs.
I'm not saying Donald shouldn't release his taxes. He should. I just think we should be honest that Hillary and Obama also fail the "if you can't get this federal job, you shouldn't be president" test.
8
You know all about Clinton's email server. You also have all the information on the Clinton Foundation and about her income taxes for the past 30 years. Based on that information you can decide if you want to hire her or not. Where are Trump's tax returns?
6
False equivalence.
Mr. Trump may have no legal obligation to pay his taxes without using as many loopholes as he can find. But the debate is not about whether or not he should go to prison for tax evasion.
The issue at hand is if a man that dodges paying federal income tax on up to $916 million deserve the honor and privilege of the Presidency.
The answer is resoundingly no. The answer when having any discussion about Mr. Trump deserving the Oval Office by any metric is always resoundingly no.
The issue at hand is if a man that dodges paying federal income tax on up to $916 million deserve the honor and privilege of the Presidency.
The answer is resoundingly no. The answer when having any discussion about Mr. Trump deserving the Oval Office by any metric is always resoundingly no.
9
We have to keep in mind that Trump has no idea how the government works. And also that many of his supporters do not want a democracy . . . they want a boss.
17
Certainly, then, this group would have reached the same conclusion with regards to Hillary Clinton and her gross mishandling of top secret/SCI intelligence. A conclusion that Comey presented after concluding his criminal investigation and determining that any person in her position who was still employed with a federal agency would be faced with losing their security clearance.
3
It seems to me that if you need to submit a tax return to rent an apartment, then it should be an absolute qualification to live in the White House.
5
And we wouldn't have let Hillary remain with the Dept. of State as even a Junior Officer after committing a breach of security rules. How can she serve in the presidency?
3
The more Trump's refusal to release his tax returns to the American electorate continues, the more it seems likely that his entire run for the Presidency was an effort to get the IRS to rush the audit through without making a really deep audit.
With Trump's background in making great deals and getting out of debt by filing bankruptcy, that somehow makes sense. At least that's what some people are saying, so I hear.
With Trump's background in making great deals and getting out of debt by filing bankruptcy, that somehow makes sense. At least that's what some people are saying, so I hear.
I agree with this Opinion Piece but it begs the question who can Hillary serve as President as she couldn't get a cabinet appointment for her security breaches.
2
There was no security breach. The FBI said as much. But you don't care because you just want to try to distract from his MANY obvious disqualifying characteristics.
She would never qualify for a security clearance again - read the FBI report - it is a condemnation of her behavior.
1
Interesting. But at the same time, Hillary could never get a security clearance after what she did on email. So, Hillary's situation is far more troubling. She would be found to ineligible for any national security position after classified emails ended up on her private server. In fact, she would be deemed ineligible to be a federal employee.
4
This is a ridiculous argument. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both used private emails and Republicans have no problem with that. The email issue is a distraction to keep people from noticing what a liar and cheat Donald Trump is.
@Matt —Not true. Just Fox News propaganda. Clinton had three emails marked at the lowest level of confidential, which is the classification of secret. The emails were sent to her and there was no header to alert they were secret and she didn't send them. She used a separate classified system for sending and receiving classified email marked with a header as classified.
Forget President or a Cabinet post. These days on a job interview the prospective employer routinely does a credit report as part of the background check.
When Donald Trump's report comes in with his many many many bankruptcies, his many many many lawsuits for failure to pay his bills, his many many many liens filed by contractors who did not get paid -
Do you think he could get hired for any job anywhere in America?
No, he, in his on words, is a total loser.
When Donald Trump's report comes in with his many many many bankruptcies, his many many many lawsuits for failure to pay his bills, his many many many liens filed by contractors who did not get paid -
Do you think he could get hired for any job anywhere in America?
No, he, in his on words, is a total loser.
5
Just another Trump spin for an inexcusable .Maybe Hillary has her faults (cough) but at least SOME OF the money donated to the Clinton Foundation goes to help someone besides the Clintons We can say that beacuse Bill and Hill let us see .Greed is only good in the movies Donald.
1
You are absolutely correct. The proper vetting of a presidential candidate must include careful review of tax records. It should also include careful scrutiny of any and all financial dealings such as family charitable foundations. In addition, presidential candidates must be able to pass security clearances. Given Hillary Clinton's blatant misuse and abuse of security matters, she is not fit to receive the necessary security clearance to serve. Let's be honest. Neither Trump or Hillary is fit to be our commander in chief.
2
There is a big difference between a person the president selects and a president the people elect. It would be nice if they had the same stringent criteria but they do not.
1
Mr. Trump had a legal opportunity to not pay taxes and he used that opportunity to his advantage; he had a legal opportunity to use manufactures overseas instead of American factories, and he used that opportunity to his advantage. Each of those things, along with his multiple bankruptcies may have been legal, but they did not reflect a concern for America or American workers. Please do not give him any future opportunities to put his personal profit over America's needs, he has shown, repeatedly, what his decision will be.
2
heck i dont think the candidate even has what it takes to run his own company. just look at all the times the government has had to bail him out so far. this madness must cease.
A 2003 documentary called "The Corporation" by filmmakers Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott explicated and eviscerated the concept of "fiduciary responsibility." This should be required viewing for all MBA students (and everyone else).
We can't let this sort of behavior - flouting longstanding conventions by not releasing tax returns - become normalized.
We can't let this sort of behavior - flouting longstanding conventions by not releasing tax returns - become normalized.
Unfortunately, those who support Trump with blind enthusiasm seem impressed with his denial of any kind of restraint and willingness to not follow the rules, either of decency or tradition. They also, for the most part, are the very segment of our population that would suffer the most under a presidency led by this irresponsible, unqualified man. His attitudes and rhetoric smack of a dictator who easily could say "off with their heads (figuratively speaking)" as he picks their pockets and send their children off to fight wars incited by his uncontrollable ego.
1
Donald Trump is asking us to trust him to lead America. Yet he doesn't trust us enough to release any tax returns so we can see for ourselves if he paid any taxes, how his businesses were structured, what his tax rates are, etc. I do not like being asked to trust a black box and that is precisely what Trump is asking the American public to do. If he wants to be a public servant in the highest office of the land he can release his returns. If not, the pundits and everyone else have a good reason to make wild speculations on what he's hiding. Note: his extreme self interest is obvious. He is the most self centered candidate I remember. That alone and his outstanding temper tantrum during the presidential debate plus his many intemperate statements now and in the past should disqualify him from ever serving as anything in any administration.
198
If the tax code allows for Net Operating Losses, why is this even an issue? Most Americans probably don't understand that NOL's can be carried back 2 years and forward 20 to be offset against past and future taxable income. Congress makes the laws not Trump so blame Congress if you have an issue with this IRC provision! My issue with Trump is that he is putting him self above the public interest by not releasing his returns which to me demonstrates that he does not have the fitness to run this country. Being transparent is essential for anyone running for public office. Narcissistic behavior is a recipe for disaster. GO Hillary!!!!!
2
Vote for Clinton. That will teach Trump a lesson.
hen3ry write: ...trust a black box..."
I would liken Trump as a pig in a poke.
I would liken Trump as a pig in a poke.
Unless you are saying Donald Trump broke US tax law, this is absolutely a non-issue. Nobody I know voluntarily pays more taxes than necessary. Of the two candidates, only one worked on the legislature with the power* to approve changes to the tax code: Hillary Clinton. Clinton had 8 years in the Senate to change the tax laws and she didn't even try. Ironically, Clinton is more at fault for this than Donald Trump.
*Yes, I am aware that Clinton was a Senator and spending bills must originate in the House but you see my point.
*Yes, I am aware that Clinton was a Senator and spending bills must originate in the House but you see my point.
2
I agree with you except we don't know if Mr. Trump has broken US tax law. We haven't seen his returns or the audits. Many people underpay their taxes and settle during audit with penalties. We simply don't know because he won't release them.
2
Actually, it's you who is missing the point. When someone of Trump's wealth pays no federal taxes and then complains that the country's infrastructure is falling apart and that our military is underfunded, then there is a serious contraction--unless Mr. Trump were proposing to close the loopholes that allowed him to pay no taxes. But he isn't proposing that at all. In fact, his tax plan calls for dramatically lowering tax rates on the wealthy so that people like him can legally pay even less tax. Most of the rest of us who pay payroll taxes and thus have little to no opportunity to manipulate our taxes are the "dumb" ones stuck holding the bag.
2
This is a ridiculous article.
"Loopholes?" I bet the writers of this article take full advantage of the child tax credit Loophole; or the home interest Loophole.
Clearly these people have no understanding of the real world, just the pandering parasite world of game playing politicians - hopefully, one day we will all be completely free of gov't hacks dictating our lives.
"Loopholes?" I bet the writers of this article take full advantage of the child tax credit Loophole; or the home interest Loophole.
Clearly these people have no understanding of the real world, just the pandering parasite world of game playing politicians - hopefully, one day we will all be completely free of gov't hacks dictating our lives.
3
The chief White House ethics lawyers from the Obama and Bush(43) administrations co-authoring an Op-Ed about how Trump's behavior wouldn't get past the first hurdle for an appointed position. This would be a good one to refer to when Trump and his supporters complain about bias against him.
6
Unquestionably, Donald Trump is not a role model of any kind: he is a ruthless, unread, unstable, amoral, draft dodging, serial philanderer boldly, and without a trace of irony, masquerading as a moral exemplar to the nation.
Beyond all of our justifiable hand-wringing that Trump is able to avail himself of self-dealing and economic enrichment that is unlikely for most Americans, two much larger questions remain.
1. Exactly whose money did Donald Trump lose in 1995? Because all records indicate that he had nowhere near the cash or equity reserves to cover such an enormous amount. So is it that the laws allowed him to take the deduction for what were in fact other people's losses? That loophole needs to be eliminated.
Trump must be ecstatic that he was forgiven up to 18 years of Federal income tax payments; were you grateful for these enormous savings totaling almost a billion dollars, Mr. Trump?
2. Did you acknowledge your federally-funded financial insurance plan by giving any money to any charity, including the Presbyterian Church, which you claim to be a member of? Did you proudly and patriotically make generous annual donations to veteran's groups to offset that you paid nothing to support our troops who you claim to admire? Did you contribute any money to anyone other than yourself, your family, or Melania's interior decorator who has spray-painted the Trump Tower Penthouse such a tasteful shade of "Oligarch Gold?" (Available @ Sherwin-Williams, Moscow Branch only.)
Beyond all of our justifiable hand-wringing that Trump is able to avail himself of self-dealing and economic enrichment that is unlikely for most Americans, two much larger questions remain.
1. Exactly whose money did Donald Trump lose in 1995? Because all records indicate that he had nowhere near the cash or equity reserves to cover such an enormous amount. So is it that the laws allowed him to take the deduction for what were in fact other people's losses? That loophole needs to be eliminated.
Trump must be ecstatic that he was forgiven up to 18 years of Federal income tax payments; were you grateful for these enormous savings totaling almost a billion dollars, Mr. Trump?
2. Did you acknowledge your federally-funded financial insurance plan by giving any money to any charity, including the Presbyterian Church, which you claim to be a member of? Did you proudly and patriotically make generous annual donations to veteran's groups to offset that you paid nothing to support our troops who you claim to admire? Did you contribute any money to anyone other than yourself, your family, or Melania's interior decorator who has spray-painted the Trump Tower Penthouse such a tasteful shade of "Oligarch Gold?" (Available @ Sherwin-Williams, Moscow Branch only.)
25
Let the voters decide this one. Current practices have left us with a dysfunctional government. Disrupting this dysfunction may be the only hope.
2
@david—So let somebody who abuses and broke the system fix it? The problem is that Trump is a con man and his gig is up. I'm not sacrificing my children's future for those who subscribe to blowing things up before you can make them better.
2
Let me see if I've got this: If you lose a billion dollars in year one, then make a billion dollars in year two -- ending up back where you started -- you should pay taxes on a billion dollars?
2
Your question shows just how ignorant you are about what Trump, and other real estate investors, can do legally under the tax system.
In real estate if you lose a billion dollars one year and then make a billion dollars the next you report the billion dollar loss and carry it forward until it is offset by gains. But that billion dollar gain is not reported as a gain, but is reinvested and carried forward without being taxed until it is finally cashed out. All the while the real estate investment is "depreciating" and creating more paper losses to offset any real profits.
So if these real estate tycoons can just get the "death tax" repealed, then the potential tax liability of all of those "unrealized" gains will be wiped out forever.
Part of the problem is that each small loophole in the tax system seems harmless enough and has its justifications. But when they are combined, (like the "double Irish" schemes used by Apple and others in the corporate world) they create an extremely unfair system.
The tax laws are so favorable to the very rich that the average person cannot believe the truth even when it is plainly stated.
In real estate if you lose a billion dollars one year and then make a billion dollars the next you report the billion dollar loss and carry it forward until it is offset by gains. But that billion dollar gain is not reported as a gain, but is reinvested and carried forward without being taxed until it is finally cashed out. All the while the real estate investment is "depreciating" and creating more paper losses to offset any real profits.
So if these real estate tycoons can just get the "death tax" repealed, then the potential tax liability of all of those "unrealized" gains will be wiped out forever.
Part of the problem is that each small loophole in the tax system seems harmless enough and has its justifications. But when they are combined, (like the "double Irish" schemes used by Apple and others in the corporate world) they create an extremely unfair system.
The tax laws are so favorable to the very rich that the average person cannot believe the truth even when it is plainly stated.
1
Trump had a business loss of nearly a billion dollars in year one, but still personally made a "living" wage. His loss is carried forward for up to 18 years (roughly $50 million per year) allowing him to reduce or even avoid paying taxes during that time. But he still made money in years 2 through 18 and a lot of it. Let's look at a more realistic scenario. My wife and I own a rental property. Together with rental income and our personal salaries, our household income exceeds $150,000. We have a LCF of $30,000 on the rental after some unexpected repairs but, because our household income exceeds the threshold of $150,000, we are not able to utilize any portion of the LCF. Our tax rate (federal and state) still exceeds 35%. So I'll ask and answer your question: Should Trump pay any tax on a billion dollars? Yes, of course he should!
2
If Trump were, in fact, interested in fiduciary obligations or responsibility (that is, to anyone other than himself), he would be the kind of businessman known for paying his workers and contractors as outlined in contracts and as obligated under fair business dealings. Alas, that is not the case. So, we should believe that he has taken a billion dollars of tax deductions because he wants to do right by others? And btw, tax burdens not paid by him are transferred to the rest of us taxpayers.
9
Using a US Postal crate.... there could not be a photograph more distracting to the noble intention of promoting ethical behaviors. Someone sure wasn't thinking.
1
That Trump is almost at the doorstep of the White House is irrefutable evidence that changing the tax code is one of the foremost priority for the incoming President and Legislators. The 99% of us who pay taxes are real suckers if the likes of Trump can get away without paying taxes for 2 decades and legitimately at that. Trump who boasts that he is the face of change is really the one who will maintain the status quo or worse helping the 1% get away with more legitimate fraud. And yes, if we vote him into Office, we are not only suckers but total idiots. Let's remember, a fool and his money are soon parted.
1
People are enraged because of the unfairness of the tax system.
They know exactly why average Joes pay much higher average tax rates than do the billionaires. They are no longer shocked when they learn that the loss carry-forward provisions that benefit only real estate speculators and developers were inserted into the tax code on the strength of the campaign contributions made by the real estate lobby. They don't even wince anymore when they learn that the über-wealthy can, with a little accounting legerdemain (see: http://www.discoverboating.com/resources/article.aspx?id=65), deduct the cost of owning their yachts.
There was once an idea given wide currency in America that the wealthy had an obligation to do more financially than they were legally required to do to support and nurture the common weal. Yet today in politics, which seems to follow the moral tone set by celebrities in the fields of sports and entertainment, we are asked to both worship and emulate those who grab the most and make as flashy a display of their possessions as possible.
This is the culture in which a greedy grasping grifter such as Donald Trump thrives. It is notable that in one respect this year's GOP nominee has surpassed their 2012 candidate, that poster child for privilege, Mitt Romney, who got skewered last time out because of his effective 13% Federal tax rate. You have to hand it to Trump -- it's hard to beat a tax rate of zero.
Good work, Donald. At least your the best at something.
They know exactly why average Joes pay much higher average tax rates than do the billionaires. They are no longer shocked when they learn that the loss carry-forward provisions that benefit only real estate speculators and developers were inserted into the tax code on the strength of the campaign contributions made by the real estate lobby. They don't even wince anymore when they learn that the über-wealthy can, with a little accounting legerdemain (see: http://www.discoverboating.com/resources/article.aspx?id=65), deduct the cost of owning their yachts.
There was once an idea given wide currency in America that the wealthy had an obligation to do more financially than they were legally required to do to support and nurture the common weal. Yet today in politics, which seems to follow the moral tone set by celebrities in the fields of sports and entertainment, we are asked to both worship and emulate those who grab the most and make as flashy a display of their possessions as possible.
This is the culture in which a greedy grasping grifter such as Donald Trump thrives. It is notable that in one respect this year's GOP nominee has surpassed their 2012 candidate, that poster child for privilege, Mitt Romney, who got skewered last time out because of his effective 13% Federal tax rate. You have to hand it to Trump -- it's hard to beat a tax rate of zero.
Good work, Donald. At least your the best at something.
8
Without a doubt one of the absolute best pieces I've read about Trump's lack of qualifications for holding public office, much less POTUS.
9
Thank you for this lucid, brilliant essay. Just another manifestation of Trump's failure to understand what government is, how it works, and why. He is an amoral coward.
14
You don't get it. Trump is a maverick. He is winning support from millions of voters because he does not play by rules or adhere to conventions. His motto seems to be:
"If it isn't broke, break it!"
--------------------------------
My fear is that Trump takes this too far. What does he care about, anyway? What has he got to lose if he starts breaking rules and things get worse? He can blame it all on Obama. If he messes with the economy and we get into another recession, he can be blame it on "Obama-nomics".
This scares me about Trump...
The only thing we have to fear is... Donald (Lying) Trump!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If it isn't broke, break it!"
--------------------------------
My fear is that Trump takes this too far. What does he care about, anyway? What has he got to lose if he starts breaking rules and things get worse? He can blame it all on Obama. If he messes with the economy and we get into another recession, he can be blame it on "Obama-nomics".
This scares me about Trump...
The only thing we have to fear is... Donald (Lying) Trump!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Great article. I personally have no issue with Mr. Trump or anyone else taking his full deductions. What I don't like is that he won't release his returns. It doesn't meet the smell test.
4
Good article, important perspective that really points out the importance of transparency and the responsibilities of those involved or seeking to be involved in public service.
2
Trump required EVERYONE he was considering for VP to submit their tax returns. The job of VP is no more than to be President if the need should arise. It seems the same should be required of everyone we, the voters, are considering for the job of President.
It is even more relevant in Trump's case. Since he has zero experience in government and is basing his entire campaign on his business acumen, we must see the returns for proof of that acumen.
NO EXCUSES. Release the returns Mr Trump!
It is even more relevant in Trump's case. Since he has zero experience in government and is basing his entire campaign on his business acumen, we must see the returns for proof of that acumen.
NO EXCUSES. Release the returns Mr Trump!
8
As if his taxes are the only nail in his coffin. He reminds me of Al Capone who the government finally took down on tax fraud despite all of his other appalling crimes.
When you honestly look at the man and his behavior, even if he were elected he'd likely end up impeached and in jail.
Which leaves us with Mike Pence who has troubles of his own.
Which leaves us with Paul Ryan.
RUN!
When you honestly look at the man and his behavior, even if he were elected he'd likely end up impeached and in jail.
Which leaves us with Mike Pence who has troubles of his own.
Which leaves us with Paul Ryan.
RUN!
Look, the only reason to play this maximum avoidance tax strategy is the difference -- in dollars -- between what you paid following this strategy and what you would have paid by applying a strategy somewhat less avoidance targeted and somewhat more fair share oriented. That difference has a name, it's called "profit." If you are profiting from your tax avoidance and making that profit is actually your strategy then you have got this whole America-The- Beautiful-thing wrong. Call it a bail-out, call it being a leech. I'm all for deductions, even loopholes, and I take mine, but I'm not for strategies that result in the American taxpayer paying another American taxpayer for their "genius," at not paying their fair share. That approach also has a name, it's called the to-each-acording-to-their-need strategy.
We already know that Trump is unlikely to have paid any taxes for many many year, so why is he still refusing to show us the rest? The obvious answer is that something even worse than a $912M loss is hiding there. What might that be? I can see three obvious and plausible answers: (1) he failed to pay taxes for that $912M before claiming them as a loss. (2) He owe hundreds of millions to Putin and friends. (3) He owes hundred of millions to Chinese billionaires associated with the Chines government.
5
Great to see this commentary coming in a bipartisan form. I really hope Hillary Clinton's administration has someone as upstanding and uncompromising as Norman Eisen to guide it past potential ethical pitfalls--the kinds of things the Clintons have seemed to have inordinate difficulty with over the years. For her administration to be successful, Ms. Clinton's administration will need to be just as 110% beyond reproach ethically as President Obama's has been.
2
As Tim Kaine accurately pointed out Tuesday night, Mike Pence, as all Vice Presidential hopefuls must do, are required by a candidate's vetting committee to peruse potential Veep's tax forms. Not some financial statements, no matter how long, will do.
Kaine went on to add that since a candidate for president is interviewing before the American people for the most powerful job in the world, we have the right, at a very minimum, to demand access to their tax returns.
And I use the plural. Unlike Romney, a candidate's taxes should span a few years, the more the merrier, as opposed to just one year, where they may have, anticipating a run for office, manipulated that particular year to their advantage.
In conclusion, yes, I agree, no tax returns, no job. A prerequisite if ever there should be.
DD
Manhattan
Kaine went on to add that since a candidate for president is interviewing before the American people for the most powerful job in the world, we have the right, at a very minimum, to demand access to their tax returns.
And I use the plural. Unlike Romney, a candidate's taxes should span a few years, the more the merrier, as opposed to just one year, where they may have, anticipating a run for office, manipulated that particular year to their advantage.
In conclusion, yes, I agree, no tax returns, no job. A prerequisite if ever there should be.
DD
Manhattan
2
While i totally agree with your position, I think this also shows how out of balance our tax laws are and how they actually favor wealthy people with their loopholes and deductions. the average person who works 40 hours a week even at a decent paying job is going to a much larger percentage of their income in taxes, making it haarder for them to get ahead.
1
I've been thinking of this lately and so am glad to see this opinion piece today. If we had a Congress that did something, instead of punching in for a few days before taking weeks and months off, maybe we could get a law, effective immediately, that would make this a requirement.
2
Ethics advisors for the present administration have yet to demonstrate any competence
2
Finally someone has spoken out on Trump and taxes - his chosen party has given him a free pass on the basic requirements for holding office. Hillary Clinton is supposed to be secretive - She is trumped by Trump. His lawyers are quick with the lawsuit - any personal questions are quickly buried by the press. The media representatives are selected by his campaign and yes banned if not to his liking. Yet no one shouts freedom of the press. You have all been duped. Ethics separate the civilized from the uncivilized.
1
Presidents are elected by the people, not appointed. Releasing one's tax return is not a requirement for seeking the Presidential office. Availing yourself of legal - totally legal - tax deductions is not controversial. Americans do this everyday, by utilizing things like the mortgage interest deduction or contributing to a foundation (like the Clinton Foundation, for instance). No one is accusing Trump of violating tax laws, especially since his returns are scrutinized under IRS audits every year. If people chose to vote for someone who does not voluntarily release tax returns, that's their right. It's no different than voting for a person that was careless in securing confidential materials, on an illegal, unsecured server. In other words, this issue is a dead horse, stop beating it...
1
A nice example Trump sets for his children...some self-entitled snots of sons. It's a dynasty out of "Dynasty."
The question I have is if there are a set of rules for anyone seeking Office. Whether it is for a Presidential Candidate, to the Senate or Congress? Perhaps, there is no such thing in this country. Those who are appointed to Office such as Cabinet members, are vetted and have to go thru scrutiny and a voting. Why is this not applied to anyone who wants to be President, a Senator or Congressman? Whose responsibility should this be? I would not allow either political party to do this. Being a member of a political party should not suffice. Beyond that first line, there should be a process to determine suitability of a particular candidate seeking Office. Should there be an independant Commission, such as the Commission on Presidential Debates? As responsible citizens, we want to preserve our steadfast loyalty to our country and strengthen all institutions in the System we all cherish so much. May I ask your esteem journal to shed some light on this subject. Thank you.
1
"how can he be president"? Because the alternative is worse. Furthermore, tax returns may be irrelevant to most voters, who are more concerned about the future of the country.
3
Yeah, but aren't you even curious about what Trump is hiding in those tax returns? Who he's beholden to? Russia? Chinese bankers? Since his bottomline is what matters most to this guy, how do you know he won't put his office up for sale if he's elected? He hawks everything else.
3
HenryR:
It's not as though no one is looking at Trump's tax return. That is what an audit is. His tax return is being scrutinized by the IRS.
I feel comfortable leaving it to the IRS to determine whether he complied with the law. If, on the other hand, he destroyed all his financial records then kept changing his statements, I'd be VERY worried about what he was hiding.
It's not as though no one is looking at Trump's tax return. That is what an audit is. His tax return is being scrutinized by the IRS.
I feel comfortable leaving it to the IRS to determine whether he complied with the law. If, on the other hand, he destroyed all his financial records then kept changing his statements, I'd be VERY worried about what he was hiding.
2
He's never produced the audit letter from the IRS, which is a routine sent to auditees. So, is he lying about that, too?
1
Alas, it ain't so. Which in no small way explains HRC's slim thin lead over DT, taxes notwithstanding. It ain't illegal. Don't like it, Dems? Then make it illegal. Crickets.
2
These are excellent points. But you don't mention Tim Geithner who thought he had a fiduciary duty to himself and his family to avoid paying his payroll taxes as self-employed, even though the international organization he worked for gave him extra money to pay the taxes. And he was excused for this offense by the President because the President thought Geithner was vital for the recovery of major banks and financial institutions. I do think this appointment was a reason among others for why Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party could claim the government was corrupt in favor of the same people who wrecked the financial system and got bailouts, and no significant prosecutions.
But here we are and Trump will make it worse. I don't need to see his tax returns to know he is a monster and dangerous for every American not living in Trump Tower.
But here we are and Trump will make it worse. I don't need to see his tax returns to know he is a monster and dangerous for every American not living in Trump Tower.
1
Similarly no one should qualify as president if they have erased emails from their time as a government official or otherwise tried to evade FOIA requirements. Failure to release transcripts of speeches to wealthy donors (e.g. Goldman Sachs) should also be disqualifying.
But both Trump and Clinton are not releasing information for the same reason. Suspicion that there might be something embarrassing or untoward in disclosure is better than what disclosure might actually reveal.
But both Trump and Clinton are not releasing information for the same reason. Suspicion that there might be something embarrassing or untoward in disclosure is better than what disclosure might actually reveal.
3
Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice. Look it up.
Now, let me get this straight: if someone has not shown his/her taxes, you cannot be President of this great country. However, if you risk the security of your country by using private e-mail account for top security e-mails, if you trade favors that may hurt your country for donations to your private foundation, if you pursue policies of regime change that results in the loss of millions of lives, including American lives and in 75 million refugees, you are what we want for President. These are the equivalents of people who have no sense of proportion and who are driven by the agenda of preserving the domination of the elites (political and financial) over the American people.
7
Your false equivalencies are stunning.
And certainly no Democrat is responsible for "the loss of millions" of lives. You seem to forget that it was George W. Bush who invaded Iraq based on blatant lies and destabilized the region.
Period.
And certainly no Democrat is responsible for "the loss of millions" of lives. You seem to forget that it was George W. Bush who invaded Iraq based on blatant lies and destabilized the region.
Period.
5
She did use a private email for government business, and she has admitted that was wrong. Other notables who have used private emails for public business include at least two former secretaries of state, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney, where was you vexation then. I could ask you the same question about the falsification and abuse of intelligence information that brought us into Iran. Where were you for that regime change? Donald Trump is hiding something in his taxes, his sons say he has major business relations with the Russians and the Saudis say they have bailed him out of trouble as well. Since he has a life long track record of putting his own profits over the needs of the country's, by dodging the draft, his taxes and by manufacturing without using American workers, there is reason for concern that he may try to meet his debts to foreign governments by selling out our country some more. There are no examples of Hillary selling out for donations, there are false allegations and there is a difference that informed voters should recognize.
12
All due respect!It hasnt been proven that Clinton Foundation did favors to donors. This is complete lie. Clinton Foundation has infact done tremendous amount of good will to the under-privileged people across the globe. So to compare Trump's business malpractices to Clinton's overall work ethics is insane. This is the danger of over-blowing Clinton's mistakes. No Clinton and Trump are not equal. Clinton haters should stop hiding behind Clinton. Trump is as worse as they come.
4
So public service means that relatively low paid employees should make substantial contribution to the US government by not taking tax deductions?
Are you kidding?
The Obamas and Clintons have taken very significant tax deductions and most likely most politicians have too.
Are you kidding?
The Obamas and Clintons have taken very significant tax deductions and most likely most politicians have too.
5
"No presidential nominee with Mr. Trump’s tax situation, his years of undisclosed tax returns, and his attitude toward paying taxes could have been approved by the Senate. Indeed, no president would have dared nominate him. All of us should weigh that heavily in assessing Mr. Trump’s fitness for the Oval Office."
-------------------------------
Translation: Don't vote for Donald Trump. Thanks.
Still waiting for a front page op-ed that ends on a similar note with respect to Hillary Clinton's baffling incompetence, calculated duplicity, or whatever you want to call it. I was hoping the New York Times would manage to resist the temptation to plunge into the same swamp of hyper-partisanship that the Washington Post has been practically marinating in for the past couple of months. Alas.
As for Mr. Eisen and Mr. Painter's suggestion that paying federal taxes teaches children about responsibility and the benefits of being American, I'd be interested in hearing precisely how that's the case — especially in the light of the federal government's debt of $19.5 trillion, the recent IG report announcing that the U.S. State Department is unable to account for $6 billion in awarded contracts, and that wretched Frankenstein project the Democratic Party calls the Affordable Care Act. And this is to say nothing of the thousands of other examples of waste, fraud, superfluity, corruption, and imbecility that are characteristic — not anomalous but characteristic — of the federal government.
-------------------------------
Translation: Don't vote for Donald Trump. Thanks.
Still waiting for a front page op-ed that ends on a similar note with respect to Hillary Clinton's baffling incompetence, calculated duplicity, or whatever you want to call it. I was hoping the New York Times would manage to resist the temptation to plunge into the same swamp of hyper-partisanship that the Washington Post has been practically marinating in for the past couple of months. Alas.
As for Mr. Eisen and Mr. Painter's suggestion that paying federal taxes teaches children about responsibility and the benefits of being American, I'd be interested in hearing precisely how that's the case — especially in the light of the federal government's debt of $19.5 trillion, the recent IG report announcing that the U.S. State Department is unable to account for $6 billion in awarded contracts, and that wretched Frankenstein project the Democratic Party calls the Affordable Care Act. And this is to say nothing of the thousands of other examples of waste, fraud, superfluity, corruption, and imbecility that are characteristic — not anomalous but characteristic — of the federal government.
5
Yeah, but aren't you even curious about what Trump is hiding in those tax returns? Who he's beholden to? Russia? Chinese bankers? Since his bottomline is what matters most to this guy, how do you know he won't put his office up for sale if he's elected? He hawks everything else. As for you throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks - debt, waste, fraud, corruption, wretchedness -- all these apply to your man Trump.
HenryR,
Thanks for your reply.
First, Trump is my man only insofar as he's the candidate on whom I've chosen to gamble my vote. Beyond that, I don't hold any real affection for him. I'm not even sure that I really trust him. But if this election is to be determined on the basis of affection and trust, there's no case to make for Hillary either.
Second, you seem to have missed my point in listing some of the federal government's undesirables, all of which stick to the wall quite well. Eisen and Painter feel the same way as you do when it comes to Trump's character; yet whereas giving your vote to Trump makes you a partner in something despicable, giving your money to a bloated, inefficient, often incompetent, and often-enough corrupt government — one, incidentally, that long ago abandoned its principled foundation of republican liberty in favor of bureaucratic statism — drapes you in the virtues of responsibility and patriotism. Hm.
Lastly, if Trump's business ties to Russia and China prompt us to question his allegiance to the U.S. and his devotion to its people's welfare, why shouldn't we take a similarly skeptical view of Hillary Clinton's ties to Saudi Arabia and other less than democratic Foundation contributors who clearly sought to purchase influence from her? Or perhaps the Saudis are just really, really concerned about diphtheria in Africa and just really, really needed to funnel their relief donations through the Clinton Foundation rather than a traditional NGO.
Thanks for your reply.
First, Trump is my man only insofar as he's the candidate on whom I've chosen to gamble my vote. Beyond that, I don't hold any real affection for him. I'm not even sure that I really trust him. But if this election is to be determined on the basis of affection and trust, there's no case to make for Hillary either.
Second, you seem to have missed my point in listing some of the federal government's undesirables, all of which stick to the wall quite well. Eisen and Painter feel the same way as you do when it comes to Trump's character; yet whereas giving your vote to Trump makes you a partner in something despicable, giving your money to a bloated, inefficient, often incompetent, and often-enough corrupt government — one, incidentally, that long ago abandoned its principled foundation of republican liberty in favor of bureaucratic statism — drapes you in the virtues of responsibility and patriotism. Hm.
Lastly, if Trump's business ties to Russia and China prompt us to question his allegiance to the U.S. and his devotion to its people's welfare, why shouldn't we take a similarly skeptical view of Hillary Clinton's ties to Saudi Arabia and other less than democratic Foundation contributors who clearly sought to purchase influence from her? Or perhaps the Saudis are just really, really concerned about diphtheria in Africa and just really, really needed to funnel their relief donations through the Clinton Foundation rather than a traditional NGO.
To be very clear about one point: The final arbiter as to who is fit to serve as President is the American People, not a bureaucrat no matter how well meaning, nor yet the editorial departments of the mainstream media.
5
Ed in Florida, right you are, and it is in the purview of editorials such as these that seek to elucidate aspects of the candidates, that we may make informed decisions.
1
And happily, it seems the American people are increasingly sick of the orange-haired woman-hating, Mexican-hating, exploiter of the little guy.
By the way, don't you think any candidate for President should pledge, unequivocally, to support the winner? Isn't that kinda fundamental to democracy? Remember how Al Gore walked away with good grace even though he won the popular vote by a lot and had good arguments that he won Florida and the electoral vote too? Remember how Nixon refused to dispute the 1960 result despite "irregularities" in Chicago? Shouldn't n American election be about more than one candidate - shouldn't it be about the future of democracy?
By the way, don't you think any candidate for President should pledge, unequivocally, to support the winner? Isn't that kinda fundamental to democracy? Remember how Al Gore walked away with good grace even though he won the popular vote by a lot and had good arguments that he won Florida and the electoral vote too? Remember how Nixon refused to dispute the 1960 result despite "irregularities" in Chicago? Shouldn't n American election be about more than one candidate - shouldn't it be about the future of democracy?
2
Have you ever read Madison? He had a lot to say about what he called "the tyranny of the majority". You may find it interesting; it most certainly is appropriate, especially in this case.
"People who believe they have a legal duty to put self-interest before the public interest don’t belong in public service." Agreed.
Moreover, if a person really believes this, they ought to be able to point to the source of the alleged legal obligation. That is, they ought to be able to point to the law or laws that support their claim. This seems like a pretty straight-forward empirical issue.
So . . . where's the empirical evidence, DT?
I think another, older, more venerable law applies in this case (slightly revised): If it looks like a [tax] duck, walks like a [tax] duck, sounds like a [tax] duck, it probably amounts to an attempt to duck one's taxes.
Moreover, if a person really believes this, they ought to be able to point to the source of the alleged legal obligation. That is, they ought to be able to point to the law or laws that support their claim. This seems like a pretty straight-forward empirical issue.
So . . . where's the empirical evidence, DT?
I think another, older, more venerable law applies in this case (slightly revised): If it looks like a [tax] duck, walks like a [tax] duck, sounds like a [tax] duck, it probably amounts to an attempt to duck one's taxes.
21
Although although most of the emphasis has been on Trump not releasing his tax returns, I'm equally concerned about his apparent inability to make money. In 1995, if Trump had simply put a billion dollars (if he ever had that much) into a stock market index fund, he would have made $374,000,000, yet instead, Trump lost almost a billion dollars. He may have taken future years of tax breaks, but that presupposes he actually made enough money to take advantage of those breaks, but since he won't release his taxes we have no way of knowing that. His only business acumen appeared to be selling his Trump brand, but going forward he is going to have a hard time even selling tiny sneakers.
14
And - not reported enough - he not only got $14 million (worth far more today) at a very early age to get started, but later inherited vastly more from his father. Overall he's probably more or less broken even, hung onto what he got from his old man while making lots of noise.
1
The authors fail to understand that the Supreme Court of the United States has held for quite some time that the right of the individual to avoid tax liabilities is not only legal but fiduciarlly responsible.
Evading taxes is legal. Avoiding taxes is not.
Evading taxes is legal. Avoiding taxes is not.
1
Actually, legal tax avoidance is allowed but tax evasion isn't.
3
But legalities are beside the point. The article is about releasing tax information, not necessarily evading or avoiding taxes. His tax situations cannot be fully assessed until the tax returns are released.
One can split hairs about the meaning and spirit of fiduciary responsibilities, but in the end, others aren't allowed into many important positions of government responsibility at all until their taxes are released. It's another aspect that makes Trump completely different, and totally unqualified.
One can split hairs about the meaning and spirit of fiduciary responsibilities, but in the end, others aren't allowed into many important positions of government responsibility at all until their taxes are released. It's another aspect that makes Trump completely different, and totally unqualified.
1
Marc, until there is a law requiring a candidate for president to release his tax returns, Trump, or anyone else running for that office, is within his rights to maintain them as private.
Not to split hairs...but your talk is cheap. If you want to change the law, get your congressman or senator to submit a bill and let it go through the legislative process.
The way are going about this is backwards.
Not to split hairs...but your talk is cheap. If you want to change the law, get your congressman or senator to submit a bill and let it go through the legislative process.
The way are going about this is backwards.
I agree 100% and unfortunately you are preaching to the choir. Trump supporters don't care about this. It makes me very interested in what is in his tax returns beyond the issue of using loopholes. Newsweek outlined many of his foreign "investments" but I imagine much more is there. Trump believes that he will never have to release this information so maybe a law/requirement would be a good thing going forward.
Trump is only interested in one thing: Himself and the Trump Brand as a reflection of himself. This is the one and only prime motivator for everything he does. His candidacy for POTUS is about making Trump and Trump Inc. bigger and better. He has and will use whatever means he sees fit to make more money for himself. There is no love for country, only love for himself.
Trump is only interested in one thing: Himself and the Trump Brand as a reflection of himself. This is the one and only prime motivator for everything he does. His candidacy for POTUS is about making Trump and Trump Inc. bigger and better. He has and will use whatever means he sees fit to make more money for himself. There is no love for country, only love for himself.
384
I keep reading the "preaching to the choir" argument with regard to anyone who criticizes Trump, and "Trump supporters don't care." The tacit suggestion is that it's a waste of time to write a column that criticizes Trump because you won't sway anyone. People frequently comment that the NY Times won't reach anyone.
Not true. Folks:
1) This is The New York Times. The Times has a daily print circulation of 590,000, and 1.1 million on Sunday, and who knows how many online visitors.
2) The intended audience is always to persuade someone who believes there is no difference between these candidates, or anyone who is undecided. Columnists are not trying to persuade any of the card-carrying Trump followers. If they do persuade a few, that's great, but that's not the intent here.
Not true. Folks:
1) This is The New York Times. The Times has a daily print circulation of 590,000, and 1.1 million on Sunday, and who knows how many online visitors.
2) The intended audience is always to persuade someone who believes there is no difference between these candidates, or anyone who is undecided. Columnists are not trying to persuade any of the card-carrying Trump followers. If they do persuade a few, that's great, but that's not the intent here.
I don't think that the rest of us really exist at all to trump.
I think this article and others like it can give us all the courage and energy once again to speak out about ethics. Some times the choir needs encouragement to sing out in the face of a culture that has strayed very very far from "old timey" ideals and appears to have no interest in reviving them.
So whether Trumpers read it or not, it still can create significant salutary effects for the rest of us.
So whether Trumpers read it or not, it still can create significant salutary effects for the rest of us.
Only one solution: make a law.
This will require both sides in the house and senate to work together to pass a law that requires candidates to be vetted the same way a CEO of a public company or an appointment to a government agency requiring congressional approval is vetted.
The law should require candidates for either house of congress and the executive branch to produce tax records, bank account and brokerage statements, college transcripts, and a birth certificate.
An independent agency will have to conduct credit, criminal and other background checks on the candidate, and close associates who would have access to the candidate if elected.
Certain candidates - from either party - will not make the cut. For instance, a candidate whose spouse had been disbarred for ethics violations, or a candidate (or their spouse) who had committed perjury shouldn't be able to run.
It would bar anyone from running who had committed, or had in their immediate family, a history of sexual deviance, drugs or alcohol dependency, infidelity or other character flaws that could create a security risk.
Similarly, if one's siblings, children or other family members who would have access had criminal records (say for narcotics possession, selling access to senior elected officials, etc), that candidate would have to drop out.
I'm sure our congress will demonstrate their ability to enact such legislation. They're at their best when they regulate themselves.
This will require both sides in the house and senate to work together to pass a law that requires candidates to be vetted the same way a CEO of a public company or an appointment to a government agency requiring congressional approval is vetted.
The law should require candidates for either house of congress and the executive branch to produce tax records, bank account and brokerage statements, college transcripts, and a birth certificate.
An independent agency will have to conduct credit, criminal and other background checks on the candidate, and close associates who would have access to the candidate if elected.
Certain candidates - from either party - will not make the cut. For instance, a candidate whose spouse had been disbarred for ethics violations, or a candidate (or their spouse) who had committed perjury shouldn't be able to run.
It would bar anyone from running who had committed, or had in their immediate family, a history of sexual deviance, drugs or alcohol dependency, infidelity or other character flaws that could create a security risk.
Similarly, if one's siblings, children or other family members who would have access had criminal records (say for narcotics possession, selling access to senior elected officials, etc), that candidate would have to drop out.
I'm sure our congress will demonstrate their ability to enact such legislation. They're at their best when they regulate themselves.
4
John the Silent; you should be. Your requirements would eliminate pretty much everyone.