politics @lemmy.world return2ozma @lemmy.world 11mo ago

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris release their latest tax filings, predecessor Donald Trump declined to disclose such records

abcnews.go.com Joe Biden and Kamala Harris release their latest tax filings

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and their spouses released their 2023 tax returns on Monday

34 comments

It needs to be law that all public officials release their tax records...Also no stock holdings.
- I think it's ok for them to have stocks, they just should be put into a blind trust to manage, and they shouldn't be able to make any transactions outside of that for the duration of their term in office.
  
  And the potential conflicts of interest should be described so their decisions can be analyzed against them if necessary.
  
  Nah, I think they’ve shown they cannot be responsible with such a privilege and it should be taken from them.
- Or, ya know, you could just make everyones publicly available by request along with earnings. Like they do in Finland.
  
  Strangely, this seems to lower the amount of corruption in government and non-government organisations.
  
  America is weirdly fucking puritanical about disclosing income. One of the many anti-union cultural legacies.
- Hmm, should there be limits? I agree in principle that receiving public money as income should probably make your income records public knowledge, but... do we need to expose the personal finances of every park ranger? every military member? NASA engineers? Education board members? Or limit it specifically to elected positions? Would it then only apply to elected judges but not appointed ones? Every level - fed, state, county, city?
  
  The problem is, your tax records have enough information on them to expose you to identity theft. High-profile positions like the President will have enough people watching all their records to prevent any serious identity theft attempts, but setting up that kind of oversight for every public official would be incredibly difficult and expensive. Exposing some government positions to identity theft like this creates some pretty serious security concerns. Just exposing the address of a judge could put them at risk.
  
  Do you really think the president of the United States could be a victim of identity theft?
  
  Edit: oh, I misread. No, you don't apparently. Answered my own question
  
  Yes we should release financials. They're public servants, not our lords. We can keep addresses etc secure when necessary.
  
  So you have two problems. Lack of financial transparency for public servants, and poor systems in place to mitigate identity theft.
As it turns out, his financials actually ARE under audit... just instead of the IRS, it's by various parts of the justice system
- And even so... he's still not prevented from releasing them.
I was not prepared to learn the White House Phrase for Kamala's husband is Second Gentleman.

I like it. It's cute.
- Second Gentleman Doug.
No change there.
Being required to disclose tax records could potentially violate a candidate's Fifth Amendment rights. At the very least such a requirement would require a Constitutional amendment.
- I don't think someone whose tax filings are criminally incriminating should be allowed to hold any public office until after they've already been prosecuting and paid their debt to society.
  
  You can't get a security clearance without disclosure of a lot of private information. The office of the president should be more strict
- Eh, when filing taxes the IRS wants you to list all income from ill gotten gains as well. So is that a violation of your 5th amendment rights?
  
  Also, I don't think the 5th amendment applies at all, a textual reading shows that it applies in only criminal cases "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." And a reporting requirement is not a criminal case so far as I know.
  
  Ive known drug dealers who pay taxes and report some type of income to the irs. The two different dudes described it about the same, the irs doesnt care how you get your money, they are not criminal police trying to arrest you, they just want your money and will leave you alone when they get it.
- Idk, having to submit to a financial background check as an entry-level employee kinda makes your point look hilariously out of touch.
  
  Remember these politicians should only be employees of their constituents.. we're their fucking bosses.
- Shut up.
- Unlike if you've been subpoenaed to testify in court, you aren't required to run for office. If the prospect of your criminal activity being exposed makes you not run, well, that's just an unintended benefit.
- Hmmm. protection against self-incrimination. What's that they keep saying? If you've got nothing to hide......

34 comments