What is Trump hiding? Where are his Tax Returns

[candycorn]

Every Presidential candidate should release their tax returns.

Fact check: Trump’s tax returns

Donald Trump said “there’s nothing to learn” from his tax returns, but experts say there’s plenty to learn from presidential candidates’ tax returns, including sources of income, effective tax rates, charitable giving habits and more.

[...]

But voters learn several pieces of information from candidates’ tax returns.

Roberton Williams, the Sol Price fellow at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us that there are three things we could learn from Trump’s tax returns: details about where he gets his income and how much it is; “how he’s structuring his income for tax purposes”; and what kind of deductions he takes, including charitable giving. If Trump had overseas income or foreign bank accounts, for instance, that information would be on his tax return.

Jeremy Scott, editor in chief of the commentary and analysis products for the nonprofit Tax Analysts, told us in a phone interview that it was “strange for Trump to say you don’t learn anything,” when just four years ago, Romney’s effective tax rate, revealed through his tax returns, was a significant issue. (In fact, Romney’s 14% effective tax rate in 2010, due to most of his income coming from dividends and capital gains, became fodder for Obama campaign attack ads.)

Scott told us that ever since President Richard Nixon released his returns in 1973, the candidate’s returns have been “a form of checking on how a candidate conducts his financial affairs.” Conflicts of interest can be exposed, as well as how a candidates’ individual tax policy squares with his proposals.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, said Scott, pushed the idea of paying your fair share, but his returns — released by his presidential library after he was in office — show he was “actually very aggressive at trying to minimize his own taxes.”

The Tax Analysts’ Tax History Project is compiling an online archive of candidates’ returns. Project Director Joseph J. Thorndike wrote in a May 12 blog post on taxnotes.com that beyond an effective tax rate, “[r]eturns can shed light on the way a candidate lives his life. It can tell us about charitable giving as well as personal borrowing and investment activity. Returns can also illuminate the complicated business arrangements that often provide the bulk of a candidate’s income, especially for a real estate mogul like Trump.”

And the returns also “tell us a lot about how candidates conduct themselves in the gray areas of the tax law,” Thorndike wrote. “Some items on a tax return are black and white, like the income reported on a W-2. But other items, especially for someone with lots of non-salary business income, are open to debate and interpretation.”

Trump’s comments also prompted Time magazine to outline “5 Interesting Things We Learned From Presidential Tax Returns,” including: Obama gave sizable charitable contributions to his controversial pastor; Romney had an unusually high IRA balance; and President George H.W. Bush gave nearly 62% of his 1991 income to charity.

So you personally read over every Presidential hopefuls tax return. Have you personally looked over Clinton's tax returns? What did that tell you about her?

Is Trump releasing his tax returns going to sway you to vote for him?

No but it may sway independents to not vote for him. It’s called persuasion. And not releasing them tells independents the he is definitely hiding something….

His choice, of course. Why you support someone who is not willing to fulfill his commitments….that is your problem.

Who am I supporting that is not willing to fulfill his commitments and what commitments are you talking about?

You need a new playbook skippy.

Trumps unfavorable ratings BREAK RECORDS

Makes it easier to paint when the public is predisposed to believing it already

 

[Siete]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.

Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools.

The burden of proof is on Trump, NO ONE ELSE !

 

[Siete]

Nope, you said:

$3,000,000 given in charity and it hurt Romney,

What hurt Romney?

Sarcasm nut job sarcasm.

Sure it was.

But back to your question.


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/S...y_Stories_Teases/August_NBC-WSJ_Int_Sched.pdf

Yeah, giving $3,000,000 to charity will cause anyone to lose.

So which voter changed their vote? It made someone more or less favorable but it did change a voter's vote? No proof.

giving to charity had very little to do with him losing ... lying about his offshore bank accounts did.

That and his wife's hobby horse claimed as a medical expense.

$76,000.00 if I remember correctly ... for a horse?

I had 3 at one time ... if I had only known ...

 

[easyt65]

This election, every presidential candidate has made at least some tax information public—except for Donald Trump.

More at MSN.com

Obviously the small fraction of a person who won the GOP nomination last evening is hiding something. One would figure that the normally boisterous bloward would be happy to show off his riches....unless they are not as impressive as he has been saying.

National Review said the following which may be the way a lot of delegates feel:

A political party that didn’t demand the public release of Donald Trump’s tax returns could be committing electoral suicide. In his 40-year business career, he has assembled an empire of great complexity along with a serial record of credibility problems. In other words, he often “makes stuff up.” This is a man who said, under oath, in a 2008 libel suit he later lost: “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with the markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.”

Clearly Drumpf is engaged in hiding something from his supporters. The question is whether or not the supporters care or not.

After all that, you're OP stands up well.

Well, it’s pretty easy. Hillary is repeating the Obama playbook almost move for move and the idiots on the other side haven’t watched the game film.

Drumpf is being defined early. The elegance of this trap is that no matter how much he screams, he only hurts himself because it draws attention to the central fact that he’s hiding something. The only way to de-fuse the bomb is to release the records and now, it looks like he’s giving into pressure if he does it.

I agree, For something that anyone with any amount of common sense should know, if a billionaire runs for president...hey, maybe they should clean up their taxes because there is going to be a more than fair amount of attention paid to them.

Equally, before a President publicly nominates someone to be a member of his Cabinet he should have the common sense / ability to vet them and find out that the majority of his choices have evaded paying their taxes. Common sense should also prevent a President from appointing a tax evader as Secretary of the TREASURY.

YOU WOULD THINK...

 

[candycorn]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.

Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and is not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools. In the grown-up world such demands / opinions are yo be appropriately shunned / ridiculed / reasonably rejected.

It’s working right now. Drump is being defined as we speak as someone who is not willing to tell the truth. If nothing else, tax returns are your OFFICIAL REPORT of your income, your deductions, your charitable giving, % of income paid. There is no spin, no bluster, no machismo threats that can be made…..it’s just a document that reports the facts. Drumpf is not willing to tell the facts and just asks us to trust him. This, after so many walk-backs, lies, deception, etc…

The elegance is that the bluster and threats just amplifies the volume around the scandal.

IF he has nothing to hide that is worse than this….there is no reason to not release the information. The lame excuses just make him and his supporters appear more deceitful than usual.

 

[eddiew]

Trump is like Chauncey Gardner anything he says his sheep nod their heads

 

[easyt65]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.

Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools.

The burden of proof is on Trump, NO ONE ELSE !

Is that ftom Liberal Law 101?

In this country people are inmocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the innocent person following the law.

Your comment helps to demonstrate the twisted logic and wrong thinking liberals have, how they try to twist and manipulate or ignore the law as they see fit.

 

[Camp]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.

Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and is not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools. In the grown-up world such demands / opinions are yo be appropriately shunned / ridiculed / reasonably rejected.

Again, you distort. Few folks are actually accusing him of anything. Most are questioning what he "might" be hiding and speculating about what the "might" might be.
His refusal to provide his tax returns has never been argued as a legal requirement or issue. You are making up an argument that does not exist. More distortion on your part. Who has argued that releasing his taxes are a legal requirement? Releasing his taxes is a moral and cultural decision. No one is arguing that he doesn't have a right to ignore those moral and cultural traditions. The debate is how much he will pay for doing so.

 

[Siete]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.

Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools.

The burden of proof is on Trump, NO ONE ELSE !

Is that ftom Liberal Law 101?

In this country people are inmocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the innocent person following the law.

Your comment helps to demonstrate the twisted logic and wrong thinking liberals have, how they try to twist and manipulate or ignore the law as they see fit.

you tell me how you expect anyone to prove Trump is or isnt ANYTHING without his records ..

Call Dale and ask ..

 

[easyt65]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.
Liberals are trying to define Trump,
Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and is not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools. In the grown-up world such demands / opinions are yo be appropriately shunned / ridiculed / reasonably rejected.

It’s working right now. Drump is being defined as we speak as someone who is not willing to tell the truth. If nothing else, tax returns are your OFFICIAL REPORT of your income, your deductions, your charitable giving, % of income paid. There is no spin, no bluster, no machismo threats that can be made…..it’s just a document that reports the facts. Drumpf is not willing to tell the facts and just asks us to trust him. This, after so many walk-backs, lies, deception, etc…

The elegance is that the bluster and threats just amplifies the volume around the scandal.

IF he has nothing to hide that is worse than this….there is no reason to not release the information. The lame excuses just make him and his supporters appear more deceitful than usual.

Liberals are trying to define Trump based on zero evidence, based on false accusations, opinion, and an un-fulfilled sense of entitlement to something they legally have no right to see.

Intelligent people see this and simply ignore them...

Despite this manufactured issue, polls show more liberals are open to switching their support to Trump than Republicans willing to switch to Hillary.

But you libs continue to do your Don Quixote impersonation to Trump's windmill (tax returns).

 

[candycorn]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.

Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools.

The burden of proof is on Trump, NO ONE ELSE !

Is that ftom Liberal Law 101?

In this country people are inmocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the innocent person following the law.

Your comment helps to demonstrate the twisted logic and wrong thinking liberals have, how they try to twist and manipulate or ignore the law as they see fit.

Innocent until proven guilty?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/14178265/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/13408235/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/13391391/

You’re the queen of twisted logic if that is what you really think beeeeeeotch. You’ve done nothing but speak as if others are guilty.

 

[HappyJoy]

This election, every presidential candidate has made at least some tax information public—except for Donald Trump.

More at MSN.com

Obviously the small fraction of a person who won the GOP nomination last evening is hiding something. One would figure that the normally boisterous bloward would be happy to show off his riches....unless they are not as impressive as he has been saying.

National Review said the following which may be the way a lot of delegates feel:

A political party that didn’t demand the public release of Donald Trump’s tax returns could be committing electoral suicide. In his 40-year business career, he has assembled an empire of great complexity along with a serial record of credibility problems. In other words, he often “makes stuff up.” This is a man who said, under oath, in a 2008 libel suit he later lost: “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with the markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.”

Clearly Drumpf is engaged in hiding something from his supporters. The question is whether or not the supporters care or not.

After all that, you're OP stands up well.

Well, it’s pretty easy. Hillary is repeating the Obama playbook almost move for move and the idiots on the other side haven’t watched the game film.

Drumpf is being defined early. The elegance of this trap is that no matter how much he screams, he only hurts himself because it draws attention to the central fact that he’s hiding something. The only way to de-fuse the bomb is to release the records and now, it looks like he’s giving into pressure if he does it.

I agree, For something that anyone with any amount of common sense should know, if a billionaire runs for president...hey, maybe they should clean up their taxes because there is going to be a more than fair amount of attention paid to them.

Equally, before a President publicly nominates someone to be a member of his Cabinet he should have the common sense / ability to vet them and find out that the majority of his choices have evaded paying their taxes. Common sense should also prevent a President from appointing a tax evader as Secretary of the TREASURY.

YOU WOULD THINK...

That is a very interesting non sequitur you just made. However, wasn't Congress who approved Geithner aware of his 'tax evasion' before hand?

But, what does that have to do with Presidential candidates providing tax returns while running for office? Not much.

 

[HappyJoy]

Donald is such a tease about his taxes too.

 

[sonic]

This whole topic is simply further evidence that Trump shoots from the hip with little to no forethought. He knew he was running for President, and yet never considered that his financials would come under scrutiny and clean them up. This is what a Trump Presidency would be like - a rank amateur spouting off, then retreating - effectively saying "oh shit, I never thought of that". The man is intellectually unfit for office. Period.

 

[eddiew]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.
Liberals are trying to define Trump,
Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and is not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools. In the grown-up world such demands / opinions are yo be appropriately shunned / ridiculed / reasonably rejected.

It’s working right now. Drump is being defined as we speak as someone who is not willing to tell the truth. If nothing else, tax returns are your OFFICIAL REPORT of your income, your deductions, your charitable giving, % of income paid. There is no spin, no bluster, no machismo threats that can be made…..it’s just a document that reports the facts. Drumpf is not willing to tell the facts and just asks us to trust him. This, after so many walk-backs, lies, deception, etc…

The elegance is that the bluster and threats just amplifies the volume around the scandal.

IF he has nothing to hide that is worse than this….there is no reason to not release the information. The lame excuses just make him and his supporters appear more deceitful than usual.

Liberals are trying to define Trump based on zero evidence, based on false accusations, opinion, and an un-fulfilled sense of entitlement to something they legally have no right to see.

Intelligent people see this and simply ignore them...

Despite this manufactured issue, polls show more liberals are open to switching their support to Trump than Republicans willing to switch to Hillary.

But you libs continue to do your Don Quixote impersonation to Trump's windmill (tax returns).

Where there's smoke there's fire
We Investigated, Donald Trump is Named in at Least 169 Federal Lawsuits
by Rachel Stockman | 10:40 am, February 16th, 2016
341

Donald Trump has been named in at least 169 federal lawsuits, according to a LawNewz.com investigation. They read like a history of Trump’s business failures, successes, and bombastic personality. With Trump threatening a lawsuit against Ted Cruz, his surge in the polls, and his big win in New Hampshire, we thought now was as good a time as any to review of some of the Donald’s legal skirmishes. The federal lawsuits that we reviewed date back to 1983 and involve everything from business disputes, antitrust claims and, more recently, accusations that Trump’s campaign statements are discriminatory against minorities. Some of the cases have been resolved, some were dismissed as frivolous, and others were privately settled. He’s been sued by celebrities, personal assistants, prisoners, people in mental hospitals, unions, and wealthy businessmen. Of course, Donald Trump has also done his fair share of suing as well. The lawsuits on both sides provide a unique glimpse into some of the biggest battles involving the presidential candidate. Just a note, the cases listed below only include those filed in U.S. federal court. Who knows how many others were filed in state courts around the country.

Here are some highlights in chronological order:

• The first lawsuit we found was filed in 1983 by Harry Diduck, Joseph Hardy and members of the Local 95 pension fund against Donald Trump and Trump’s organization. Diduck’s and his crew contended that Trump cheated workers out of at least $300,000 in contributions to its benefit funds by secretly employing nonunion workers during the building of Trump Tower. After years of litigation including a bench trial, the case was finally closed in 1999, but we can’t get the details because the settlement agreement is sealed.

• The U.S. Department of Justice sued Trump for an antitrust violation in 1988 and won. Trump was forced to pay $750,000. The real-estate magnate agreed to pay the penalty stemming from his attempted takeovers of two companies. The feds said that his stock purchases in the companies violated the FTC’s notification requirements.

• 1990 was a big legal year for Donald Trump. He was named as a defendant in 21 lawsuits filed by different businesses and individuals. Several sued him for securities fraud and breach of contract. Most of the complaints stem from the Trump’s corporation filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy from creditors following the building of the Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. By 1991, the resort was nearly $3 billion in debt, according to the New York Times.

• It’s not just Trump being sued. He has sued Palm Beach, where he has a home, at least three different times. In 1992, he filed a $100 million lawsuit over the membership club Mar-a-Lago, the council eventually “acquiesced” and allowed him to make some of his property into a private club. He then sued the Palm Beach Airport for noise violations, and tried to prevent them from expandingnear his private club. Palm Beach County estimates that legal fights with Trump related to the airport have cost taxpayers at least $600,000. The most entertaining is probably the $25 million lawsuit he filed against the town, who cited him for displaying an American flag on his property. “The town council of Palm Beach should be ashamed of itself,” Trump said, according to Politico. “They’re fining me for putting up the American flag. This is probably a first in United States history.”

 

[easyt65]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.

Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and is not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools. In the grown-up world such demands / opinions are yo be appropriately shunned / ridiculed / reasonably rejected.

Again, you distort. Few folks are actually accusing him of anything. Most are questioning what he "might" be hiding and speculating about what the "might" might be.
His refusal to provide his tax returns has never been argued as a legal requirement or issue. You are making up an argument that does not exist. More distortion on your part. Who has argued that releasing his taxes are a legal requirement? Releasing his taxes is a moral and cultural decision. No one is arguing that he doesn't have a right to ignore those moral and cultural traditions. The debate is how much he will pay for doing so.

The only false argument is liberals hypocritically and falsely declaring Trump is hiding something because they can not see what they have no legal right to see.

If Trump is guilty of what they claim then they should have no problem proving it based on what they already have, not based on the accusation of what MIGHT be found on their fishing expedition.

 

[candycorn]

Libs, you continue to accuse Trump of hiding something because he refuses to give you something you feel you are entitled to, which you are not.
Liberals are trying to define Trump,
Let's end the debate once and for all. The burden of proof is on the accuser....put up or shut up. Provide the evidence, other than your opinion or the fact that YOU say so, that Trump is hiding something. The fact that he has chosen not to give you what you want and is not legally required to do, is not proof of wrong-doing.

The continued insistence that he has to show you anything to prove his innocense is a ploy that would never hold up in court but is an often highly effective tactic on playgrounds and in grade schools. In the grown-up world such demands / opinions are yo be appropriately shunned / ridiculed / reasonably rejected.

It’s working right now. Drump is being defined as we speak as someone who is not willing to tell the truth. If nothing else, tax returns are your OFFICIAL REPORT of your income, your deductions, your charitable giving, % of income paid. There is no spin, no bluster, no machismo threats that can be made…..it’s just a document that reports the facts. Drumpf is not willing to tell the facts and just asks us to trust him. This, after so many walk-backs, lies, deception, etc…

The elegance is that the bluster and threats just amplifies the volume around the scandal.

IF he has nothing to hide that is worse than this….there is no reason to not release the information. The lame excuses just make him and his supporters appear more deceitful than usual.

Liberals are trying to define Trump based on zero evidence,

Trying to?

No. It’s happening right now.

She has released 33 years.
He has released nothing.

He’s not being transparent. He’s not performing the time-honored tradition that has fallen to all nominees of their parties. And he’s giving lame excuses that do not cover the other years that he could release without affecting any audit (if there actually is an audit taking place).

He’s made his bed, Hillary is making him lay in it.

It’s a brilliant trap he is caught in…the only way out is to release his records and when he does, it will look like he is doing it because he has to…not because he intended to.

based on false accusations, opinion, and an un-fulfilled sense of entitlement to something they legally have no right to see.

Time will tell if the accusations are false.
People are entitled to their opinion
And the American people pretty much define what they expect from persons running for office.

Intelligent people see this and simply ignore them...

You’ve devoted your entire Sunday to trying to convince us there is nothing to see there…. It either means you’re worried shitless or, as you say, you’re not very intelligent.

Despite this manufactured issue, polls show more liberals are open to switching their support to Trump than Republicans willing to switch to Hillary.

Keep dreaming.

But you libs continue to do your Don Quixote impersonation to Trump's windmill (tax returns).

He’s hiding something and is being defined as someone who is hiding something.

The fact that he is hiding something—that is a fact; he is not showing his cards where everyone else has—makes Hillary’s trap that much more effective.

 

[Papageorgio]

No, I said he gave $3,000,000 to charity, Gore gave $100 to charity.

Nope, you said:

$3,000,000 given in charity and it hurt Romney,

What hurt Romney?

Sarcasm nut job sarcasm.

Sure it was.

But back to your question.


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/S...y_Stories_Teases/August_NBC-WSJ_Int_Sched.pdf

Yeah, giving $3,000,000 to charity will cause anyone to lose.

So which voter changed their vote? It made someone more or less favorable but it did change a voter's vote? No proof.

I think a poll is more than enough evidence to counter your point. What you are now doing is asking for proof that would be impossible to gain.

So who was polled? Did the tax return change a vote?

My solution is vote for Sanders, he is the most credible of the last three candidates.

 

[Papageorgio]

Every Presidential candidate should release their tax returns.

Fact check: Trump’s tax returns

Donald Trump said “there’s nothing to learn” from his tax returns, but experts say there’s plenty to learn from presidential candidates’ tax returns, including sources of income, effective tax rates, charitable giving habits and more.

[...]

But voters learn several pieces of information from candidates’ tax returns.

Roberton Williams, the Sol Price fellow at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us that there are three things we could learn from Trump’s tax returns: details about where he gets his income and how much it is; “how he’s structuring his income for tax purposes”; and what kind of deductions he takes, including charitable giving. If Trump had overseas income or foreign bank accounts, for instance, that information would be on his tax return.

Jeremy Scott, editor in chief of the commentary and analysis products for the nonprofit Tax Analysts, told us in a phone interview that it was “strange for Trump to say you don’t learn anything,” when just four years ago, Romney’s effective tax rate, revealed through his tax returns, was a significant issue. (In fact, Romney’s 14% effective tax rate in 2010, due to most of his income coming from dividends and capital gains, became fodder for Obama campaign attack ads.)

Scott told us that ever since President Richard Nixon released his returns in 1973, the candidate’s returns have been “a form of checking on how a candidate conducts his financial affairs.” Conflicts of interest can be exposed, as well as how a candidates’ individual tax policy squares with his proposals.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, said Scott, pushed the idea of paying your fair share, but his returns — released by his presidential library after he was in office — show he was “actually very aggressive at trying to minimize his own taxes.”

The Tax Analysts’ Tax History Project is compiling an online archive of candidates’ returns. Project Director Joseph J. Thorndike wrote in a May 12 blog post on taxnotes.com that beyond an effective tax rate, “[r]eturns can shed light on the way a candidate lives his life. It can tell us about charitable giving as well as personal borrowing and investment activity. Returns can also illuminate the complicated business arrangements that often provide the bulk of a candidate’s income, especially for a real estate mogul like Trump.”

And the returns also “tell us a lot about how candidates conduct themselves in the gray areas of the tax law,” Thorndike wrote. “Some items on a tax return are black and white, like the income reported on a W-2. But other items, especially for someone with lots of non-salary business income, are open to debate and interpretation.”

Trump’s comments also prompted Time magazine to outline “5 Interesting Things We Learned From Presidential Tax Returns,” including: Obama gave sizable charitable contributions to his controversial pastor; Romney had an unusually high IRA balance; and President George H.W. Bush gave nearly 62% of his 1991 income to charity.

So you personally read over every Presidential hopefuls tax return. Have you personally looked over Clinton's tax returns? What did that tell you about her?

Is Trump releasing his tax returns going to sway you to vote for him?

No but it may sway independents to not vote for him. It’s called persuasion. And not releasing them tells independents the he is definitely hiding something….

His choice, of course. Why you support someone who is not willing to fulfill his commitments….that is your problem.

Who am I supporting that is not willing to fulfill his commitments and what commitments are you talking about?

You need a new playbook skippy.

Trumps unfavorable ratings BREAK RECORDS

What does that have to do with anything? Lol!

 

[easyt65]

Candy, you claim time will tell if the base-less, factually unsupported accusations are true.

No, EVIDENCE - proof- determines guilt or innocense. Liberals are long on unsupported opinions and accisations and completel devoid of proof. If they had it they would use it. The fact that they want access to information they are not entitled to so they can LOOK for anything is a desperate attempt to do some 'political fishing'.

Hillary supporters should understand there must be probable cause and evidence before issuing an indictment of somone. It takes more than partisans declaring they 'know' someone they don't lime is hiding something

Provide the evidence to support your baseless accusation with what you alresdy have.