Should anyone running for federal office be required to release their taxes?

[BainsBane]

Multiple years of full tax returns. 5-10? Specify below.

Whether President, Vice President, Senator or Member of the House?

25 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, all candidates
	23 (92%)
	No, no politicians should be required
	2 (8%)
	Presidential candidates but not for Senate or the House
	0 (0%)
	Only politicians I don't like should be required to release them
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[dhol82]

1. At least 10 years

[BainsBane]

4. I like that

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. Yup

[beachbum bob]

2. Should be mandatory going back 10 years

[EllieBC]

3. Is some fool actually hinting only candidates they do not like should???

I am asking because of your choices. Of course anyone running should. I would say at state level races too.

[BainsBane]

5. Actually I have heard that argument.

[mhw]

10. ALL candidates should open their books considering what we know about Trump today

From here on for the sake of Natl Securiry, yes.

Also should have to list owning any Offshore accts, Trusts etc.

Thanks to Trump for having to make this a mandatory need for vetting, from here on.
I am glad to see that some States have now required opening the tax books before they can be allowed on the State ballot for the highest office.

Hope the country has learned that from the traitor in the WH.

Absolutely yes.

[sheshe2]

6. Mandatory for all going back 10 years.

Full tax returns.

[marylandblue]

7. I used to think it wasn't important, but Trump changed my mind

[BainsBane]

9. I have always thought it important

but Trump has demonstrated why it is crucial.

[JI7]

31. i actually think the traditional of releasing them probably kept many corrupt types from

even running for the office in the first place which is good.

things changed with trump but he is actually proving why they should be released.

[irisblue]

8. Hell to the yes+ 10 years.

[Hoyt]

11. Tax returns don't necessaryily provide the detailed info we need

Fine with requiring it, but it's not like the return is going to say a Ruskies paid me far more than fair market value for favors. Even all the schedules aren't likely to tell us what we want.

I'd suggest changing disclosure forms to determine such stuff.

[brer cat]

25. While I support providing tax returns,

I also agree with you that the financial disclosure forms are inadequate and should be tightened. For example, politicians who conceal part of their assets off-shore to either avoid paying taxes or to hide their wealth from interested parties should be required to be much more transparent.

[Lars39]

12. Yes, and if not your name is removed from list of candidates.

[rogue emissary]

14. I agree with most but I'd like longer than 10 years.

If the majority of candidates that were running were in their twenties or thirties, ten years would be enough. With most candidates initially running in their late forties to fifties. I'd prefer at least twenty years.

[lunamagica]

15. At the very least 10 years. But I agree with the PP who said 20 years would be better

And that should go for everyone running for office.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

16. I've never understood the clamor for tax returns. A

bunch of politicians have released tax returns over the years. Did they ever include anything of any significance? I know I've never bothered to look at any released tax returns.

[Squinch]

18. If we don't know where their income comes from, we don't know where their conflicts of interest lie.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

19. Wouldn't the standard disclosures of political

contributions reveal that more directly?

[Squinch]

20. No. It is not just about political contributions. It is also about which businesses they own and/or

are enriched by.

Disclosures of political contributions are only a very small part of the picture. And what would stop someone like Trump from lying on such a disclosure form?

[bettyellen]

28. That's becasue at higher offices they'd traditionally divest and do true blind trusts-

If they had big stakes in anything that might be problematic. Carter was hounded to get rid of his share in a family peanut farm. So yeah- what's happening now is beyond the pale. Norms will have to be codified.
If states have to do it as ballot requirements we can start there.

All the obsession w contributions confused people. I contributed w the name of three corporations last year! Becasue I freelance. But people were going on and on about corporate contributions that included my donations.
As if.

[roamer65]

17. Income taxes AND loan & investment information.

[Wounded Bear]

21. Not "anyone"....EVERYONE...

[BainsBane]

22. Everyone then.

[mcar]

23. Excellent question

[karadax]

24. No. It should remain voluntary.

I've been reading about states trying to push the 5 year tax return requirement for congressional and senate seats at the local and federal level. I fear it opens up the door down the road. Drug tests requirements ? Stricter health disclosure requirements ?

In the last election Hillary put her 30 years of returns out there for people to digest. Trump chose not to and our BS radars instantly went off.

I'll start to worry more when both candidates in a general election choose to hide their tax information.

[NCTraveler]

26. No.

It is a huge negative for me but I don't think they should have to.

[Madam45for2923]

27. Yes, yeah & yep!

[JI7]

29. i think President and VP for Sure should . but i'm not that sure about lower office

i would say for pres/vp it should be at least 10-15 . and i'm leaning more towards 15 and more.

maybe less for the other offices . partly because they will tend to be younger and power isn't as concentrated as with president. maybe even 3-5 for house. about 5 or more for senate .

but i think the pres/vp candidates need to do it for sure.

[JI7]

30. Trump is the biggest Proof we have of why we need to do this

w bush was a shitty president but we knew he did not personally try to profit from the things he did. it was a failure of policy and him being an idiot but it wasn't done to personally profit. and we were able to see this .

this is not true with trump where everything he is doing is with an eye towards his own personal profits. just look at china and the comments on south korea . and saudi arabia and of course russia.

the muslim ban doesn't include nations which actually have had terrorists attack us why banning those which haven't and it's all based on his own personal business relationships.

[nkpolitics1212]

32. Is tax evasion a high crime and misdemeanor?