Image 01 Image 03

Democrats May Regret Releasing Trump’s Taxes

Democrats May Regret Releasing Trump’s Taxes

“While a majority of voters are OK with House Ways and Means Committee Democrats releasing former President Donald Trump’s federal income taxes, they also feel that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

Democrats have just released Trump’s taxes, their last attack on him before losing control of the House. They may regret this and sooner than they think.

Trump was rich when he entered office and served only four years. There are millions of Americans who are far more curious how people who have held office for decades have become wildly rich on a public sector salary.

Paul Bedard writes at the Washington Examiner:

Voters seek revenge on Democrats who released Trump taxes

Voters are not in a very Christmas-y mood when it comes to Washington’s punishment politics.

In fact, they’d like to see some payback.

While a majority of voters are OK with House Ways and Means Committee Democrats releasing former President Donald Trump’s federal income taxes, they also feel that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Asked in a new Rasmussen Reports survey if the incoming GOP House majority should release the taxes of Democrats who voted to reveal Trump’s taxes, 54% said yes.

And it wasn’t just Republicans, 63%, and independents, 53%, but included more Democrats than not. Rasmussen said that 45% of Democrats wanted the taxes of the Trump critics released to 38% who didn’t.

The partisan divide was much wider on the overall question of releasing Trump’s taxes, which is to be completed Friday by House Democrats. Some 53% said they approved of the release to 40% who disapproved.

Democrats especially were supportive, with 79% approving of the release. Among Republicans, 63% disapproved.

House Republicans must have read that poll, because they’re already reacting.

Joel Pollak of Breitbart News reports:

Republicans on Trump Tax Returns: Democrats ‘May Regret It Sooner Than They Think’

Republicans in the minority on the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee declared Friday that there had been “no legitimate legislative purpose” for the Democratic majority to release Donald Trump’s tax returns.

It was the first time Congress had ever obtained and released the federal tax returns of a private individual. Democrats claimed that they needed the returns as they considered future tax legislation. But the former president argued in court — to no avail — that Democrats were overstepping the separation of powers.

Pollak links to this dissenting statement from the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee:

Most importantly, the Committee Majority’s action set a dangerous new precedent. It is apparent from the proceedings that the Committee Majority set out with the goal of obtaining and publishing the former President’s full tax returns. Everything since then has been a search for a rationale or justification that would be acceptable to the courts. Committee Republicans are not focused on whether the former President should have made his tax returns public, which has been tradition. Nor are Committee Republicans focused on the accuracy of those tax returns – that is for the IRS to determine in the ongoing audits of the former President.

Committee Republicans are concerned that this politically motivated action unleashes a dangerous new political weapon reaching far beyond the former President and overturns decades of privacy protections for average Americans.

Going forward, the new precedent is that the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have nearly unlimited power to target and make public the tax returns of private citizens, political enemies, business or labor leaders, or even Supreme Court justices.

Democrats finally finally got their white whale and there was nothing to it.

From FOX News:

The analysis within the reports conclude that any lack of proper taxation on Trump’s earnings appears to have been ultimately a failing of the IRS and not the result of pressure or obfuscation from the White House.

Trump’s family of enterprises used reported losses, foreign tax credits, deductions, charitable donations and many other financial maneuvers to great effect in offsetting taxation on profits.

Now let’s see Pelosi and Biden’s tax returns.

Democrats set this precedent. They should be made to live by it.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Morning Sunshine | December 31, 2022 at 10:05 am

not just the politicians – their spouses and adult children. Let’s see how that plays out.

    rabid wombat in reply to Morning Sunshine. | December 31, 2022 at 10:19 am

    Here is a starting list to build on Morning Sunshine’s suggestion. Do not limit it to red or blue – go after all of them. At least this could fall under a legislative investigation, unlike singling Trump out….

    No. They didn’t open that door; let’s not open it for them.

      randian in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 2:13 am

      You know the principle won’t be honestly applied to Democrats anyway, so why not ask about the door?

        Milhouse in reply to randian. | January 1, 2023 at 8:48 am

        Because the fact is that they could have opened that door and for some reason they didn’t. We know that whatever door we open they will go through, so if they left this one closed, let it be, and maybe whatever prevented them opening it this time will still prevent them next time. If we open it, it can’t be closed again.

          Too late for that. We need to expose every major democrat and their donors via release of their taxes.

          Afterwards, we can legislate around it. But we need restribution first.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2023 at 12:49 am

          1. Even if you were right about major democrats, and even about donors, that still wouldn’t justify what we’re talking about now.
          2. The truth is you have no ethics at all, and no compunctions about doing anything at all to your enemies. You would probably round Democrats up and shoot them, if you thought you could get away with it, and excuse it by pretending they were about to do it to you.

          The fact is that the Democrats have perpetrated a major escalation, and they need to be shown that that sort of thing has consequences. But when doing so it’s important to make sure we don’t take it beyond what their actions can justify. So yes, every Democrat involved in this breach should have their tax returns exposed. That specifically includes Pelosi. If any “journalists” were involved they should be exposed too. But not beyond that, and certainly not people who are not even in politics.

      Felix in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 8:48 am

      Yes, they did open that door.
      Do you think they can claim it was the door to releasing only Donald Trumps tax returns?
      Where is the limiting principle you seem to claim there is?
      Please articulate it clearly and point to where it can be found in the Dem’s action.

        Milhouse in reply to Felix. | January 1, 2023 at 8:50 am

        The distinction is clear. The opened the door to obtaining and releasing a politician’s tax returns. Turnabout is fair play. But Morning Sunshine’s suggestion goes way beyond that, and we shouldn’t be doing that. If the Dems have some scrap of restraint in them, we have to encourage it, not tear it away.

          Felix in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 8:54 am

          Well, they need to consider if having your son peddle your influence makes changss to the income tax regime necessary. To name one actually legit legislative purpose that comes to mind.

          MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 3:42 pm

          enough of this “turn the other cheek” crap

          GravityOpera in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 6:30 pm

          You forgot to mention that any problems revealed will be more damaging to the good guys than they will to the bad guys (because they’re already expected to be bad.)

          This would be a good method for incumbents to shut out challengers. If anybody even hints at running against you or publicly challenging you about an issue then just request the tax returns from them and everybody they know. You’re sure to find something eventually.

          This door needs to stay as closed as possible.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 7:07 pm

          Milhouse, you make it seem you haven’t been paying attention. The Dems have already corrupted everything. The only purpose of doing so is to wield power. Have they stopped seeking additional power? If not, then they have not yet restrained themselves. They have merely stopped for now. Further wrong-doing, following up on established wrong-doing, is inevitable.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2023 at 12:51 am

          Well, they need to consider if having your son peddle your influence makes changss to the income tax regime necessary.

          That is a nasty accusation to make, with absolutely no foundation whatsoever. Shame on you.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2023 at 12:53 am

          enough of this “turn the other cheek” crap

          Sorry, you’ve got the wrong religion. If you think I believe in turning the other cheek you’ve really not been paying any attention at all.

By all means full spread ahead. Let’s start with the every living former POTUS. Then move on to every living former Speaker, then every living Majority or Minority leader in both House and Senate. Then every current or former Whip and the chair and ranking member of every committee.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I think every living former POTUS has already released their tax returns. It was only Trump that hadn’t released his returns.

    But the House has no authority to examine, let alone release, the returns of former Leader and Speaker. The House could examine and then release Trump’s return under the (very weak) argument, that the House has oversight of the IRS and the IRS is supposed to audit the returns of every president, and the House can examine Trump’s returns to ensure the IRS is carrying out its duty.

    But the IRS has no obligation to audit the returns of Speakers or Leaders, so the House has no authority to exam those returns, because the IRS has no duty to audit those returns. The House has no oversight authority in the matter.

      CommoChief in reply to dging. | December 31, 2022 at 3:03 pm

      The oversight argument cuts in all directions and classifications of taxpayers. The argument used to gain access to DJT’s tax files was that the HoR wanted to evaluate how the audit procedures were applied to Presidents.

      Once the HoR applied that rationale it isn’t a leap of logic to apply that to other groups of taxpayers. For example those of the Speaker or the Chair of the Taxation Committees. Are any audits being done? Are they selected randomly? Is that random selection being manually overridden? If not overridden are normal practices applied to these powerful people?

      Plenty of things to look at by claiming oversight even without a specific statute for audits. Another avenue would be to compare the tax return with mandatory disclosure requirements for Congress re stock sales or property sales. There is a standing ethics committee that could be used for that via simple majority vote.

      Once that line is crossed by d/prog choosing to wield ‘oversight’ power as a political power play against their political opposition then a new standard has been set. This will become the new hammer to be used in a series of escalations until the powerful call for a truce.

        CommoChief, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think you’re right. Once they open that door, it’s very difficult to close. And you’re right that just because they might have a stronger case to go after a president because the IRS has some legal or procedural duty to audit the president, they can use the same logic to go after anyone else.

        That anyone else may have somewhat firmer ground to try to stop it, but they are probably unlikely to succeed.

        Which of course brings us to the Republican leadership. Can you seriously entertain the idea of McCarthy, or any other Republican House Speaker going after former Democratic Speakers or Leaders – any Democrat for that matter – using the same tools the Dems used to go after Trump? I can’t.

        The Republican leadership is filled with spineless, gutless cowards. Dems don’t fear Republican blowback. They are quite confident they can play hard ball and at best the Reps will play softball. Or more likely, T-ball.

        Subotai Bahadur in reply to CommoChief. | December 31, 2022 at 8:53 pm

        First, we have the TINVOWOOT factor. Electoral politics have been so compromised that they are no longer applicable. In that case, pretty much all means are fair game. Anything to discredit the Nomenklatura is in play, especially if they happen to be true. Second, since functionally there is no practical difference between the two “parties” other than Maskirova, it can be applied to both, and their dependents who have benefited by swindling us. The legitimacy of the electoral process and the Social and Political Contract it supported has been rendered moot. Part of the counter is going to have to involve making the politicians and political class who have benefited from the lack of legitimacy themselves illegitimate in peoples’ eyes.

        Feel free to discuss.

        Subotai Bahadur

        randian in reply to CommoChief. | January 1, 2023 at 2:16 am

        This will become the new hammer to be used in a series of escalations until the powerful call for a truce.

        Yes, but you know it’s a hudna not a truce. The Republicans, being fools, will of course acquiesce once the Democrats are through hammering them.

      Milhouse in reply to dging. | December 31, 2022 at 7:18 pm

      But the House has no authority to examine, let alone release, the returns of former Leader and Speaker.

      Sure they do, the same way they got Trump’s.

      The House could examine and then release Trump’s return under the (very weak) argument, that the House has oversight of the IRS and the IRS is supposed to audit the returns of every president, and the House can examine Trump’s returns to ensure the IRS is carrying out its duty.

      But the IRS has no obligation to audit the returns of Speakers or Leaders,

      Why does the IRS have a duty to audit the president but not the speaker? Because the statute says so? So Congress might want to consider changing the statute. And to give due to consideration to such a proposal it will need to see the returns.

      No need to even pretend they will not be released — not once Trump’s were.

        dging in reply to Milhouse. | December 31, 2022 at 7:43 pm

        You’re right. I was wrong. But the Republican leadership is NEVER going to go after Dems the way the Dems went after Trump. And the Dems know it. They can do whatever they want to the Reps without any fear whatsoever of any kind of retribution.

        Felix in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 8:56 am

        Sorry, that was intended as an upvote, but fat fingers struck.

      inspectorudy in reply to dging. | January 1, 2023 at 1:39 am

      From what I could discern from the request by the J6 committee, the tax return was a fishing expedition and they had no specific issues with it. As it turns out there was nothing there for them to crow over. I think the SCOTUS was wrong to allow it because the committee did not show a reason for them to see the return. Just like a warrant, the investigation unit must show probable cause or some compelling reason for the warrant. The House in this instance had none.

        Milhouse in reply to inspectorudy. | January 1, 2023 at 8:58 am

        This was not anything like a warrant. The statute explicitly allows the committe to see any tax return it likes. All the committee had to show was some legitimate reason why it wanted this particular return, something to do with its legislative work. It came up with a reason — the law requires that the IRS audit presidents, and it wanted to know how well or poorly that requirement was being fulfilled. Based on what it found, it might propose amendments to the existing legislation. That’s a legitimate legislative reason for wanting to see it, and the courts can’t second-guess the committee or refuse to believe it. Of course releasing the returns shows what it really wanted them for, and of course we all knew all along that that was what it intended, but the courts had to pretend not to know that. The precedent having been set, the incoming committee should do the same to all those involved in the decision to requisition Trump’s returns, which includes not only all the Dem members of the outgoing committee, but also Pelosi, without whose authorization they would never have done it. And since California is a community property state, looking at Nancy Pelosi’s return will necessarily give us a lot of information about Paul’s as well. All that is legitimate retaliation, and not an escalation such as Morning Sunshine proposed.

          inspectorudy in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 12:28 pm

          You just contradicted your own argument by stating that the statute said they could view any tax return if they had a legitimate reason. They had none. It was a fishing expedition and nothing else.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2023 at 12:58 am

          They did have a legitimate reason. It wasn’t their real reason, but that makes no difference. The courts had to act as if they believed them.

      Felix in reply to dging. | January 1, 2023 at 8:52 am

      True, But in order to consider legislation about this clearly the returns need to be published. Exactly like they needed Trump’s returns to contemplate “legislation” – but I am sure you can explain how that is completely different without resorting to a variation on “Orange Man Bad”?

        Milhouse in reply to Felix. | January 1, 2023 at 9:01 am

        Well, no. In order to consider legislation there’s no reason to publish the returns. But they opened that door; the incoming committee has no need to even pretend that it won’t publish the returns it requisitions. But publishing them is not the legitimate purpose for which they can be requisitioned; these are two separate things. Requisition for a legit purpose, but be frank about the fact that the minute they arrive they will be published.

          Felix in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 3:34 pm

          We agree on that, but the precedent set right now says we are wrong, hence my remark.
          Make them play by the rules they set up, not the rules that they tore down.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2023 at 1:00 am

          The rules are still the rules. The requisition must be for a legitimate reason. To publish them is not that. But there’s no need to pretend they won’t be published. Just don’t mention that in the requisition.

          Felix in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2023 at 5:09 am

          Well, we all know that a DC Court will suddenly be able to second guess Congress and declare that the tax returns must not be shown to the committee because they may say the right words but it is clear they have ulterior motives…

      DaveGinOly in reply to dging. | January 1, 2023 at 7:12 pm

      Governments make an art form of extending their authority (with apparent good reason), and then extending that authority further by 1.) ignoring the rationale for the previous extension (usually by getting a court to agree “it’s been done in the past, so the authority must exist”); or 2.) creating a new rationale based on the last. Every government power grab is rung on the ladder to the next rung. It never ends.

    Release Pelosi’s, McConnell’s, Clinton’s, Schumer’s, Sharpton’s etc tax returns.

    diver64 in reply to CommoChief. | January 1, 2023 at 7:40 am

    If the Dems want it that way then ok. Let’s see the tax returns of the President, Vice President, Senate Leader and Speaker of the House. While we are at it I would like to see the tax returns of anyone sitting on the Ways and Means Committee and anyone who has been in Congress more than 10yrs. Let’s see how these people sit in Government and become extremely wealthy.

    I’m very interested in Pelosi’s stellar record as a stock analyst and how that made her a ton of money.

So Trump filed his returns complying with the tax laws that Ds have enacted over the years. Yet they complain that the amounts he’s paid over the years aren’t enough.

    txvet2 in reply to fscarn. | December 31, 2022 at 10:53 am

    Yeah, but they thought nobody would use all of those exceptions and exemptions except for themselves and their billionaire buddies – of which, of course, Trump was one until he decided to become a Republican and run for president.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to txvet2. | December 31, 2022 at 10:59 am

      Decades ago, I held stock in GE. A friend whined about them not paying taxes. I said that this pleased me because I got better ROI. GE’s accounting department took advantage of the laws passed by majority Democrat congress

    diver64 in reply to fscarn. | January 1, 2023 at 7:42 am

    That about sums it up, I think. Trump is rich and has the best lawyers money can buy to use the tax code as written to his advantage. Don’t like it? Change the law. I know I take every deduction I can and anyone would be a fool not to considering how Congress spends our money.

The tax code is written by lawmakers to raise revenue of course but in addition there are useful loopholes and work arounds to benefit who else, but pols and those in the beuracracy as well. These loop holes are generous when it comes to real estate matters and equity market investing. These devices are legal and available to citizens using them as well. I have spent over 3 decades running my own real estate investment business, even though I am many years retired. Other managers do it for me. I ‘have people’ and Trump has a multitude of people. I don’t do my own income taxes, I have tax accountants do all that as it is their job to keep up with changes that I might never be aware of. They do it and use whatever is legal. Trump would have a battalion of tax accountants doing the very same thing. For a tax accountant(s) to fail to use all legal means on behalf of his client would be breach of contract and responsibility on their part. My income taxes have now been reduced to about 27 pages every year, thanks to write offs and other allowances. Trump’s taxes of course would have to be carried in by boxes on camera, natch…..

    Two things these Democrat snakes know and correctly believe the public does not. Those in the real estate business have perfectly legit depreciation charges that largely wipe out income, unless there is some property sale for a great gain. Trump may be the only politician/President in history whose net worth probably dropped by a billion while in office. (My attitude toward the “carried interest” scam for hedge fund managers is different, which the Democrats are fine with.)

      randian in reply to jb4. | January 1, 2023 at 2:22 am

      My attitude toward the “carried interest” scam for hedge fund managers is different, which the Democrats are fine with.

      That isn’t a scam, it’s normal partnership taxation. Income earned by the partnership retains its character when earned by the partners. Ergo, if the partnership earns long-term capital gains so do the partners. All of them, including the manager. Taxing carried interest differently because of envy creates an exception in the tax law that didn’t exist before.

    diver64 in reply to Whitewall. | January 1, 2023 at 7:43 am

    There is no such thing as a “loophole”. There is the Tax Law as written. Do something outside of it and the IRS will audit then come after you.

Let’s start with Barry’s, peace be upon him, tax returns: then let’s see the Clintons and Bidens and every other politicians tax returns.

In fact let’s see ALL politicians tax returns and while we are doing that let’s thank Democrats for their thoughtfulness in doing this 😂😂

One does wonder what Democrats were thinking when they made this such an important objective?

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | December 31, 2022 at 7:22 pm

    They already released them, as all presidential candidates till Trump did. Nothing to be had from that specific well. But there are many other targets.

      randian in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 2:23 am

      And you believed Joe didn’t earn anything from Hunter’s dealings? I sure don’t.

        Hominem Humilem in reply to randian. | January 1, 2023 at 7:27 am

        As I recall, they had shared bank accounts. Not sure whether/how that would show up in taxes. Unless there was a lot of interest paid, that income would probably only show up on Hoover’s side, in the pay from his board membership(s) and returns on his investment deals.

        Milhouse in reply to randian. | January 1, 2023 at 9:05 am

        Of course I don’t believe that. Hunter doesn’t have any dealings; he’s just Joe’s bag man. But the fact is that Joe’s returns have already been published. Whatever is in them is public knowledge. So it would be silly and pointless to requisition them from the IRS and publish them again. They’re not going to show something different the second time. That well is dry. There are many other wells.

          This whole tax return thing is just leftist misdirection. They care about Trump’s returns, no one else does. It doesn’t help them that he’s totally on the up and up, but their goal is not to harm Trump on the right but to keep their base frothed up. This is one of those areas that escapes the most logical minded because it’s not about logic at all.

          And, not necessarily to Milhouse, how much misdirection is here? How does any president (like Obama) go into the WH a relative pauper by DC standards and exit with millions? How do the Pelosis of the world get so rich serving the people? Tax returns can’t cure the corruption that is rampant, but my guess is that they don’t want us looking too closely at their finances. So it’s “look, squirrel!” all day long while they get away with who knows what on our dime.

Let’s have at it, take the gloves off completely. Release the tax records of ALL members of Congress, all Cabinet Secretaries, and POTUS.

Daylight is the best disinfectant.

I’ll believe the GOP members in the House when they actually do it. Until then, it’s just talk.

    Don’t worry: Kevin McCarthy is coming to the rescue….

    Oh, never mind.

    Putting McCarthy as a ‘compromise’ in the Speaker position is like putting Jeb! Bush in as president in 2016. If one thing McCarthy is guaranteed to do, is disappoint. He’s just too compromised.

      Problem is, right now there are more people promising to not vote for anybody BUT McCarthy than there are people who are refusing to vote for him under any circumstances. Something’s going to give, and the odds are it will be the 5, as soon as he makes enough promises to give them cover. Once he’s elected, as usual the promises will be forgotten.

        Dathurtz in reply to txvet2. | December 31, 2022 at 6:51 pm

        Makes ya wonder, doesn’t it? Why in the world would anybody be in “Only Kevin” camp? It’s bizarre.

          Milhouse in reply to Dathurtz. | December 31, 2022 at 7:25 pm

          Not bizarre at all. The last thing the GOP needs right now is more infighting. So they’re sticking with the existing leader. But if it comes down to the third or fourth vote in the House and he still has no majority, then some rethinking will be required, and he may decide to step down in favor or Scalise or Jordan. That would be the resisters’ hope. Either it works or it doesn’t; I don’t see how it can hurt for them to try.

        New slogan: Kevin! McCarthy for Speaker.

        Yech. He’s Jeb! Bush, without the charisma.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Paddy M. | December 31, 2022 at 8:58 pm

    We are discussing an ideal tactic here. However, the use of the tactic is limited by the fact that those who would have to carry it out are on the other side. But we can still talk.

    Subotai Bahadur

First of all, it’s not true the majority of the people support the tax release

Idiot democrats probably it never would that many , 37% of republicans approve

And what of independents which is becoming the largest %?

These polls are BS

Bi that being said

Release the Kracken!!!

(We know the republicans are bullshi!!ing)

I would love to see all politicians’ tax returns released, not so much for what they would show, but for what they would fail to show. An indirect income analysis comparing reported sources of income to expenditures and accumulated assets could be easily done, and form the basis of income tax fraud and bribery charges.

    It should be a requirement that every politician release at least 5 years of returns when they announce for office, or at least some period before the primaries.

      Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | December 31, 2022 at 8:00 pm

      A requirement or what? You can’t keep them off the ballot if they refuse to comply. And do you think Trump should have been compelled to do it when he first ran?

    You’re assuming there is fraud and bribery to be found. There’s no evidence of that, and no foundation. Mere speculation doesn’t justify a fishing trip through every politician’s private information, including those who have not opened the door for it by doing a stunt like this to Trump. Limit it to those responsible, which means not only the majority committee members but also Pelosi.

      MarkS in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 3:46 pm

      in theory you are correct, but in practice the rules do not apply to is allowed

        Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | January 3, 2023 at 1:05 am

        But we’re not talking about Trump. We’re talking now about “all politicians”, and to assume that all politicians are engaged in fraud and bribery is obviously false, and outrageously defamatory.

    randian in reply to E Howard Hunt. | January 1, 2023 at 2:24 am

    form the basis of income tax fraud and bribery charges

    Yes, if we had an honest IRS.

Maybe this is the opportunity to get rid of the IRS and implement a flat tax.

    henrybowman in reply to Dejectedhead. | December 31, 2022 at 1:39 pm

    Just give me a warning, so I can drain my “will never be taxed again” Roth IRA balances first.

      healthguyfsu in reply to henrybowman. | December 31, 2022 at 2:42 pm

      I don’t think a flat tax would affect Roth’s. I’m guessing the previous post is more about income tax than anything else. Of course, this completely ignores the current definition of income and how it is easy to avoid for the wealthy.

      Fixing the tax code is bipartisan for the middle class, but the Dems want to go about it by making a wealth tax which is just stupid. Zuck bucks and others are already two moves ahead of this with their “charitable foundations”.

        CommoChief in reply to healthguyfsu. | December 31, 2022 at 3:16 pm

        A single flat tax rate on income from active or passive sources with the current standard deductions levels plus a head tax of $300 per person and mandatory quarterly filing would fix a great deal of problems with our govt.

        henrybowman in reply to healthguyfsu. | December 31, 2022 at 3:49 pm

        Most flat taxes proposed have been consumption taxes, not income taxes. If you make them income taxes, you are just turning the existing wheel one more turn, and end up in the same place with the same problem you started with. If you make them consumption taxes, they are flat, but they double-hit already-taxed IRAs.

          healthguyfsu in reply to henrybowman. | December 31, 2022 at 5:01 pm

          FYI didn’t dv you and evened you out.

          I’ve heard most of them as proposed for income tax because progressive IT squeezes the middle class just as they try to amass a modest amount of wealth.

          That said, I don’t have a problem with consumption tax as it is an indirect tax. However, your existing Roth money would be double hit but if there’s no income tax (if you are saying replace IT with sales tax or something else) future Roth contributions would not be double hit. Perhaps, an exception could be carved out for existing Roth contributions in this hypothetical never going to happen scenario.

          henrybowman in reply to henrybowman. | January 1, 2023 at 2:29 pm

          The problem is, once you are drawing Roth (retired) you are no longer contributing to it. So Vader taxes your money while are you are working, then once you retire, he “alters the arrangement.”

          henrybowman in reply to henrybowman. | January 1, 2023 at 2:39 pm

          Let me be clearer about the above– I am not claiming this is a general thing, it’s a donut-hole thing. It screws people who have already retired when the flat tax is imposed, it doesn’t screw all people (or at least screws them differently).

    Milhouse in reply to Dejectedhead. | December 31, 2022 at 8:02 pm

    You’d still need an IRS to administer it. At least if you mean a flat-rate income tax, which is what people usually mean by that term.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | January 1, 2023 at 8:52 pm

      I am opposed in principle to any tax that requires American citizens to make reports of their finances to their government. It’s un-American and our government has demonstrated its inability to avoid abusing its authority with respect to such a system.

Republicans don’t have the cojones to do it.

Let’s start with the enabler…John Roberts

Add McConnell, Romney, Ryan and any other GOPe decepticon that stood by and cheered the democrats on. Let’s see if the GOP has any stomach for some real drama.

Mark the date well — as the official death of the “sacred” promise that “Taxpayers have the right to expect that any information they provide to the IRS will not be disclosed unless authorized by the taxpayer or by law.”

This ex-promise takes its place in the crypt beside its predeceased relatives: the Social Security Number that would never be used for identification; the income tax that would be levied only on the richest 1% of Americans; the ability to keep your own doctor and medical insurance plan under Obamacare; the federal firearms registry that would never be established; and the registries of a half-dozen states that would never be used for confiscation purposes.

Condolences and flowers may be sent to the family’s sole survivor: the USPS Forever Stamp.

Can’t wait for Sundowner’s how he got millions on a government salary his entire life

Dems will just pre-empt with highly “curated” versions of their tax returns, virtue signal about their transparency, and the MSM will completely cover for this disgusting sleight of hand.

Would love to see the Big Guy arrested for tax evasion. Wonder if Hunter’s tax returns have a deduction for payments to the Big Guy?

    henrybowman in reply to MrE. | December 31, 2022 at 3:53 pm

    After the whining text he sent his daughter, I can be reasonably confident that he never paid the gift tax due on all the money he sent Brandon. He was pissed enough about the money, paying the gift tax in addition would have put him over the edge.

It’s not the tax returns that count… but the hidden accounts for these grifters. Do you think the “Big Guy” shows his true income from years of playing the game? I never saw a line in the 1040 for bribes and blackmail.

    randian in reply to alaskabob. | January 1, 2023 at 2:28 am

    I never saw a line in the 1040 for bribes and blackmail

    I think that would be self-employment income. It must still legally be reported.

The Gentle Grizzly | December 31, 2022 at 6:56 pm

I want to know why so many judges are so rich.

I don’t think I’d trust the Democrat tax returns. Even if they aren’t redacted and/or important forms omitted from disclosure to hide the naughty bits, I don’t think I’d trust them to report honestly given that notable Democrat Congressmen haven’t been prosecuted after public media reports of non-reporting of income. No need to report if you don’t fear the reaper. Joe Biden clearly has a bunch of Chinese and Ukrainian sourced income he’d rather hide. Pelosi probably has such skeletons as well.

E. Zach Lee-Wright | January 1, 2023 at 4:37 am

The house ways and means dems should be made to face the wall for this. A political invasion of privacy never done before. Lock and load.

    Made to face the wall?! I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. Shooting people in the back is generally considered poor form, even if they’re tied up anyway and there’s no real difference between that and shooting them in the front. I’m not sure why that should be so, but it is.

The law is a two-edged sword. And bad law is a very dangerous sword. The dems used the law as a pretense to accomplish their true goal which was to release Trump’s tax returns to the public. Now it is the republicans turn to wield the sword. And they must. Why? Because, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, “the best way to get a bad law (or precedent) repealed is to enforce it strictly (and broadly, and vigorously!).

    BierceAmbrose in reply to sfharding. | January 1, 2023 at 5:41 pm

    In an iterated cooperative game with an unreliable partner, game theory says the best strategy is “Tit for Tat.”

    The Screaming D’s are certainly an unreliable partner. They reneg on every deal they make for mutual advantage — hey, Manchin, how you feelin? — while actively screwing their partners all the rest of the time. And the game goes on.

    So, first time, you trust them and cooperate. Thereafter, you do what they did the last time. Following the rules and conventions, the Screaming D’s got a shot. And tossed the conventions — not the deal. So, screw them. Screw them hard. Make sure they know you’re dong it on purpose. And make sure they know it’s because of what they did.

    Next iteration, they get to play nice then so will we.

      Milhouse in reply to BierceAmbrose. | January 3, 2023 at 1:09 am

      So you agree that we shouldn’t escalate it. We should go through every door they have opened, to the fullest extent, but we shouldn’t open any doors of our own.

I have the best idea of all. Being that “exercise” and “watching your weight” is racist, let’s tax people by the pound!

Dems: We got him! We got him! Look at his taxes. We’ve harpooned the white whale.
Us: Um, that’s an inflatable pool toy.
Dems: Nay, tis a huge white whale filled with illegal tax deductions!
Us: Point to one violation of law that the IRS missed.
Dems: You have to be blind! Look at the whale!
Us: Your pool toy is leaking. It’s all floppy now.