Wednesday, September 7, 2016


It appears the race between Clinton and Trump may be narrowing a tad with concerns over Clinton's honesty and truthfulness and possible health issues not going away.    Be that as it may, Clinton will continue to embarrass Trump over his failure to release his tax returns which he claims he can't do because the are under audit.   The reality is that there is nothing to prevent Trump from releasing his unaudited returns.

But the bigger question is perhaps why should anyone be required/pressured to release their tax returns.   I hold the view that this is a private matter between the person and the tax authority concerned and as long as they are in order that should be the end of it.     Subject to that very important caveat I believe that privacy 'trumps' so called transparency every time. 

I think that we in New Zealand have got it about right with all MPs required to disclose their assets the 'Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests' .    I think you can make the case for this to be extended to include all local body politicians as well.     The Register appears to work tolerably well, notwithstanding the occasional lapse like when an MP forgets about $50k in a US Bank account, although I am somewhat surprised that Mr Peters doesn't disclose his interest in the Spencer Trust which would appear to contravene clause 5(1)(d) of Appendix B of Standing Orders ... but we need to cut the old guy some slack ... he's forgetting a fair bit nowdaze.


David said...

But the bigger question is perhaps why should anyone be required/pressured to release their tax returns.

There is no legal requirement, although it has been proposed once or twice. George Romney, father of Mitt, really began the tradition in the lead up to 1968 election. Since then only Gerald Ford has declined.

Trump is on record declaring he would release his tax returns if he ever ran for POTUS. No he has backed down. There are 3 possible reasons.

1. His tax returns show he pays little or no tax. That will not sit well with those who claims to feel for, the overworked, underpaid blue collar. Nor will it play well with this who love the US military when Trump is not paying his fair share to prop it up.

2. They will show the depth of his connections to Russian oligarchs and criminals.

3. This is the one I would pit money on. his tax returns show that his wealth is a mirage, that he actually has very little income and only manages to survive by stiffing everyone he deals with.

Other reasons could include he is not a charitable giver, that he bills his companies for private work a la Leona helmsley.

But my money is still on 3.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Don't sweat the small issues David.

Be positive.

The bloke who will be the next president doesn't:-

1 murder ambassadors,

2 sell out US policy for large donations to her personal slush fund,

3 suffer from dementia - ask the FBI about her total memory loss,

4 transmit the most highly classified information to her country's enemies,

5 tell interminable lies about just every little thing.


Fell better now?

David said...

And of course you can prove all these allegations, Adolf? no, of course you can't, your just another Trumplethinskin booster with no more credibility than a degree from TrumpU.

Here's just a partial list of Trumplethinskin's fraud, double dealing and corruption.

Here’s a partial list:

Trump’s casino bankruptcies, which left investors holding the bag while he skedaddled with their money.

Trump’s habit of refusing to pay contractors who had done work for him, many of whom are struggling small businesses.

Trump University, which includes not only the people who got scammed and the Florida investigation, but also a similar story from Texas where the investigation into Trump U was quashed.

The Trump Institute, another get-rich-quick scheme in which Trump allowed a couple of grifters to use his name to bilk people out of their money.

The Trump Network, a multi-level marketing venture(a.k.a. pyramid scheme) that involved customers mailing in a urine sample which would be analyzed to produce for them a specially formulated package of multivitamins.

Trump Model Management, which reportedly had foreign models lie to customs officials and work in the U.S. illegally, and kept them in squalid conditions while they earned almost nothing for the work they did.

Trump’s employment of foreign guest workers at his resorts, which involves a claim that he can’t find Americans to do the work.

Trump’s use of hundreds of undocumented workers from Poland in the 1980s, who were paid a pittance for their illegal work.

Trump’s history of being charged with housing discrimination.

A partial list, but all of which are provable, unlike your fact fee rants above.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

David, you need to see a doctor. Quick. If you can't do that, just go suck on a lemon.

All the comments I made above are verifiable by way of numerous reports over many years.

It's amazing how agitated lefties have become since Trump started catching up and overtaking your crooked bitch in the polls.

Anonymous said...

What is it with people who will overlook the glaring problems around their preferred candidate while pointing out the problems the opposition has? I cannot understand why people do this.


David said...

ADOLF, you never cease to amaze with your stream of unconsciousness.

Let's look at your claims:

1 murder ambassadors, List them, alphabetical order, or by date of death, then you can cite the charges, trials and convictions.

2 sell out US policy for large donations to her personal slush fund, Again, a list would be handy, not just "I read it on Breitbart".

3 suffer from dementia - ask the FBI about her total memory loss, memory loss is not necessarily dementia, and is the FBI qualified to diagnose dementia? "I don't recall" is a line used by many more people than Clinton. Ask any police officer. But it does not prove guilt.

4 transmit the most highly classified information to her country's enemies, Channeling Bretibart again? there has been no investigation that has shown this to be the case, but there have been many investigations that uncovered nothing illegal. Of course, your hero Trumplethinskin has encouraged Russia to spy on the USA.

5 tell interminable lies about just every little thing. Find me a politician (or a blogger) who is always truthful.

Some people might say that you're just a bitter, twisted, lemon sucking old man, but I would never say that.

David said...


Interesting article in the Washington Post

And the comparison with stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails or the Clinton Foundation is extremely instructive. Whenever we get some new development in any of those Clinton stories, you see blanket coverage — every cable network, every network news program, every newspaper investigates it at length. And even when the new information serves to exonerate Clinton rather than implicate her in wrongdoing, the coverage still emphasizes that the whole thing just “raises questions” about her integrity.

The big difference is that there are an enormous number of reporters who get assigned to write stories about those issues regarding Clinton. The story of something like the Clinton Foundation gets stretched out over months and months with repeated tellings, always with the insistence that questions are being raised and the implication that shady things are going on, even if there isn’t any evidence at a particular moment to support that idea.

When it comes to Trump, on the other hand, we’ve seen a very different pattern. Here’s what happens: A story about some kind of corrupt dealing emerges, usually from the dogged efforts of one or a few journalists; it gets discussed for a couple of days; and then it disappears. Someone might mention it now and again, but the news organizations don’t assign a squad of reporters to look into every aspect of it, so no new facts are brought to light and no new stories get written.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

It doesn't take much to amaze you.

The Veteran said...

I would prefer that people debated the substance of this post ... should people standing for electoral office be required to furnish their tax returns.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...


The essence of the argument (sorry it this continues OT Vet) is very simple.

Of the two candidates who would make a better president for the United States?

In my opinion, whatever his failings may be, Trump is head and shoulders in front of Clinton.

Let's face it, it is becoming evident she suffers from galloping consumption and dementia.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

On topic this time Vet.

In most cases I would agree with you.

However, where a politician makes claims about the amount of tax an opponent may or may not have paid, then I think it is fair game to demand that the accuser releases his or her tax returns for the past five years.

And that means his or her actual tax returns - not just the PAYE record from a salaried job.