Personal finances are another issue altogether.

He is audited every single year, and there is very deep scrutiny of his personal finances. There are many in the IRS who would love to find something wrong.

It's the political favours and support that mattes.

I will say this: the laws concerning 'conflict of interest' are very weak in the US for the office of the Pres. It's possible that a Malaysian leader could buy favour by offering him a future sweet deal on land for a Casino in Manila type thing. Again - I don't like Trump, and don't think he's evil and probably won't be looking for that kind of deal ... but I also bet he just might not be able to resist!

Anyhow - as of today, he owes almost nothing politically. That's what's weird about it: he's the least civic minded pres in modern history - who also is the most unencumbered! Crazy.

> Anyhow - as of today, he owes almost nothing politically.

Really? The German bank that has lent Trump millions of dollars has a $14 billion fine to the justice department. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/trump-presidency-could-b...

" The German bank that has lent Trump millions of dollars has a $14 billion fine to the justice department. "

That's not a conflict of interest, it's just regular business.

If you are 'in business' - you 'do business' with banks. There are not that many big ones.

A loan is just a financial product like any other.

Taking a loan from a foreign bank is just part of doing business. Being president when a foreign bank owes a giant fine is just part of the job. Doing both of those at the same time is practically the definition of a conflict of interest.

The IRS is obligated to not reveal ANY personal information regarding a person or company's tax situation. So for all we know he has done something wrong, every year. You seem to think that being audited somehow ensures transparency. It doesn't.

And you keep making these statements about being unencumbered when it is well known that Russian ogligarchs own significant amounts of his company's debt. That is the very definition of being encumbered.

Malaysia is not the Philippines. Manila is in the Philippines.

Why would we learn anything new about that from his tax return? Doesn't the financial disclosure filing cover that?

Tax returns provide additional information.

For example they describe in detail the tax mix e.g. income versus capital gains, as well as the nature of liquid assets, deduction types etc.

But why would that be relevant to him being beholden to Russian investors? What sort of connection/conclusion would it forseeably allow us to make?

I guess if Russians were giving him very sweet terms on financing, he might be inclined to 'repay' them by loosening some foreign investment policy. Also - the US currently has a gang of Russians under severe financial control, i.e. they are not able to move a dollar out of Russia. If those guys are connected with 'Russian investors' they might try to lobby to get out of 'money jail'.

But why would his tax return shed new light on this, that his previous financial disclosure did not? Are you saying that the tax return would include detail on things like financing rates that were not mentioned in the financial disclosure? I thought it would just tell us what deductions he was taking / loopholes he was exploiting with respect to his taxes.

>gang of Russians under severe financial control

Lol, what does it mean: under control until the guy opens an account under a fake id

Yes, his tax returns may very well indicate who he is doing business with and roughly on what terms.

We wouldn't learn anything salient.

But we would probably learn something like:

a) he's not nearly as rich as he claims

b) he's made maybe $50M this year and paid $0 in taxes due to write-offs in earlier years.

That would not go down well publicly.

Romney paid an effective rate of 14% on his $500K income (I think all capital gains) and that was destructive for his campaign. It just looks pretty out of touch - 99% of Americans earn less than $500K and pay far more than 14% in taxes.

So it would have been a publicity disaster, enough to hurt him badly.

Maybe some other skeletons in there.

But I don't think anything illegal.

The rate was 14%, the income was a bit higher.

Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, paid $1.94 million in federal taxes on last year's income of $13.7 million, for an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, his campaign said Friday.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/21/romneys-paid-194-mi...

He also gave $4 million to charities.

> He also gave $4 million to charities.

Somehow everybody always forgets this part - when you donate to charity, this is deduced from the taxable income, usually, but is not accounted for in tax rate calculation. Which means, if I earned tons of money and donated it all to charity - I'd pay 0% taxes, so people would say "why this fatcat doesn't pay any taxes even though we are paying a lot, he must be doing some shady things!".

You couldn't pay 0% in taxes, at least not solely from charitable deductions. Your charitable deductions allowed in a single tax year can't exceed 50% of adjusted gross income.

Help me figure this out. Romney earned $13.7 million and paid $1.94 million in taxes. That's 14% (1.94/13.7), but you're saying doesn't account for the charitable donations. So then the formula would be 1.94/(13.7-4), right? A 20% rate?

That would be the top federal tax rate on long term capital gains, so sounds correct.

presto: the top cap gains rate is 20% once you hit the 39.6% tax bracket (for income).

The top federal rate on long term capital gains is 15%.

That sounds good, yes.

I agree with your point, but as a small note, the IRS limits the tax deduction for charitable donations to half of your adjusted gross income (AGI), or even lower. This is particularly relevant to people like Warren Buffett, who last year gave away 250 times more than his AGI (according to numbers he released earlier this year). He still paid taxes.

Well, OK, it was an imaginary example of course so yes, there are limits, but the point is when comparing tax rates as to how "fair" they are it is completely pointless if one forgets the charity donations. The outcome becomes completely wrong.

"fair" without some specific discussion of a viewpoint is always pointless.

Is it somehow objectively fair that Romney can give an extra ~$1.3 million dollars to some cause other than the US government? Of course not.

(I don't think it is the largest problem with the tax code, but I'm not real certain it is a good thing, the rules for determining whether a charity qualifies to receive deductible contributions effectively add a lot of complexity to the tax code)

It is a bit more complicated to that. If you gift appreciated assets rather than cash, you can avoid the capital gains tax, but still can deduct the full current market value (up to the limit).

Seems like a failure of his campaign not to point out the tax rate adjusted for that.

Seems like a losing argument to me. It's pretty much a no win question, probably better to just say you are under audit.

>So it would have been a publicity disaster, enough to hurt him badly.

I think he'd just come off as an every-day man-of-the-people who understands the economic fears of rural whites but also a savvy businessman who's too smart to pay taxes like a sucker.