American Intelligence Test: Tax Returns. Why The Question Is So Burdensome

What with tax season coming to its annual climax, even if only one party is happy about the ending, there is a carry-over issue from the 2016 election that is the most prominent and news ‘worthy’ (‘worthy’ is used in the context of it being sensational) for the public; that issue: Trump’s tax returns. This left-over issue is an example of where politics displays its duplicitous nature. The stance that those aligned with one party or the other takes on the issue will shift depending upon who is being tarred and feathered by the issue. We have come to expect this of politicians, but that is a defect in our thinking which erodes our values since accepting behaviors and actions by politicians that we find dishonorable is what allows the politicians to persist and prosper in those corruptive endeavors. So, what is important is the question of what is important about knowing about the taxes of our President?

This intelligence test is about what the issue is and whether that issue is something of substance or a distraction and diversion? So, passing this test is a challenge of a different kind because of what it asks, more so than what you answer. Of course, that doesn’t mean there aren’t correct answers for the questions; just that the questions not being asked are essential to being an informed citizen. Time to tax yourself. Sorry about that.

Question A:   Is it important to know a President’s taxes?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question B:   What is the value of having an elected official’s tax return made public?
Select all that apply.

(1). The public has insight into whether public policies advocated by a political leader would have a disproportionate advantage or disadvantage to the politician (or their family/business interests).

(2). There is no value to the public.

(3). The public sees how the tax system treats the person(s) that they will elect or have elected to compared to how the same tax system treats them.

(4). The public may be able to see what interests may have influenced or will continue to influence a politician’s views, policies and decisions.

(5). The public losses the opportunities for effective, smart and successful individuals to seek political office since forced tax disclosures may be prohibitive barriers for these individuals to run for office.

Question C:   Given the ‘need’ to fix the tax system, what does disclosing represent?
Select all that apply.

(1). Fixing the tax system doesn’t have any relationship to tax disclosures.

(2). Tax disclosures are an opportunity for addressing the tax-reform.

(3). Tax disclosures are a distraction that do not contribute to insuring that tax-reform is carried out effectively, rationally, and supportive of democratic principles and freedoms.

(4). Tax disclosures provide one means to engage the public in understanding the issues of a national tax policy, and hence tax-reform efforts.

(5). Tax disclosures would interfere with getting important changes to the system included in or accepted.

Question D:   Would most Americans gain much knowledge from a tax return disclosure?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question E:    Should the nation require tax disclosures by politicians as a legal requirement?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question F:    Once a President (or other official) leaves office should there be post-tenure period that politicians should be required to disclose their tax returns?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question G:   What would be the most significant benefit from requiring tax return disclosures?

(1). Openness and transparency

(2). Fiscal responsibility

(3). Connecting a politician and their tax policy views to the public’s understanding

(4). Educating the public about our tax system and policies; and budgetary needs

(5). Connecting a politician and their tax policy views to the politician’s personal finances

(6). These is none.

Question H:   What would be the most significant disadvantage from requiring tax return disclosures?

(1). Smart, successful and outstanding leaders would be discouraged from running for political office and public service.

(2). Irrelevant issues and details about a politician’s income and wealth would become campaign issues distracting the public’s attention from national issues of importance.

(3). A significant number of current politicians would be embarrassed.

(4). It transforms an ethical decision into a mandatory legal requirement.

(5). There is none.

Question I:      In addition to the President’s and Vice-President’s taxes, what other officials’ tax returns should be disclosed?

(1). Senators

(2). Members of the House

(3). Supreme Court Justices

(4). Governors

(5). Cabinet members

(6). No others

(7). No one’s returns should be required

Question J:    Is the disclosure itself the relevant and effective requirement concerning the tax return?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question K:   Does a tax return being audited prevent it being disclosed?

(1). Yes

(2). No

 ------------------------------------------------------

ANSWERS:

Answer - A:  Yes

Rationale - A:      There are any number of reasons that having politicians disclose their tax returns would be a reasonable and perhaps essential requirement to running for and holding political office. A leading rationale comes from understanding that our government (any government) requires revenues from its citizens to fulfill its responsibilities. No matter what words, terms or concepts are employed to explain how the national treasury is filled the means through which the coins flow are taxes. Thus, the citizens should know how anyone who aspires to lead them or who is leading them is contributing to the public purse, is benefiting or not from that system, and how their actions to change the system will affect them in contrast to how the changes will affect the rest of those to be taxed.

The public would also be better informed about how an individual may have acquired their wealth, and whether it was at the public’s expense or to their benefit that that wealth was acquired. There’s nothing wrong with acquiring wealth at the public’s expense, as long as the public has the right to know that you did. We know for example that many business leaders acquire large fortunes often at the expense of their shareholders, corporations, their customers; or even the nation.

Answer - B:  1, 3 and 4

Rationale - B:      The value in disclosing politicians’ tax returns is that it illuminates the tax system, the government’s policies on how it is supported, and the extent to which an individual has contributed to the public coffers under the present tax system. This is rather a shallow value since it isn’t likely to be given much attention by the public.

There is another dimension of value that required tax disclosures would provide. It defines a test that politicians will know that they have to pass in order to be successful politicians, since you can’t be one at all unless you can pass the test. It would deter somewhat the corruption and corruptive elements from engaging in the influence business of our politics. It will not prevent corruption or abuse of the public trust, but it might reduce it slightly.

Lastly, the public focus on taxes may broaden from just the “I pay too much” issue to include assessments of is the system treating everyone equitably, or what elements of the tax system are benefiting others at your expense and at the nation’s expense.

Answer - C:  2 and 4

Rationale - C:      The missed comprehension is that a politician’s tax disclosure presents an opportunity to confront the tax-reform issues that the nation, the public and (unfortunately) the Congress needs to understand. When you don’t pay attention to the opportunity, don’t even hear it, or just aren’t capable of understanding the very issue that you are attempting to handle then you are simply degrading your chance of success. You would think that politicians would be the first to recognize the opportunity, but that would also presume that politicians are adequately competent about tax issues to understand this; so that’s pretty much a no starter.

The connection between tax disclosures and tax reform is the central issue itself: our tax system. Yes, disclosure could be a distraction but only if you are too stupid to be a politician; so once again we have a premise violation.

Answer - D:  No

Rationale - D:      It is unlikely that the disclosure itself would contribute much to the public, especially as individuals. In part this is because I have little expectation that most people would pay all that much attention. Certainly, even fewer would attempt to understand what the tax return contains by way of insight. But more importantly, almost none would go through the efforts required to assess what the return would tell you about the politician. The disclosure itself isn’t the value-added act. What would provide the public value is a competent analysis and assessment of the return to provide the opportunities that would be useful and informative. This is not something that we would expect from politicians, nor are they likely to be able to do this themselves let alone understand the results of such a competent evaluation.

Answer - E:  Yes

Rationale - E:      The answer to Question B should be adequate to address this point.

A Mandatory Disclosure requirement would make the discussion of taxes a more central part of political campaigns, public policies, and improve the public’s connection between ideology and consequences.

Answer - F:  Yes

Rationale - F:      The public should be able to see the consequences their political leaders have in terms of how those leaders’ efforts have impacted (made a difference) in the public’s lives compared to how they affect their own life’s progress.

Answer - G:  4

Rationale - G:     Improving public understanding of our tax system is the closest thing to a benefit that disclosures would provide by themselves. To truly get some substantive benefits out of disclosures, the answer to Question D would be an additional requirement. Without an overt effort to explain the pros and cons of the current tax policies to the information presented in the tax return, there isn’t a great deal of value to be derived. Some small amount of preventative corruption may result but it is not clear that even that would happen without the effort demanded in D.

Answer - H:  4

Rationale - H:      On an aspirational level, we would want our leaders to show us who they are. This would include what they influence and what influences them in their private lives and business interests. This may be higher bar than we would want to clear ourselves, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be a measure of someone who wants our vote.

The presumption that you can be trusted to lead but that we can’t be trusted to judge how you conduct your financial activities is a request that is not worthy of a democracy.

Item 1 is a false premise. If you possess at least one of the qualities cited then there is no obstacle to pursuing political office.

Item 2 would only occur if you were a rather inept and unprepared person to run.

Item 3 represents the current reality of politics; how could it be worse under the requirement?

Answer - I:  1, 2, 3, 4

Rationale - I:        Given the public doesn’t trust our political leaders, or at least those not of their own breed, the rational requirement is for all the heads of our three branches should be viewed through the lens of fiscal entanglements. The  ever increasing interconnectedness of government and business, and their influence on the national and global economy means that the decisions and actions of our political leaders is to important to assume that their interests, the interests of special-interests, and the public/nation are beneficially aligned. If you have to trust your politicians then you are already past the point of reason and will pay for neglecting your civil duty.

Whether states’ political leaders should be under the same obligation to disclose is rightly a decision to be made by the citizens of each state. Perhaps some states trust their politicians while other states do not. Which is the better judge of reality is left to your own assessment.

Answer - J:  No

Rationale - J:       The disclosure is an opening move. It sets the stage for what can happen next. Mostly, or at least what has happened so far, is that most politicians have conformed with the recent exception of Pres. Trump. But neglecting to see beyond the initial move, or in the recent case of not making it, misses the opportunity. The disclosure is a pro forma act that is treated as if it were a significant event; however, it is the first step toward a great opportunity that no politician has recognized. This would appear to indicate that our politicians are not particularly adept at seeing or seizing the opportunity.  Questions D and G are referred to your attention.

Answer - K:  No

Rationale - K:      The fact that a return is under audit is a normal part of our tax process. It doesn’t preclude the return from being released. In fact, it is yet another opportunity to be leveraged by a savvy individual. Not seeing it as the opportunity that it is, that is the very reason that the tax system, tax reform, and the public’s perception of taxation is for poorly understood and mismanaged.