It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California introduces bill forcing presidential candidates to release taxes

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jiggly
cali always vote dems anyways, who cares


Actually, as one of the most populous states in the nation, California's Presidential vote for Republicans usually hovers in the 30-40% range of the vote. That's equivalent to between 4 and 5 million Americans.




posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I wonder if it is legal?

I mean, could a state say that the age of a candidate should be a determining factor if they are to be on their ballot?



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: opecz


Oh, PLEASE if Clinton refused/HIS/ HER tax returns, the right would have been all over it! The thing is so would the left. Its the truth.


Isn't trump the only president in history who has refused to show tax returns? The man is shady.









posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123



It is NOT a requirement to reveal your taxes if you're running for office.

Unless you are running for president in the state of California. If the bill makes it through the state senate.

edit on 9/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wonder if it is legal?

I mean, could a state say that the age of a candidate should be a determining factor if they are to be on their ballot?

This is not about qualifications for the office.
It is about requirements for being on the ballot. States determine those rules. There are laws against age discrimination.
edit on 9/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wonder if it is legal?

I mean, could a state say that the age of a candidate should be a determining factor if they are to be on their ballot?

This is not about qualifications for the office.
It is about requirements for being on the ballot. States determine those rules.


So any state could arbitrarily make any rules to determine who could be on their ballot?



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
Pretty much.
As long as those rules are not discriminatory. There really aren't any federal laws about it.

edit on 9/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wonder if it is legal?

I mean, could a state say that the age of a candidate should be a determining factor if they are to be on their ballot?


The US Constitution sets the age limit for President.

As long as the criteria doesn't contradict the US Constitution, Federal law or the Constitution of the given State, it would be within the power of the given State under the Tenth Amendment.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Only the lower age limit.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gryphon66
Only the lower age limit.



I was just pondering that.

I think as long as a regulation was higher than that on the State level (say 40) it would be acceptable.

I wonder if setting an upper "limit" would hold up? Seems it would fail under Due Process.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I would guess that the majority of people who make good money in California actually take every single deduction they think they could get away with. They are experts there, we should listen to them.

Big businesses usually hire people to find every single deduction, sometimes the deduction is denied in an audit even though it is interpreted by the accountant to apply. I left a lot of the deductions on the table when I did my taxes, I figured it was more profitable to just keep working instead of having to go through an audit with an IRS agent. My accountant tended to promote staying on the conservative side. I only claimed one business trip all the time I was in business. Even if there was a function to go to where I qualified to claim my motel and food, I chose not to all except for one time where the conference/training was required.

I did claim some lunches once in a while that I bought for my employees as a business expense. I usually bought their coffee in the morning where we would meet, but never bothered claiming that at all.
edit on 16-9-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The ADEA only applies to those over 40.
www.eeoc.gov...

But the bill doesn't say you can't run if your tax return says you make too much money. Not really the same thing.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

It's actually more a matter of getting into the details of where the income comes from. Not so much looking for cheating.
edit on 9/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: Phage


Fair enough. I guess California can do it.

Question asked, answers given.




posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That settles the upper age limit question; thank you.

Requiring tax returns would seem to be a reasonable test for compliance with the laws and financial integrity. The only argument I can think of is that it might transgress the right to privacy under the Fourth.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Indeed. The problem would be with making the returns public.
Hard to see how it wouldn't be a duck in a barrel in court.

(Yeah, I like messing up metaphors)
edit on 9/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Billions of tax dollars being spent on leftist chasing russian unicorns and the such and no one blinks an eye. How Dems keep supporting their nonsense is beyond me. How about spending our money on something that benefits the people and not just their future voter demographics. Stupid idiots they are, as well as their supporters that don't denounce their idiocy.
edit on 16-9-2017 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder
Billions? Really?
I mean, wouldn't those counterintelligence people be getting a paycheck no matter what they were investigating?

I'd kind of like to know more about where our officials have their fingers. Wouldn't you?

edit on 9/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes , they're spending billions of our tax dollars on nonsense. Do you dispute that?



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder

Yes, yes I do. On both counts.
Unless you can demonstrate that they are spending billions. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that it is nonsense to try to figure out what the Russians were doing and how to prevent them from doing it in the future.


edit on 9/16/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join