• qantravon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      853 months ago

      I think it’s ok for them to have stocks, they just should be put into a blind trust to manage, and they shouldn’t be able to make any transactions outside of that for the duration of their term in office.

      • oce 🐆
        link
        fedilink
        32
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        And the potential conflicts of interest should be described so their decisions can be analyzed against them if necessary.

      • @Cruxifux@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        183 months ago

        Nah, I think they’ve shown they cannot be responsible with such a privilege and it should be taken from them.

    • @ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      67
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Or, ya know, you could just make everyones publicly available by request along with earnings. Like they do in Finland.

      Strangely, this seems to lower the amount of corruption in government and non-government organisations.

      • @xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        573 months ago

        America is weirdly fucking puritanical about disclosing income. One of the many anti-union cultural legacies.

        • cooljacob204
          link
          fedilink
          253 months ago

          It would be one of the most impactful pro worker thing the government could do right now. So it won’t happen:(

    • NaibofTabr
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Hmm, should there be limits? I agree in principle that receiving public money as income should probably make your income records public knowledge, but… do we need to expose the personal finances of every park ranger? every military member? NASA engineers? Education board members? Or limit it specifically to elected positions? Would it then only apply to elected judges but not appointed ones? Every level - fed, state, county, city?

      The problem is, your tax records have enough information on them to expose you to identity theft. High-profile positions like the President will have enough people watching all their records to prevent any serious identity theft attempts, but setting up that kind of oversight for every public official would be incredibly difficult and expensive. Exposing some government positions to identity theft like this creates some pretty serious security concerns. Just exposing the address of a judge could put them at risk.

      • @doingthestuff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        Yes we should release financials. They’re public servants, not our lords. We can keep addresses etc secure when necessary.

        • NaibofTabr
          link
          fedilink
          English
          43 months ago

          We can keep addresses etc secure when necessary.

          My point is that it would always be necessary. Are you familiar with the OPM data breach?

          Yes we should release financials. They’re public servants, not our lords

          Did you even read my comment? I’m not talking about “lords”, I’m talking about people who are just government employees.

            • @Hule@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              43 months ago

              EU here. All public servants report their wealth every year.

              So they have to find other ways to hide it, mostly at relatives…

          • @doingthestuff@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            13 months ago

            Government employees way too often forget they are public servants. The public has a right to know their salaries, to record them while they are working, and to expect respect and transparency.

      • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        So you have two problems. Lack of financial transparency for public servants, and poor systems in place to mitigate identity theft.

        • NaibofTabr
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          poor systems in place to mitigate identity theft.

          Everyone in the world has this problem.

      • @p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Do you really think the president of the United States could be a victim of identity theft?

        Edit: oh, I misread. No, you don’t apparently. Answered my own question

  • Cosmo
    link
    fedilink
    303 months ago

    As it turns out, his financials actually ARE under audit… just instead of the IRS, it’s by various parts of the justice system

  • @jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    273 months ago

    I was not prepared to learn the White House Phrase for Kamala’s husband is Second Gentleman.

    I like it. It’s cute.

  • MysticDaedra
    link
    fedilink
    -613 months ago

    Being required to disclose tax records could potentially violate a candidate’s Fifth Amendment rights. At the very least such a requirement would require a Constitutional amendment.

    • Baron Von J
      link
      fedilink
      263 months ago

      I don’t think someone whose tax filings are criminally incriminating should be allowed to hold any public office until after they’ve already been prosecuting and paid their debt to society.

      • FenrirIII
        link
        fedilink
        213 months ago

        You can’t get a security clearance without disclosure of a lot of private information. The office of the president should be more strict

        • What are the clearances for, you can just show everything to anyone you feel like anyways… Even after you leave office. When everyone finds out about it, apparently half the voters will still say you’re a viable candidate to trust our countries well being with

    • @NegativeInf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      83 months ago

      Eh, when filing taxes the IRS wants you to list all income from ill gotten gains as well. So is that a violation of your 5th amendment rights?

      Also, I don’t think the 5th amendment applies at all, a textual reading shows that it applies in only criminal cases “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” And a reporting requirement is not a criminal case so far as I know.

      • @Breezy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        73 months ago

        Ive known drug dealers who pay taxes and report some type of income to the irs. The two different dudes described it about the same, the irs doesnt care how you get your money, they are not criminal police trying to arrest you, they just want your money and will leave you alone when they get it.

        • @NegativeInf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          33 months ago

          Similar to an emergency room. They aren’t going to report you for smoking weed. They just want to know if they need to treat a panic attack or if whatever you’re on will react poorly with what they need to give you.

    • YeetPics
      link
      fedilink
      73 months ago

      Idk, having to submit to a financial background check as an entry-level employee kinda makes your point look hilariously out of touch.

      Remember these politicians should only be employees of their constituents… we’re their fucking bosses.

    • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      23 months ago

      Unlike if you’ve been subpoenaed to testify in court, you aren’t required to run for office. If the prospect of your criminal activity being exposed makes you not run, well, that’s just an unintended benefit.