Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has released seven years of his tax individual returns this week.
The Obama family reported income of $1.65 million in 2005 and nearly $1 million in 2006. During that same period, the family made $137,622 in charitable donations.
Prior to 2005, the family seems to have a different financial picture. The increase in income is apparently tied to book deals signed by Obama. In one of those books, The Audacity of Hope, Obama said that his campaign for the Senate “had left me more or less broke,” and he described difficulty renting a car when in Los Angeles for the 2000 Democratic National Convention because his credit card was initially rejected. Apparently, things turned around.
Following the release of the returns, Obama has challenged Clinton to release her tax returns. The Clintons are believed to have earned tens of millions of dollars since leaving the White House due to book deals and appearance fees.
While in my home state of Pennsylvania, Clinton said, “I am pleased that Sen. Obama has released his tax returns. I think that’s a good first step. Now he should release his records from being in the state Senate and any other information that the public and press need to know from his prior experience.”
All of this makes me wonder. Is a politician’s income – or wealth – a relevant factor in your decision to elect or not?
It seems to. In the last presidential campaign, Senator Kerry was painted as a blueblood who had lost touch with reality. However, his tax returns reported less than 1/4 of the income reported by Cheney in that same period.
And of course, taxable income does not equal wealth. Funds held in trusts like those for the Heinz children and Vice President Cheney may not be considered taxable to the beneficiaries, even when distributed. The income may be taxed at the trust level. Additionally, some assets may not produce income – family homes, for example – and would not appear on a tax return.
So, maybe even if a politician’s wealth is important to you, tax returns may not be the best measure of that wealth. What do you think? More disclosure? Less disclosure? Or is it not relevant at all?
You raise important questions: What is wealth? And what, truly, is success?
As I have unmatched qualifications in both areas, allow me to enlighten you and your readers with my tax-deductible insights:
http://www.franworst.com/?page_id=30
See you on the veranda!
Billionaire Richard Quick, Esq.
Senior Partner, Quick, Duhk & Hyde
http://www.franworst.com
When did you last see a middle-class, let alone poor, politicain? Obama’s numbers actually look pretty skimpy.
I’ve always found it amusing (in a disgusted kind of way) that ‘they’ should provide full disclosure, but it really isn’t necessary for ‘us’.
It’s true, which begs the question of campaign finance reform – do we want to encourage candidates who perhaps couldn’t afford it to run for office? Should this be funded by taxpayers?
Income tax returns would only show folks where reported income was derived from, and what one did with their income that year. Is it useful information? Only for those who feel the urge to play IRS.
Is wealth a problem for candidates? That depends on the person and their commitment to honest, with integrity, public service. Persons with low and high income and no scruples, still make bad candidates.
I can care less what the tax returns show. I think Obama and Clinton have used their fame to generate income – so what. In terms of money I am more intrested in their campaign finances. As for John Kerry he wasn’t painted as a blue blood -he was a blue blood that had $10,000 bikes and was master surf skier. We don’t need to worry about either Obama, Clinton or McCain being blue bloods.
Plenty of nouveau riche own $10,000 bikes—some for status and some to ride.
Historically speaking, our Founding Fathers were mostly (all?) blue bloods as have been most politicians at all levels—they had the time, education and money.
I seriously doubt that the nouveau riche are more talented or in touch with “us” than any so-called blue blood.
Regarding campaign finance, it was McCain’s passion—until it directly afected his campaign. Why am I not surprised?