Anything he says about his wealth without also releasing his latest tax returns is up for debate. Whether the debate happens or not is a different question.
Does the requirement of viewing tax returns apply to anyone attempting to claim to be a billionaire or is there specific criteria for which to apply this extra safeguard?
A self-admitted[1] serial liar with a history of failed businesses would require extra scrutiny before anyone should trust their claim of being a billionaire.
Saying someone should show tax returns to run for a high office seems quite a different thing that saying that we should doubt someone's wealth unless they show tax returns.
Are we saying that running for political office is reason to require someone tax returns to prove a claim level of wealth?
I'd generalise a bit and say that anyone running for political office should show evidence for claims of fact, purely because supporting claims with evidence is a critical part of running a rational and informed society.
If you don't want to provide proof, don't make claims.
I see, thanks for clarifiication. Although even with released tax returns, he could have benevelontly committed fraud there as well, to increase his tax contributions. /s
