Patterico's Pontifications

3/2/2009

Do Any of These People Pay Taxes??

Filed under: Obama — Patterico @ 5:53 pm



Another day, another Obama nominee with unpaid taxes.

34 Responses to “Do Any of These People Pay Taxes??”

  1. ROTFLMAO Can these guys get a clue? It’s the Keystone Cops of tax evaders – Cabinet Members. What a fing JOKE!!!

    J Raymond Wright (e8d0ca)

  2. Oh, but that is different, Patterico! Halliburton! Bush is dumb! Rush Limbaugh is fat and a drug abuser! Bobby Jindal sounds like Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock. Sarah Palin thinks she can see Russia from her front porch!

    Teh Narrative is everything right now. Facts don’t matter. Feelings do. And President Obama is the one we have been waiting for.

    Not.

    Why, I fully expect to hear that the nonpayment of taxes by these jokers is somehow Bush’s fault.

    But this was to be expected: Hope and Change from the Chicago Machine!

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  3. I guess the Culture of Corruption is just about the only form of bipartisanship at present.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  4. Hence their desire to raise taxes on everyone else.

    JD (4e3101)

  5. The Obama Administration needs to attract more “little people”.

    AD - RtR/OS (3120b9)

  6. As our President is fond of saying in these situations, it’s just an innocent mistake.

    Dana (137151)

  7. It’d be neat if someone would work up a timeline of the nominated individuals being exposed for their tax evasions, coupled with a separate chart illustrating Obama’s stimulus plan and budget machinations.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  8. OK so what would happen if these were Bush nominees?

    tarpon (26027c)

  9. Comment by tarpon — 3/2/2009 @ 6:32 pm

    Ask Linda Chavez.

    AD - RtR/OS (3120b9)

  10. This story is awesome, not just because it highlights Dems inability to pay taxes, but also because it shows how cumbersome the tax code really is. If the facts in this case are true, Mayor Kirk asked that his speaking honoraria be donated directly to Austin College. The IRS, however, says no, the individual still has to be paid directly, give the government its cut, and then and only then can the charitable donation be made. Is there any better illustration of a tax code run amuck?

    And didn’t Dear Leader recently declare that we will have to limit the tax deductibility for charitable donations? I wonder if he will be explaining this to Mayor Kirk.

    JVW (560bb7)

  11. Taxes are for the little people. Because Hope! Change!

    You won’t find many liberals rethinking their unthinking support. They feel Bambi’s the One.

    steve miller (4bda12)

  12. Oh-Bam-Bi, Leader of the New Amerikkka,
    President for Life!

    AD - RtR/OS (3120b9)

  13. We went from one of the least corrupt presidential administrations in my lifetime to this? Wow, there’s your change, more crooked Democrats.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  14. Hence their desire to raise taxes on everyone else.

    Everyone else?

    Andrew (96ab30)

  15. Obviously Democrats are not paying any, Andrew. Do pay attention.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  16. Dummerer than a sack of Andrews

    JD (4e3101)

  17. In this particular case, it looks like an honest error. The rule that says that if I give a speech and ask you to pay a charity instead of paying me, it still counts as taxable income to me … is not intuitive; had I not taken a tax law class, I doubt I’d be aware of it.

    aphrael (5eaebc)

  18. I agree, aphrael. Having said that, these are not political neophytes, and has become quite a pattern so far.

    JD (4e3101)

  19. Considering the nominees who have gone before Kirk and been found lacking in their personal integrity and/or ability to file taxes, one would think any nominee would ask to be audited as a safeguard before being publicly named by the president…or perhaps it would behoove the president himself to ask for an audit of any potential nominee before he even approaches them with the offer… There’s a learning curve here.

    Dana (137151)

  20. LOL, none of his cabinet appointees pay their taxes, along with 40 million of his supporters. welcome to the Obama nation. not even a nice place to visit, to bad I have to live here. as bad as it’s going to get, this country is still the best in the world. is it PC to say that I support this country, but not it’s leaders?. oh well, I just did.

    mr. falcone (eed2b3)

  21. So are all these nominees lying to the vetters, or are they still not being vetted properly? I’m guessing it’s both.

    gp (0aaaa8)

  22. From Roger Simon via Instapundit:

    “Why don’t we nominate everyone for the Obama cabinet? That way everyone will have to pay his or her back taxes and the IRS will be spared zillions in personnel, lawsuits, etc.? It might even lead to a balanced budget.”

    Heh.

    Dana (137151)

  23. aphrael said:

    In this particular case, it looks like an honest error. The rule that says that if I give a speech and ask you to pay a charity instead of paying me, it still counts as taxable income to me … is not intuitive; had I not taken a tax law class, I doubt I’d be aware of it.

    That’s true. However, if I made an “honest” mistake on my taxes, I don’t think the IRS would be too forgiving.

    I pay my taxes. On year, on time, every time.

    I live in fear of being audited. Not because I’ve ever cheated knowingly on my taxes, but because of the pain and expense an audit might cause. I saw this happen to my parents. It was not pleasant. And they were completely innocent, too.

    And, as others have said: What is the friggin’ deal with Democrats and taxes? They want to raise them because it’s our patriotic duty, but they certainly don’t seem to want to pay them.

    Would it not be better to simplify the tax code so these bastions of ethics didn’t have to deal with such troublesome problems?

    I live in a suburb of Dallas. I’m fairly familiar with Ron Kirk. He’s not a bad guy. But, he’s also rich. How hard is it to find a good accountant?

    Ag80 (3e2c59)

  24. Ag80, it is the principle of the law for the Few versus the law for the Many.

    And it is ironic to hear the Left suddenly change its tune. They were quite sensitive to ethical issues from Republicans. But when the shoe is on the other foot, a very different tone is produced.

    You are quite right: simplify the code. It helps everyone.

    Eric Blair (8d54e0)

  25. Sure

    An honest error… minus deducting the season tickets to the Mavericks games.

    SteveG (a87dae)

  26. “In this particular case, it looks like an honest error. The rule that says that if I give a speech and ask you to pay a charity instead of paying me, it still counts as taxable income to me … is not intuitive; had I not taken a tax law class, I doubt I’d be aware of it.”

    aphrael – My understanding was this guy wasn’t preparing his own taxes. Paid preparers should know the rules and people who get paid for speeches on a recurring basis also should have a familiarity with the rules. Did he fail to tell his preparer about the speech? I learned about the rules and imputed income the same way you did, but what is the expression, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  27. aphrael – It’s always those pesky paper trails that foul up those honest mistakes.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  28. Either it’s another diversion or Obama has poor judgment (yet again).

    Vermont Neighbor (229b93)

  29. SteveG: yeah, the deduction is clearly not an honest error.

    Daleyrocks: paid preparers should certainly know the rules, and then my question is: do we know if the error is Mr. Kirk’s, or if it is his preparer’s error? I mean, at the end of the day, Mr. Kirk is legally responsible either way, if he signed the return; but moral responsibility really depends on whose error it is.

    JD: yeah. there’s something about the frequency of this set of problems which suggests that it’s more than an accumulation of honest errors; it suggests that there is, in the best light, a cavalier attitude about the rules. Many conservatives attribute that attitude as a byproduct of liberalism; I would attribute that attitude as a byproduct of being successful – that is to say, I think it’s very easy for successful people to erroneously conclude that the rules just don’t apply to them.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  30. The rules don’t apply to a class of elite; that is, members of a certain political party.

    Funny how the NYT isn’t calling this the culture of corruption. But still, an endemic failure to obey the law – the law that I have to obey or suffer audits – is a culture.

    I was audited once for using the wrong form to file the information I filed. That led to several years of heightened review of my tax submissions by the IRS. Then a few years later a company I worked for misfiled another form which made the IRS think I had earned 100x my salary – again, leading to another review and audit.

    I’m a little tired of the excuse of the elite that “I didn’t know any better” It would be just desserts if these people at least got publicly audited, so that people like me who file in fear of another audit will feel a sense that yes, the laws and the mores apply to the elite.

    But instead these guys get a pass and a weak shrug of the shoulders. “Kids. They’re so irresponsible some times, aren’t they?”

    steve miller (4bda12)

  31. Limbaugh mentioned recently that he’s been audited by New York state every year since he moved out of the state.

    Maybe so many high-ranking Democrats cheat on their taxes because they know the tax authorities are on their side?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  32. Doesn’t Obama select whichever name pops up on his teleprompter? The vetters need to be vetted.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  33. aphrael #30 – all good points. I however am most angered by the attitude among the Obama administration that previous standards for nominees all of a sudden don’t apply to them because they are special.

    SPQR (72771e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2657 secs.