I agree that this should be in the meal, but I don’t agree that it should be on the table right now: perhaps it could appear in a later course. There’s enough on his plate to deal with immediately, given what Mr. B— has left behind, to worry about wholesale tax reform.
That’s certainly a fair point (same as with Fish saying much the same thing). But it would be really nice if he showed some sign that he realized what a lot of the problems are caused by.
I don’t know about that - he made waivers from his executive order about lobbyists without worrying about how it looked. If he is going to do that, he could do the same about those of his administration with minor tax issues - I am not talking about Daschle and Richardson here, more like the $976 lien for maid service that the other one had.
Not brazen it out, exactly, just show that he notices the pattern - Zoe Baird the last time we had a Democrat starting, and now again.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t thing he should. He accepted blame directly. Flatly not giving into the temptation to blame software or someone else. He paid the back taxes out of his own pocket. The area where he made the mistake was legitimately arcane and no way spoke to any other issue. His conduct in dealing with this and the inquiry makes me think he would be a stand up guy who would do his best for the country and not what was personally expedient for him.
As I heard it, Dashle owed more in taxes than most people earn in a year on a perk from a company related to the area he would be working on. A donor paid the taxes for him in the end. This stinks up and down. It makes him look bought twice over. He also did not personally make clear statements on the issue when it first came up, a stark contrast to Geitner.
Simplifying things would help with the nanny tax issue, but not the other two. I don’t know what simplification, including a flat tax, would eliminate the need for declaring a perk like a car and driver as income.
Geithner’s case comes from a foreign entity not having to pay FICA, and nothing, except eliminating the employer contribution, would keep that from happening. My father worked for the UN, so I’m very familiar with this little catch.
I don’t think he considers the vetting process missing the tax liability is the screwup. The all paid taxes, and it is hard to look at a 1040 and see where the problem was in these cases. What I took from his statement is that he admits screwing up in pushing for the nominations even after a real issue was found. That’s the thing that sends the message that this matters only when you get caught, and the only penalty should be paying up what is owed. That kind of thing is what he was running against.
The best boss I ever had was a Director who would actually come down and tell us when he screwed up, even when it wasn’t that big a deal. It clearly bothered him. That’s the kind of guy you can get behind.
Well, DUH!
Of the 3 of them exposed, Geithner is the one most obviously gaming the system. He needs to go.
Wednesday night on Countdown (without Keith Olbermann) they ran a sequence where they intercut Obama’s mea culpa with various Bushian “What, Me Screwup?” clips from over the years. The contrast could not have been greater.
It seems to me that Obama has done more one-on-one interviews in his first couple of weeks than Bush did in his first year (or two, or three). I’ve no idea if Obama will be a “successful” president, but, Og, I love his openness.
He’s already been confirmed, so he’s not going anywhere unless he sucks at his job. I don’t agree with your conclusion either.
They always claim the nominee was the best in the world for the position no matter what. (Sessions drove me crazy with that). But Daschles knowledge of the voting process and how to manipulate and trade votes might have made it true in his case. They wanted him badly.
The rest are replaceable.
How did he game the system? Do you think it is obvious that you have to pay a self-employment tax when you are not self-employed?
Geithner signed a document, with his own little fingers, agreeing to the fact that he had to pay self-employment taxes and was even “over-compensated” to give him the money to pay those taxes when he worked for the International Monetary Fund. He pocketed the money. After the audit his accountants determined a statute of limitations had passed and so he did not pay part of the money HE OWED! Only upon his confirmation vetting did he go back and pay what HE OWED. I’m so darn sick of the double standard for politicians. He said he was sorry and all is well. Let’s you and I try that on the I.R.S. if we fail to meet OUR tax obligations.
Either two things or both are true: If a “brilliant” man like Timothy Geithner can’t figure out and comply with the US personal income tax code then it needs to be simplified or heck, just thrown out.
Or two; we cannot have a man unwilling or unable to pay his taxes RUN THE I.R.S. and Geithner should never have been confirmed.
Daschle and Killefer withdrew, or were forced to withdraw, because people were outraged about tax-evader Geithner’s confirmation as Sec. Treas. (head of the I.R.S.) Obama’s team slipped that one by fast but the American people were watching for his next curveball or in Daschle’s case ‘screwball’.
Obama is the hope we have all been waiting for and it’s a shame there are few uncorrupt people from which he can choose to fill cabinet positions.
This is not quite accurate. He signed documents, plural, agreeing to this every year for five years. He also received statements every quarter telling him what he owed.
All of which he just forgot about.
It’s not a seat on the Supreme Court. He can be fired tomorrow retroactive to yesterday if it serves the needs of the President.
I was thinking about this last night. I probably know a couple dozen people who have paid domestic help (mostly babysitters and housekeepers) that rises to the taxable level, and I’d be completely shocked if one of them actually files the tax paperwork.
I quizzed a few people about it today. One of them genuinely didn’t realize that he had to pay taxes on his housekeeper that he pays $50 a week. The other two knew, but just didn’t do it. One says that her accountant told her not to worry about it–“you’re supposed to do that, but nobody really does”. Doesn’t seem like great advice for an accountant to give out, but it’s consistent with my experience.
Sounds like “use tax” - a tax that everybody is supposed to pay, but hardly anybody actually does.
Ed
He was considered self employed for tax purposes at the IMF and was provided a tax manual by them indicating this. That was discovered in a tax audit for the years of 2003 and 2004. He still owed money for 2001 and 2002 which he ignored.
So the head of the Treasury department couldn’t follow tax instructions, couldn’t hire someone smart enough to follow these instructions, and then went on to ignore his tax obligation after an audit.
If the head of the Treasury Department can’t follow a manual specific to his employment and then ignores his tax obligation when it’s discovered in an audit then he is not smart enough or honest enough for the job. He needs to go.