Well if there was evidence that he knew he was cheating on his taxes, then he should be prosecuted as a high profile tax cheat.
At this point I understand that there may be errors on his taxes, not that he deliberately cheated. He is entitled to as much presumption of innocence as Tom Delay. Rangel hasn’t even been charged, except by people who don’t know the evidence, only summaries of it. People do make honest mistakes on just about every tax form out there. Assuming that anyone knew exactly how to handle the increase in value of any foreign investment is assuming an awful lot. A citizen who has made a mistake and pays interest and penalties is not a criminal or scum. A citizen who has been indicted might be scum, one who is convicted is scum. Got a conviction? Nope. Got an ax to grind. Probably.
Oh, bullshit. It’s not so obtuse as an “increase in value of a foreign investment” - he received $75,000 in rental income, paid directly to him twice a year here in the US, that he did not pay taxes on. Pure and simple.
The Second Stone, according to you, Alan Hevesi was unjustly railroaded in the court of public opinion, too? After all, even if he admitted to wrongdoing it didn’t count until he was sentenced. He made restitution, too. Besides, he was only sentenced to a fine and a bar from elected office.
I’m with Giraffe - wrong is wrong, and when my fellow liberals come in here and make excuses or brush it casually aside or look for legal nitpicks, it makes them look as idiotic as the right-wing apologists sputtering their “But Clinton did it!” shtick.
I don’t think intent matters when it comes to taxes. Whether you honestly thought it was OK to claim your dogs as dependents or were just trying to make a few bucks and hope you didn’t get caught, the penalties are the same.
But I agree that he should face the same consequences as anyone else who was found to have not claimed income that they should have.
Intent matters when it comes to criminal charges of not paying taxes. Civil charges are another matter. If he didn’t pay it he owes interest and civil penalties. Illegal evasion is a matter of intent. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/tax_evasion
And if that is the situation, he owes taxes on it. The charge above was that he was scum, and the implication that he is a criminal. We know virtually nothing about why he might have thought otherwise. tax evasion | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute Scum in evading taxes in my mind requires intent. Anyone might succumb to dumb thinking about hearing someone say that something might not be taxable, including income from a foreign investment. Good job on trying the guy without evidence gang and basically only hearing one side.
Never heard of the guy. But virtually everyone railroaded in the court of public opinion was unjustly railroaded. To hell with trying people in the press. Or are you proud of the press railroading of Richard Jewel, Wen Ho Lee, Steven Hatfill, etc.? Trying people in the press sucks. Assuming that you heard the whole story and attaching criminal liability based on news stories sucks. Do I care if Rangel drives a Caddy at public expense. No. Not even if its a $40,000 one. And I think it is chickenshit to whine about it. It’s part of his compensation package. Do I care if Rangel rents from friend. No, even if its a sweetheart deal. If the landlord is getting legislative favors for it, then I care. The fact that these two chickenshit charges were added hurts the credibility of the charge of him being a tax cheat.
If you guys have proof of his state of mind other than that he should have known, by all means spill it. All you’ve got so far is that you would have known assuming all the facts in the article to be true. He’s got income from a foreign investment. Hmm, maybe he should ask his accountant if that’s taxable. If the accountant says no, Rangel is at risk of being wrong and paying back taxes, interest and penalties, not being scum. If there is evidence that he knew it was taxable, then you have an indictment that he might be a criminal.
As much as I despise Tom Delay’s politics, the charges of influence peddling against him are only that, and Delay isn’t a criminal until a jury says he is a criminal. It’s the same for both sides. I might question their judgments as politicians at election time based on rumor and innuendo, but not their character and scumminess. What the press does to people in this country is absolutely disgusting. Richard Jewel, Wen Ho Lee, Steven Hatfill are proof of press scumminess. And government scumminess too.
Okay, now I’ve Googled Alan Hevesi, and he pleaded guilty to a crime. I don’t have a problem with that. What that has to do with Charlie Rangel, I don’t know.
You don’t have a problem with the fact that Alan Hevesi was re-elected to the position of being in charge of the State of NY’s accounting office, after he had admitted to improperly using state personnel to chauffeur his wife around? For years? And that he knew it was an improper use of state resources because he’d asked the State Ethics board whether he could do it, and was told, “No.”
Alan Hevesi may have pled guilty to a criminal charge, but that was in 2007. In 2006 he was up for re-election, and prior to election day he had already admitted, publicly that he’d done what I just outlined, that he knew it was against the ruling of the ethics committee, and that he was paying the State back to the tune of $300,000 for the wages of the state workers he’d improperly used for personal business. And he still got re-elected!
If a public figure makes a public confession of wrongdoing, even if it’s not yet in a court of law, I think that the presumption of innocence no longer applies. Charles Rangel has already admitted to there being some improprieties in his tax returns, and his story stinks. It may not be a matter of criminal vice civil liability, though I’ll point out that most people falling afoul of the IRS do not get the sort of legal protections you’re insisting upon for Rep. Rangel. I am using Alan Hevesi’s case as evidence for my belief that, even if these improprieties reach the level of criminal charges, the NY electorate will continue to return him to Washington.
ETA: Which is precisely what I said back in post #19.
I wouldn’t have voted for him for that reason. My understanding is Guiliani did the same thing with his wife/mistress, whichever she is. So I would have voted no. I gather the people of New York don’t care about this sort of thing. I’m not from New York. It’s not the biggest infraction out there, and doesn’t quite get me up to the level of “scum” on either of them.
There are two distinctions to make here. You’ve said he publicly admitted wrongdoing. Wrongdoing has many levels: 3 miles an hour over the speed limit all the way to multiple murders. Neither he nor the NY electorate thought much of it. Same with “improprieties in his tax return.”
You’re just mistaken. Everyone who the IRS thinks is owed money gets a bill for the amount thought owed, plus interest, plus penalties. There aren’t exceptions unless they are going to pursue criminal charges, in which case they might choose to hold off. The presumption of innocence applies in IRS criminal cases.
I don’t vote in NY, but I find that hard to believe. When Tom Delay was indicted, he said he wouldn’t run. Nobody’s district is that safe. Nobody can run a political campaign while under federal indictment for tax fraud, despite the fact that there is a presumption of innocence for the courtroom, the electorate is going to be influenced by it, even I would be.
My answer is not sufficiently clear when I say I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with you criticizing this guy, whom I know nothing about other than the one news article. He pleaded guilty, so what? You can refer to him, but he is not a national figure and you are refering to a whole set of facts I’m unaware of. I wouldn’t vote for that guy based on what I know. Rangel’s case, so far it isn’t even a case, does not involve the same set of circumstances (as maybe Hevesi’s assistant’s case would have if they had prosecuted him/her too).
I’m not prepared to condemn a politician on somebody else’s evidence. You can cite Hevesi, I have no problem with that, but it’s utterly irrelevant.
I think it is far too early to condemn Rangel. I don’t trust the media with the facts, and Rangel’s admission of a mistake so far amounts to payment of back taxes, interest and penalties, not criminal liability.