TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Obama appointee tax cheat of the day: Tom Daschle
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Ed Morrisey should just cave and sign up a TA account. Would you like to start a pissing match about this week's Republican corrupt officials that nobody deems newsworthy?

Sen. Sununu:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...n_board_o_1.php

Gov. Jindal:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...alse.php?ref=m3

Rep. Sessions:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme..._didnt_know.php

Sen. Hatch:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...l-transparency/

Sen. Gregg:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...ct_in_which.php

Naw, I wouldn't do that to you. It would get pretty annoying for you to have to argue with a blog, now wouldn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Ed Morrisey should just cave and sign up a TA account. Would you like to start a pissing match about this week's Republican corrupt officials that nobody deems newsworthy?

Who gives a flying fuck who commented on it? Stop trying to distract from the fact that yet another of what was supposed to be the "most amazing cabinet ever" and part of a "new kind of politics" is continually being exposed as nothing but corrupt, cheating low lifes.

I don't give a shit if Arianna Huffington herself reported it (which she never would)... the fact of the matter is that another one of Obama's appointees has been exposed, thus reflecting poorly on your savior.

It would be funny if it weren't so damned sad. At least this is a "small" amount by comparison. However, Obama said he was going to be the standard bearer so it's all fair game, IMO.

quote:

Obama trade nominee fixes errors in tax returns Mon Mar 2, 2009 4:22pm EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's nominee to be U.S. trade representative, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, has filed amended tax returns after a review found he failed to pay taxes on $37,750 in speaking fees he donated to his college alma mater, a Senate panel said on Monday. "Staff estimates the total tax adjustment on Mayor Kirk's amended returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007 will be approximately $9,975," the Senate Finance Committee said. Kirk also amended his tax returns to reduce the amount of business expense he claimed for Dallas Mavericks basketball tickets in 2005 through 2007, the panel said. He is the fifth of Obama's nominees to run into trouble over back taxes. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis faced questions over her husband's unpaid business taxes. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed by the Senate after paying $34,000 in late self-employment taxes. Tom Daschle, Obama's first choice to be health secretary, withdrew from consideration after paying $140,000 in back taxes and penalties, and Nancy Killefer, Obama's choice to oversee budget and spending reform, also withdrew over tax issues.

http://www.reuters.com/article/poli...E52162920090302

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Who gives a flying fuck who commented on it? Stop trying to distract from the fact that yet another of what was supposed to be the "most amazing cabinet ever" and part of a "new kind of politics" is continually being exposed as nothing but corrupt, cheating low lifes. I don't give a shit if Arianna Huffington herself reported it (which she never would)... the fact of the matter is that another one of Obama's appointees has been exposed, thus reflecting poorly on your savior.

I care when 75% of your posts are copy pasta jobs from Ed Morrisey... if I wanted to debate a blog, I'd post in the comments of said blog, not sit here on an internet forum and debate Ed Morrisey by proxy.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I care when 75% of your posts are copy pasta jobs from Ed Morrisey... if I wanted to debate a blog, I'd post in the comments of said blog, not sit here on an internet forum and debate Ed Morrisey by proxy.

Attack the individual, not the content. Classic move by you. You still haven't rebutted the shamefulness of another cabinet appointment by Obama, because A) you can't, and B) it pains you to believe that the Obama administration isn't the perfection you thought it was.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Attack the individual, not the content. Classic move by you. You still haven't rebutted the shamefulness of another cabinet appointment by Obama, because A) you can't, and B) it pains you to believe that the Obama administration isn't the perfection you thought it was.

I've already addressed my thought on back taxes the first four times you've brought it up - it's impossible to be as squeaky clean as you expect everyone to be. I'm frankly just realistic about this - I posted a quote earlier from a former appointee stating that you basically have to start preparing from the age of eight for an appointed position in order to make sure you've never made an error that can be construed as your fault. It's kind of absurd really - the guy owes 9,000 bucks, which he owes due to a donation, and you're ready to say he's not fit to do his job? As long as he pays what's due immediately after the oversight is brought to his attention, I have no problem here.

This is exactly why I said I don't really care much that there are Republicans guilty of the same thing.

Non-issue, in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I've already addressed my thought on back taxes the first four times you've brought it up - it's impossible to be as squeaky clean as you expect everyone to be. I'm frankly just realistic about this - I posted a quote earlier from a former appointee stating that you basically have to start preparing from the age of eight for an appointed position in order to make sure you've never made an error that can be construed as your fault. It's kind of absurd really - the guy owes 9,000 bucks, which he owes due to a donation, and you're ready to say he's not fit to do his job? As long as he pays what's due immediately after the oversight is brought to his attention, I have no problem here. This is exactly why I said I don't really care much that there are Republicans guilty of the same thing. Non-issue, in my opinion.

In the grand scheme of things, the IRS probably doesn't even care about 9,000 in back taxes. In normal cases (i know these aren't the facts in this case), that could be an overstatement of expenses by as little as 25K. Not much for a business owner. Someone could easily exceed that by miscalculating depreciation on a capital asset.

Let's be realistic. If taxes were so easy to do individuals wouldn't pay accountants (and tax prep services) to fill out the forms, and companies wouldn't spend millions of dollars a year on compliance costs and tax advice.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Let's be realistic. If taxes were so easy to do individuals wouldn't pay accountants (and tax prep services) to fill out the forms, and companies wouldn't spend millions of dollars a year on compliance costs and tax advice.

Enter the Fair Tax.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Enter the Fair Tax.

people who advocate the fair tax don't understand the cases in which the most complex rules arise. Partnership taxation is far more complicated than individual taxation, and more complicated than most issues facing corporations. Nevertheless, the fair tax wouldn't affect partnership taxation (to the best of my knowledge) because the main purposes of partnership taxation is to determine the income of each parter so that partner will be taxed on his share of the partnership income, and to prevent abuses of the system. The rules relating to partnerships are not meant to tax partnerships.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 people who advocate the fair tax don't understand the cases in which the most complex rules arise. Partnership taxation is far more complicated than individual taxation, and more complicated than most issues facing corporations. Nevertheless, the fair tax wouldn't affect partnership taxation (to the best of my knowledge) because the main purposes of partnership taxation is to determine the income of each parter so that partner will be taxed on his share of the partnership income, and to prevent abuses of the system. The rules relating to partnerships are not meant to tax partnerships.

I was responding more to your comment about individuals. Corporations still have to have CPAs and yearly audits, so hopefully their tax preparation is a bit more robust (though fraud and errors are clearly still made). However, Fair Tax would definitely make things simpler and less error prone at the individual level. And I have to admit that I'm a big fan of the extra revenues it would bring in by enabling the collection of taxes from tourists from abroad among other things.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I was responding more to your comment about individuals. Corporations still have to have CPAs and yearly audits, so hopefully their tax preparation is a bit more robust (though fraud and errors are clearly still made). However, Fair Tax would definitely make things simpler and less error prone at the individual level. And I have to admit that I'm a big fan of the extra revenues it would bring in by enabling the collection of taxes from tourists from abroad among other things.

well, that still doesn't address how to tax partners, which can be individuals or business associations, of partnerships.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 well, that still doesn't address how to tax partners, which can be individuals or business associations, of partnerships.

I wasn't trying to. I hate the sense of "someone is not paying as much as someone else, therefore we need to tax them more to be fair." In any event, since I have a position(albeit small) in an LP, I would like the tax burden to be as minimal as possible!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I wasn't trying to. I hate the sense of "someone is not paying as much as someone else, therefore we need to tax them more to be fair." In any event, since I have a position(albeit small) in an LP, I would like the tax burden to be as minimal as possible!

word - i hear ya

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 In the grand scheme of things, the IRS probably doesn't even care about 9,000 in back taxes. In normal cases (i know these aren't the facts in this case), that could be an overstatement of expenses by as little as 25K. Not much for a business owner. Someone could easily exceed that by miscalculating depreciation on a capital asset. Let's be realistic. If taxes were so easy to do individuals wouldn't pay accountants (and tax prep services) to fill out the forms, and companies wouldn't spend millions of dollars a year on compliance costs and tax advice.

My understanding that it was on $25,000 in taxable donations, not even income.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov My understanding that it was on $25,000 in taxable donations, not even income.

most of the time it isn't income because it is much easier for the IRS to trace income. People aren't dumb enough to leave income off their returns when the IRS gets a copy of informational forms. Moreover, people have a pretty good sense of what constitutes income. People usually mess up because they don't know the difference between deductible expenses, capitalized expenses, and disallowed expenses. To add to the complication, expenses are sometimes permitted to be deducted against income on a prorated basis or allocable over a period of years. Certain law schools have courses that spend a significant amount of time discussing those deductions that are permitted (usually in the business context).

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 most of the time it isn't income because it is much easier for the IRS to trace income. People aren't dumb enough to leave income off their returns when the IRS gets a copy of informational forms. Moreover, people have a pretty good sense of what constitutes income. People usually mess up because they don't know the difference between deductible expenses, capitalized expenses, and disallowed expenses. To add to the complication, expenses are sometimes permitted to be deducted against income on a prorated basis or allocable over a period of years. Certain law schools have courses that spend a significant amount of time discussing those deductions that are permitted (usually in the business context).

Going back to the article posted earlier, it would seem that's more or less what happened in this case:

quote:

former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, has filed amended tax returns after a review found he failed to pay taxes on $37,750 in speaking fees he donated to his college alma mater, a Senate panel said on Monday.

I don't see anything worth frothing about. He amended the tax return, so what's the problem?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Going back to the article posted earlier, it would seem that's more or less what happened in this case: I don't see anything worth frothing about. He amended the tax return, so what's the problem?

i agree - people in the 35% bracket don't try to stiff the government out of 10k. Kirk is a partner at a law firm (Vinson & Elkins) that profits over 1 million per partner. This guy definitely isn't trying to defraud the government of 10k.

i would say the same thing if dick cheney was the one under the microscope.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i would say the same thing if dick cheney was the one under the microscope.

Me too. These are the things that get scrutinized by the opposition I suppose when you have a President who sets the bar pretty high.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.