[kenberg]

What's with these guys and their taxes? Yesterday I stopped at Starbucks and asked if they had a coin purse that my wife had misplaced. The purse appeared with the money inside. If ordinary people can grasp the distinction between money that belongs to them and money that doesn't, it can't be that hard a concept.

Even if we put propriety aside, what about judgment? What kind of a fool accepts an appointment to a high level job, for which tough public scrutiny is guaranteed, if he owes over 100K in taxes? Does he think no one will notice?


If a guy wants to rip off the IRS I guess he is welcome to try. But I suggest he then try to keep a low profile.

[PassedOut]

Yes, it's appalling. I wonder how many get away with it by declining to be considered.

[luke warm]

it bothers me that such a person is even nominated for such a position, especially when the "indiscretion" was known of

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jan 31 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

it bothers me that such a person is even nominated for such a position, especially when the "indiscretion" was known of

Me too. In such situations, I'm glad that the US has an opposition party to provide checks and balances.

[WarrenL]

Righteous indignation notwithstanding, the illegal owing of taxes pales in scale, degree, and complexity with the countless legal improprieties visited upon the masses by both the owners of capital and the controllers of capital, including those in higher office.

[mike777]

Hopefully the masses both own and control the capital.

At least in the USA they actually do. More than 50% of families own and control capital.

[kenberg]

WarrenL, on Jan 31 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Righteous indignation notwithstanding, the illegal owing of taxes pales in scale, degree, and complexity with the countless legal improprieties visited upon the masses by both the owners of capital and the controllers of capital, including those in higher office.

Oh, i suppose so. Opinions on ethics will often vary, as long as it's legal. Not declaring income from consulting, if that's the case, seems pretty clear cut. It just boggles my mind that many who appear to want to make a historic mark in public service can't bring themselves to follow the rules with nannies and to pay their taxes. If a guy is just out for all the bucks he can get I at least understand his motivation. It seems like a lousy way to live your life, but it's his choice. In the current case(s) it appears to be a lack of ability to grasp reality.

[Mbodell]

mike777, on Jan 31 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

Hopefully the masses both own and control the capital.

At least in the USA they actually do. More than 50% of families own and control capital.

I think that is pretty misleading. The US has far worse wealth and capital distribution than most of the developed world. Based on 2001 numbers the top 1% in the US controls 38% of the wealth. And the top 10% controls 71% of the wealth. So while your 50% of families may own some small sliver of wealth (the bottom 40% owns less than 1%), I'd say they don't control it. And things have not been made more equal since 2001 as the Bush era was not a good time for the median family (but there were very good bonuses in Wall Street)!

[blackshoe]

I think the government should guarantee everybody an above average income.

[mike777]

Mbodell, on Jan 31 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 31 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

Hopefully the masses both  own and control the capital.

At least in the USA they actually do. More than 50% of families own and control capital.

I think that is pretty misleading. The US has far worse wealth and capital distribution than most of the developed world. Based on 2001 numbers the top 1% in the US controls 38% of the wealth. And the top 10% controls 71% of the wealth. So while your 50% of families may own some small sliver of wealth (the bottom 40% owns less than 1%), I'd say they don't control it. And things have not been made more equal since 2001 as the Bush era was not a good time for the median family (but there were very good bonuses in Wall Street)!

Wealth and capital are not synonymous speaking of being misleading.

I stand by my statement the masses have capital and they control capital. For example in the USA the greatest capital we have is human capital, one more reason to welcome immigrants.


"degree, and complexity with the countless legal improprieties visited upon the masses by both the owners of capital and the controllers of capital"



OTOH if you really think you are a victim, you may be. Hopefully from now on you will not be a victim.



As a side note since this thread is about taxes if you want to redistribute the WEALTH as opposed to capital one excellent first step is plugging all the loopholes in the gift tax and raising it to 70%. Simply put if you gift money to anyone including charities, foundations, family, etc....tax the gift. Life Insurance is one example of a loophole around the gift tax. Make life insurance payouts taxable. Estate taxes(death tax) is really a subset of the gift tax.

[kenberg]

Speaking as one of the masses, my wife controls my capital.

Upon further thought, this may be where Mr. Daschle went wrong.During my single years I can't say that I ever forgot to pay $128,000 in taxes but I did sometimes forget to pay the phone bill. Now that I am married my wife always remembers such things. I'm sure Mrs. Daschle would have remembered to pay the 128K.

[PassedOut]

Obama On Daschle: "I Messed Up"

Yes, he messed up big time. It's a relief to me that he realizes it and admits it. Not a good situation, but his honesty about it is refreshing.

[Lobowolf]

Mbodell, on Jan 31 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 31 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

Hopefully the masses both  own and control the capital.

At least in the USA they actually do. More than 50% of families own and control capital.

I think that is pretty misleading. The US has far worse wealth and capital distribution than most of the developed world. Based on 2001 numbers the top 1% in the US controls 38% of the wealth. And the top 10% controls 71% of the wealth. So while your 50% of families may own some small sliver of wealth (the bottom 40% owns less than 1%), I'd say they don't control it. And things have not been made more equal since 2001 as the Bush era was not a good time for the median family (but there were very good bonuses in Wall Street)!

What percentage of wealth "should" the top 1% should control?

Is your barometer for the success of the median family their position relative to the median family of 8 years ago, or their position relative to the top 1%?

[kenberg]

Added: Whew! I went to Passed's link and I see Daschle withdrew. This was absolutely necessary. I'll leave the post as it was before I read this.


There are times that I feel I just don't understand the real world. I have been reading that a large portion of the income leading to Dascle's big tax debt comes from the limo/driver. I confess to confusion. Suppose I go to a conference to give a talk. If the hosts pay my plane fare, my hotel bill, my transportation from the airport, I have never thought that this is reportable income. Any payment for the talk, yes, but the transportation to get there, no. I hope I am right here or I may have a tax bill myself. So what was this? Did he have a 24/7 car and chauffeur to take him not only to work but to the bar? I can see how that would run up a tab but it's harder to see why anyone wants it. And in South Dakota? We are not talking big city here.

I haven't changed my mind about any of the issues here. It seems to me that it is a sort of defining moment for Obama. Either his administration will be seen as working for the benefit of the nation or as working for the benefit of themselves, depending on how this goes. So far, so bad. But I am still curious as to exactly how a guy can end up owing 128K in taxes because of a limo service. I think I would say thanks but no thanks to such a perk. For 128K I'll drive myself to the Safeway. If anyone understands this, please explain.

[y66]

Tom, you're such a jerk. You could have made a huge contribution to something hugely important and now you're on the sidelines where you will do what exactly? What were you thinking man? This hurts.

[kenberg]

y66, on Feb 3 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

Tom, you're such a jerk. You could have made a huge contribution to something hugely important and now you're on the sidelines where you will do what exactly? What were you thinking man? This hurts.

My feelings exactly. Fundamentally, it's incomprehensible.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Feb 3 2009, 11:37 PM, said:

y66, on Feb 3 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

Tom, you're such a jerk. You could have made a huge contribution to something hugely important and now you're on the sidelines where you will do what exactly? What were you thinking man? This hurts.

My feelings exactly. Fundamentally, it's incomprehensible.

My thoughts too.

Part of the tax thing was that his 1099 for one year left off a month of income ($83,333) and his accountant didn't catch it and neither did he.

Someone should have caught it, especially since his salary was exactly $1 million per year. (I sure would have, and am wondering why I've been so careful with my own taxes over the years.)

[mike777]

I repeat if you want to redistribute wealth....close gift tax loopholes....everyone says nothing.......

SILENCE IS DEAFNING

If you do not wish to redistribute ok...just say so and make it 100% clear....

[kenberg]

mike777, on Feb 4 2009, 02:13 AM, said:

I repeat if you want to redistribute wealth....close gift tax loopholes....everyone says nothing.......

SILENCE IS DEAFNING

If you do not wish to redistribute ok...just say so and make it 100% clear....

I favor redistributing your income. Hands off my income. But for me at least this is not the issue surrounding Daschle. Making money is not, per se, a bad activity. The country, by common consensus, is in some serious financial trouble and there are some very large ticket items proposed as solutions. This will naturally bring out the jackals to see what is lying loose. Call me naive, but I think there also will be people who see the long term consequences for the country and put that first. They need not take vows of poverty but they do need to put aside, at least mostly and for now, the what's in it for me approach.

I think Obama has seriously damaged his standing here. As his team comes forth with it's proposals to get the economy on track it will not take a cynic to wonder just whose economy they have in mind.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on Feb 4 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

I think Obama has seriously damaged his standing here. As his team comes forth with it's proposals to get the economy on track it will not take a cynic to wonder just whose economy they have in mind.

It's difficult to say whether or not Obama was damaged by this:

Daschle failed to disclose important information during the vetting process.
Obama decided to cut his loses and forced Daschle to withdraw.
I don't consider changing one's position when new information becomes available available as a weakness.

With this said and done, I was never particularly happy with the Daschle selection. I think that he and his wife have WAY too many ties to lobbyists to be spearheading this type of effort. I understand that Daschle's primary role was to shepard through a policy rather than set policy. Even so, I think that he's too biased to do this sort of work.

I - like many on the left - would have very much preferred to see Dean appointed rather than Daschle.