kcjenkins Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 http://www.slate.com/id/2210271/ Daschle Forgets To Pay His Taxes! Daschle Forgets To Pay His Taxes ? All the papers off-lead news that Tom Daschle, Obama's designated secretary of health and human services, didn't pay more than $128,000 in taxes until six days before one of his confirmation hearings. Daschle realized belatedly that he had to pay taxes on $182,520 worth of limousine services from Democratic power donor Leo Hindery Jr., who put Daschle on the board of his hedge fund in 2005. The former senator also failed to report $83,333 in consulting income and overstated the size of some charitable deductions. THIS MAKES TIMMY LOOK LIKE A SAINT BY COMPARRISON, DOESN'T IT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 http://www.slate.com/id/2210271/ Daschle Forgets To Pay His Taxes! <snip> THIS MAKES TIMMY LOOK LIKE A SAINT BY COMPARRISON, DOESN'T IT? I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find gambling -- oops, my winnings. Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldJack Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Daschle should not pass go and move direct to jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Daschle should not pass go and move direct to jail. There should be a long line of those -- Daschle, Geittner, Rangel, etc, etc, etc. If they do it, it's a "common oversight" that won't interfere with anything. If we or our clients did it, it's fines, penalties, interest, and jail time. So much for "the rule of law". Grrr! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcjenkins Posted January 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Note something else. Daschle, nominated to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, did not pay more than $128,000 in taxes over three years. The back taxes, along with $12,000 in interest and penalties, involved unreported consulting fees, questionable charitable contributions, and a car and driver provided by a private equity firm run by entrepreneur and longtime Democratic Party donor Leo J. Hindery Jr., according to a confidential draft report prepared by Senate Finance Committee staff. Now tell me, have any of you ever seen a delinquent taxpayer who owed over $128K in TAXES, get hit with only $12K in INTEREST AND PENALTIES, after three years? That is a computation I'd really like to see. Also note that a tax deficiency that large would also be subject to criminal fraud penalties. That is, if you are not a buddy of the President, and that president is not a Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelmars Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 change we can believe in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcjenkins Posted February 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Just a few more details. He omitted $83,333 in 2007 consulting income, "because he did not get a 1099 for it". Now, how many of you have told a client, "You only have to report it if you get a 1099 for it"? And how many of you would buy the idea that he 'forgot' that much income, whether he got a 1099 or not? And I almost barfed when I heard a 'defender' on one of the Sunday shows try to explain away the failure to report as income the value of car and driver services worth $225,256 that he received from 2005 through 2007. Can you believe, he compared it to 'loaning a car to his son for the summer' and said "I don't think my son reported that as income." How stupid does he think the American people are???? Even a person with very little tax knowledge knows that what you get from your employer is different from what you get from your family. And that when you get the use of a company car for personal use [much less a chauffeur as well as a limo] that it is taxable income, not just a 'loan'. But now, it seems there may still be MORE to come. According to the committee report, lawmakers are also looking into Daschle's involvement with several organizations. Committee aides are reviewing whether travel and entertainment services provided by EduCap Inc., the Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation, Academy Achievement, and Loan to Learn should be reported as income. We have not heard yet how much those amounts may be, but given the type of traveling he was doing, it may run extremely high, as well. Personally, I'm getting sick of it. These are the folks that write the tax code, and way too many of them seem to think that they are above the laws they write for us ordinary folks. Remember back a few more years, Dick Gephardt, who was the Majority Leader from 1989 to 1995, and Minority Leader from 1995 to 2003, did the Rangle type thing, cheating on his taxes over a vacation home? And yes, the GOP has had it's share of tax cheats too, Duke Cunningham and Ted Stevens come to mind. I personally think that national politicians should be held to a HIGHER standard, not a lower one, than the ordinary folks. They have all these tax free perks, already, that we do not get. And they write the laws, so if they think that free personal use of company cars should be OK, they let them rewrite the law to allow it to apply to all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 yea, daschle, geithner, many other "gop...tax cheats", and their tax accountants are a disgrace...and in my book, fraudulent criminals. but for some perspective about "real" immoral money...i believe bush's treasury secretary paulson took $500,000,000 out of goldman sachs in the prior 5-10 year investment banking boom/rape that has resulted in our current near financial collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Evan S. Golar Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I would like to see us advocate as of the next Congressional election - ALL Congressional oficeholders, and ALL candidates for Federal elected and appointed positions, be audited for the last 5 years by the IRS before being qualified to run. I don't know whether you all know this - but Enrolled Agents - after passing the exam, and before they are granted their EA license - must have their 2 prior year tax returns reviewed by IRS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtual Managed Solutions Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I agree with KC. You see it all the time, not only in misreporting taxes or not reporting them all. It seems as if most politicians and government officials feel they are better than everyone else/above the law. Since they write the laws and help pass them, they have a free pass to ignore one or two every once in a while. And it won't change, it can't change. The nonsense in Washington is too far gone, it's too deep, it's in too many factions of government to just stop. Even if it did, it would probably topple the economy and a true American crisis would develop. Thinking back to TurboTax commercials and the forefathers promoting the brand - imagine if they were still alive today. They wouldn't even recognize the constitution, I bet. What would they think? The way it should have been is not the way it has developed over time. They didn't look at the constitution as a whole, they looked out for #1 and now it's so diluted it can never get back to the way it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcjenkins Posted February 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Are you serious? TurboTax commercials have the forefathers promoting the brand? The forefathers specifically wrote into the Constitution a prohibition against any tax based on income. Because they knew that a tax on income is both a disincentive to work harder, and an excuse for a great loss of privacy, as the government has to be able to stick their nose into all your business, in order to enforce a tax on income. They would be horrified at the 16th Amendment. Never forget that we had to amend the Constitution before they could impose an Income Tax. Those guys were smart. They knew that if the government was limited in how it could raise money, they would be likewise limited as to what they could spend. And that was what they wanted. They wanted the vast bulk of law to be enacted and enforced at the local and state level. They never wanted a central government to be involved in our day-to-day activities. They had fought a revolution to get an overpowering government out of their lives. They did not want to trade one such government for another just as powerful. They also decreed that all spending bills must start in the Congress, which must run for election every tow years, because they wanted those who wrote tax bills to be accountable to the voters very soon, and very often, to limit their natural tendency to expand their power by buying votes through the spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtual Managed Solutions Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Very serious! The latest commercials for TurboTax have the forefathers talking up the product and that the product could help them get a 'bigger' refund. I've seen at least 2 different ones with them in it. It's absolutely absurd and I laughed when I saw them. Then I got mad. Then I got disgusted. Then I started posting about it to vent. It's just foreign to me how one could have thought that marketing plan up with out knowing the full details of the constitution. Plus all the things you (KC) mentioned, then adding in the fact that income taxes weren't even approved until 1913! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry D EA Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Here's the sad thing, how many people today, except us old timers, have any clue what the content of the original constitution read, or our forefathers concerns about taxing income? Ask some young people and see. I think you'll be surprised. No wonder they used that commercial. I have seen it as well and have had the same feelings as Kyle. Terry D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcjenkins Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 You are right, most of the young folks today are not taught much history, in the first place. And certainly not about the Constitution. because it would raise too many questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 >>I personally think that national politicians should be held to a HIGHER standard, not a lower one, than the ordinary folks<< Unfortunately, people with higher standards refuse to work in such an environment. The public trough attracts a certain kind of pig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 jainen said it perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndtc Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Now the open years are corrected - I wonder if he can "remember" anything from the closed years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gail in Virginia Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Not every young person is totally ignorant of the Constitution. When my son's third grade teachers told me that hand-writing was not important because kids now would all use computers when they grew up, I used the following summer to work on his handwriting by having him copy the Constitution out in cursive. I am not saying that he remembers it all, but he has at least been exposed to it. (But he was not very happy with me that summer.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Interesting twist in the Daschle situation today. He may be forced to withdraw over $950, and Nancy Killefer is the sacrifical lamb. The most recent story is that Nancy Killerfer is going to withdraw her nomination as Chief Performance Officer because she failed to pay $298 in unemployment tax (plus $652 in P&I). Compared to what we've already seen with Geithner & Dashle, her $950 is a drop in the bucket, yet she's withdrawing? She just became the leverage to move Daschle off the front pages. I don't think the Obama people have the guts to ask Daschle to withdraw, and Daschle doesn't know to do the right thing simply because he doesn't have enough integrity to know what the right thing is. That's something that happens often with politicians. So in the next few hours someone is going to sit down with Daschle and says something to the effect that "Look, Nancy withdrew over a $950 honest error, and we've already fallen on our sword for Geithner, so you need to take your name out of consideration for the good of the party." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRS Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Daschle to withdraw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He pays $12,000 in penalties and interest? She pays $652 in P&I, double standard again!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 I guess my timing was a little off. I thought it would take hours, but instead it's minutes. Or, as a radio talk show host just stated: "Old Tom flounced out so fast his driver was still in the men's room!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BulldogTom Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Killifer should not have withdrawn. She was ok. Daschle was just another carreer polititican. So much for "change" in the Obama white house. It looks like a lot of the same retreads. Tom Lodi, CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Killifer should not have withdrawn. She was ok. Daschle was just another carreer polititican. So much for "change" in the Obama white house. It looks like a lot of the same retreads. Tom Lodi, CA "Here's the new boss, the same as the old boss" -the Who, many moons ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtual Managed Solutions Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Geez Catherine - you're right up on all the music. Last week it was Nirvana, now it's The Who.. I think it's great. Can't wait to see which band will be referenced next? Let's try and focus on Modest Mouse and our lifelong walk to the same exact spot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Geez Catherine - you're right up on all the music. Last week it was Nirvana, now it's The Who.. I think it's great. Can't wait to see which band will be referenced next? Let's try and focus on Modest Mouse and our lifelong walk to the same exact spot! Modest Mouse? Never heard of them. How about Haugaard & Hoirup? Ever heard their work? Catherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.