Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Goes to show how fair minded the IRS is. People who may not have the connections higher up, or may not be able to afford an attorney, or don't know that "the catch is you have to ask in writing" get taken advantage of even in the absence of evidence of nefarious intent. They're not going to tell a poor citizen who made a simple, common mistake, that he has to ask in writing. It's a "catch", remember (your words). That's the government for you. You proved my point nicely as to why the government cannot be trusted.
I wonder if your next post will be one extolling the virtues of Personal Responsibility®.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
I can't believe you didn't follow the issues closely; you think the right doesn't have any facts, or you don't want to admit it? People on both sides of he aisle in Congress said it's not such a good bill. Shows how totally partial you are to your own views. Must be nice to have a tightly closed mind. Nobody can confuse you with the facts, eh? [/b]
I can't believe that you think you know what you are talking about. The Republicans went all year without more than a slapdash smattering of one- and two-page proposals for how to deal with this or that minor detail on health care. The closest they came to an actual plan was the Republican Study Committee proposal that earned the endorsement/sponsorship of exactly NO people in Party leadership. The Republicans deliberately put nothing at all on the table. They didn't see a point in creating a target for ongoing criticism (and laughter). Only at the very end did they send their ridiculous excuse of a bill to CBO, only to see it grade out as insuring almost no one while still costing far more over ten years than the majority bills. Pathetic is about the best word for it.
Among serious players, most Democrats sternuously object to some aspect of the bill or other. There is not a bill possible that can satisfy the preferences of everyone. This is why health care is hard...too hard for the Republcians to tackle. It's beyond them. And yet we are almost there. Thanks solely to Democrats. Democrats of all bents and stripes who've managed to approach what's best for the country and least injurious to their own druthers. That's what politics in the end is supposed to be. It's a shame that only one Party realizes it.
While there are huge flaws in a flat tax system, it indeed would require that I pay some taxes.. Thats not at all close to shifting the tax burden off of the wealthy onto the middle class or poor...
I hope you won't be insulted, but I don't really care whether you pay taxes. At the same time, I've seen a lot of so-called flat-tax proposals over the years and not one of them didn't just take tax burden off the top and dump it on the middle and on down. Having only just emerged from one of the most egregious eras of upward income and wealth redistribution in our history, a flat-tax would be an especially inappropriate idea at the present time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
As a consultant I could see how Geithener would think he could get away with it, as an employee, its 10 times worse..
Ten times? What, you couldn't have gone to fifty or a hundred??? It's not like maintaining any connection to reality is a factor in any of your posts, so why so timid all of a sudden???
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Gees Saggy, I gave you more credit than you deserved. In my mind I thought you would understand how someone who pays $0 federal taxes would have more "skin in the game" than many who do.
Aw, I'm just parroting all your right-wing cronies who carry on about how low-income workers shouldn't have any say in society because their net income tax bill is zero or less each year. That same logic applies to you, but I guess you don't buy it in your own case, huh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Dont blame me because individuals dont understand the tax code and end up being liable for substantially larger tax liabilities than I do..
I certainly understand the tax code as it applies to my sources of income, my investments, and the charitable organizations that I run. And I certainly do take steps to shield income and assets from taxation as I can, but as you'll likely never need to understand, the AMT does put limits on the value and effectiveness of such strategies. At this point, if it isn't an AMT deduction, it isn't worth anything to me at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Let me give you an example of some of the 10,000 pages of tax codes I go through to avoid taxes...
LOL. There weren't any examples of any tax code pages in there at all. Just the already oft-told tale of how you get by as the banana at the top of your vast real estate empire. Good thing there isn't a tax on fantasies. By the way, I notice you haven't followed through yet on your threat to buy my building. What's the hold-up?
I hope you won't be insulted, but I don't really care whether you pay taxes.
No insult taken because I dont really care if you care that I dont pay taxes or not. It just goes to directly dispute your statement that a flat tax would shift the tax burdeon to the poor.
Dont like real life examples of how you are wrong, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
At the same time, I've seen a lot of so-called flat-tax proposals over the years and not one of them didn't just take tax burden off the top and dump it on the middle and on down.
Arent you one of those liberals who proclaim the tax burden on the top is so little and it should be increased? Now you are proclaiming that it moves this tax burden away from the rich, that very same tax burden that you claimed previously doesnt exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Having only just emerged from one of the most egregious eras of upward income and wealth redistribution in our history, a flat-tax would be an especially inappropriate idea at the present time.
Well I'm no supporter of flat taxes, I find your total statement non stop bs..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Ten times? What, you couldn't have gone to fifty or a hundred??? It's not like maintaining any connection to reality is a factor in any of your posts, so why so timid all of a sudden???
Was that really the best argument you could come up with? Really, thats pretty sad..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Aw, I'm just parroting all your right-wing cronies who carry on about how low-income workers shouldn't have any say in society because their net income tax bill is zero or less each year. That same logic applies to you, but I guess you don't buy it in your own case, huh.
At least you made an effort to spin your errors into "they are someone elses errors".
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I certainly understand the tax code as it applies to my sources of income, my investments, and the charitable organizations that I run. And I certainly do take steps to shield income and assets from taxation as I can, but as you'll likely never need to understand, the AMT does put limits on the value and effectiveness of such strategies. At this point, if it isn't an AMT deduction, it isn't worth anything to me at all.
What does this have to do with the discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
LOL. There weren't any examples of any tax code pages in there at all. Just the already oft-told tale of how you get by as the banana at the top of your vast real estate empire. Good thing there isn't a tax on fantasies. By the way, I notice you haven't followed through yet on your threat to buy my building. What's the hold-up?
So you are now claiming that LIHTC isnt in the tax codes, or tax liabilities on trusts, or partnerships? Or 1031 tax exchanges? Thats odd because the IRS says you are wrong..
Buy what building? What threat? Does your property have a government tenant and offer a cap rate of 9%, with over 15-20 years left on the lease, or are they bondable tenants with 20-25 years on their lease so I can take the properties to the bond market for financing? If so, I'd be interested, if not, you keep your junk.
P.S. "real estate empire"? Hardly, its a conglomerate of real estate investors through land trusts and limited/general partnership agreements. While I control and manage the properties through trustee and general partnership agreements, they hardly are mine. Banks/investors own them until they are paid off/down at which point they get flipped into a 1031 tax shelter. Obviously to difficult for you to understand..
Going back to the OP and TG's current set of troubles, when Barney Frank is calling for an investigation, you know something isn't on the up and up.
[i]"Congressman Barney Frank, who chairs the House financial services committee, said the email exchanges between AIG and the New York Fed were "troubling" and that he backed holding Congressional hearings to review them".
Rep. Frank actually indicated that he had not yet decided whether hearings would be appropriate, but he did chide Republicans for their patently partisan focus on Geithner to the exclusion of both Paulson and Bernanke. Seems like all the right-wing is really interested in is setting up another sideshow. If any of them actually cared about the American people, we wouldn't have gotten ourselves dragged into this mess to begin with.
Only if it is amended to require that all federal employees be compensated while wasting time at the same rate Rep. Carter was while drafting this bill.
No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any of the various offenses arising under the internal revenue laws unless the indictment is found or the information instituted within 3 years next after the commission of the offense, except that the period of limitation shall be 6 years—
Since we are discussing a period of time from 2001-2004, Geithner was not obligated to pay ANYTHING towards these. His payment is an admission of wrongdoing, and while you can make excuses for his making of a "common" mistake, common mistakes is no excuse.
Oh dear, you just don't understand this at all. No one has ever been or ever will be indicted for making a mistake on his or her income taxes. Making a mistake on one's taxes is not a criminal offense. A mistake becomes a mistake when the IRS raises a question about a return as filed and the taxpayer says, Oh, I made a mistake.
The statute of limitations that you cite has to do only with criminal offenses as set out in 26 USC 6531. None of these is of any relevance or bearing to the current matter whatsoever.
Geithner was originally audited in 2006. Thus the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 would have been in play. 2001 and 2002 would have been beyond the pale, as the IRS's window for questioning those returns had expired and any contest would have been out of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
For example, would you now say that domestic violence is ok because its becoming more common? (100,000 arrests a year are made)..?
Are you saying that someone who had 1000 traffic tickets would be just written off because its "common" to have traffic tickets? (55 million a year)..
I mean seriously, his "common" mistake is a ridiculous argument sag..
No, your pitiful attempts to avoid the obvious are what is ridiculous. Domestic violence is a crimial offense. Depending on locale, traffic violations are a civil or adminsitrative offense. Committing any of these is an offense automatically. It doesn't matter what you were thinking at the time.
Tax code violations are an entirely different matter. It is not an offense to make a transposition error when copying state and local income tax payments onto Schedule A. That is a mistake. It is not an offense to omit from income the earnings of a dependent child above specified limits. That is a mistake. All taxpayers are given a chance to correct any mistakes discovered by the IRS on review of a given return. In general, actual tax code violations will have to do with knowing, willful, and intentional acts designed to defraud the government. Making mistakes -- even silly mistakes -- does not rise to anything even remotely approaching such a level, and hence they are not violations of the tax code. Trying to turn them into one is the errand of a fool.
Seriously Sanganista, your credibility is wearing thin. You're quickly becoming the minority in your continued support of this tax evading, wall street-backing thug in an expensive suit. We've given you ample examples of his misdoings, but you continue to put this man on a pedestal and worship this self-serving fool.
Coming from the party that abhors corporate corruption, wall street, and big business, you (being the democratic party) sure picked a doozy in this guy. You'd be better off cutting your losses (like so many others in your party are) and expose this corrupt idiot for what he is. You and your party's continued support of these crooks is only going to come back to bite you.
Did you even read this part? You failed to comment on it:
Robert Byrd:
I believe Mr. Geithner when he expresses regret for his failure to pay these taxes, but that doesn't explain why the failure happened. This embarrassing "mistake" occurred despite Mr. Geithner receiving annual and quarterly documents from the IMF and signing annual tax allowance requests that were supposed to serve as reminders about his tax obligations. He also failed to pay these taxes despite having accountants review his tax filings, and despite using software to prepare his tax returns. He only paid these taxes in full after being selected to be Treasury Secretary….Whatever his qualifications and talents for addressing the banking problems that are plaguing our economy, I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm this nomination.
Tom Harkin:
He has stated this was an innocent mistake and that there was no intent to deliberately avoid paying the required taxes. However, the IMF informs us that in order to avoid exactly this kind of situation, its U.S. citizen employees are fully informed of their obligation to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes and must sign a form acknowledging that they understand this obligation. Moreover, the IMF gives its U.S. citizen employees quarterly wage statements that detail their U.S. tax liabilities. The IMF pays its U.S. citizen employees an amount equal to the employer's half of the payroll taxes with the expectation that the individual will use that money to pay the IRS. So a serious question is raised as to how a person of Mr. Geithner's financial sophistication could run the gauntlet of these many warnings and quarterly reminders and still somehow innocently overlook his obligation to pay these payroll taxes…Given this record of failing to pay taxes, if confirmed as Treasury Secretary, how could Mr. Geithner speak with any credibility or authority as the Nation's chief tax enforcer? Would his admonition be: Do as I say, not as I do? That is not acceptable.
Russell Feingold: I am deeply troubled by his failure to pay the payroll taxes he owed, despite repeated alerts from his employer at the time, the International Monetary Fund, that he was responsible for paying those taxes. It is especially troubling because Mr. Geithner signed documents at the IMF promising to pay taxes, including the payroll taxes, in exchange for a special ``gross-up'' of his income intended to offset the cost of those taxes. Moreover, his earlier interactions with the Internal Revenue Service over his failure to pay sufficient payroll taxes for his household employees make Mr. Geithner's explanations of his failure to pay his own payroll taxes even less satisfactory. The failure to comply with our Nation's tax laws would be problematic for any Cabinet nominee, but it is especially disturbing when it involves the individual who will be charged with overseeing the enforcement of our tax laws. Mr. President, surely that individual must meet a higher standard than a failure to establish they deliberately evaded their tax liability
Here's a quote from the Huffington Post nonetheless : "Timothy Geithner demonstrated unconscionable behavior in America's capitalist system." and it just gets better...
"In this case, Tim Geithner wasn't acting to save the system (as he claims) because a 100 cents on the dollar repayment was not required. In what alternative universe do gamblers get paid 100 cents on the dollar for bets gone awry?Only in a universe regulated by Tim Geithner and the other cronies at the Federal Reserve and United States Treasury." You can read it here: Damien Hoffman: Timothy Geithner Engineered Unconscionable Payoff to Gambling Buddies Go ahead and discredit the Huffington Post. This should be entertaining to say the least.
Seems like many in your party are now viewing Timothy Geithner as a toxic asset of the Democratic Party and distancing themselves from him. Go on, keep defending your guy at your own demise. Only serves to make you look like a fool. You've been had.
Bolded part is a mind-boggler. I know, I'm one of the great unwashed that you look down upon. Nevertheless, I have to say that most people without an astute accountant would not know why one has to pay self-employment on compensation earned while not self-employed. What's that all about?!
If you as a US citizen work for a foriegn embassy or consulate or for one of a number of international organizations, your pay is backwards from the usual case. Normally, you have a gross salary, and your employer deducts your share of payroll taxes, adds that to his, and then sends both off to the IRS. In these few cases however, you are paid a gross salary and your employer then adds his share of payroll taxes to that and you are then expected to pay both shares to the IRS as if you were self-employed, even though you aren't. A lot of people and tax advisors don't quite get this, so don;t be alarmed if it seems odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
A man with Geithener's financial resources and time constraints has an accountant but decides one year to do his own taxes with Turbo Tax? Yeah, that's believable. The following year he's back at the accountant. Unfortunately, he happens to discover the "mistake" and tells him it's not a legitimate deduction. Does anyone else see this as odd? Geither maneuvers cleverly through this and comes out "clean".
He did his own returns in 2000, 2001, and 2002. He retained an accountant to help him file an amended return in 2002. After moving to the FRBNY, he also used an accountant in 2003 and 2004. He did his own taxes again in 2005, then retained a new accountant for 2006 forward. It was not any of the accountants who discoverd the error concerning his IMF self-employment taxes. The IRS found that in 2006, and Geithner paid the back taxes owed plus interest for the years in question. His new accountant found the small camp expense error in calculating the child care tax credit. Previous accountants had approved it. The Obama vetting team in concert with Senate Finance Committee staff found other small errors in both directions and recommended that Geithner resolve all of those while also correcting self-employment errors in 2001 and 2002 that the IRS had not under the law been able to ask for. All of that was resolved plus interest in late 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
Yes, at what cost to the taxpayer?
The cost of the tax courts is minimal. Especially in terms of the importance of having a judicial appeal from the not always impartial opinions of the IRS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
the reverse of a just system
This you would need to take up with <whatyousay> .
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
Obama should have applied the same "squeaky clean standards" to the vetting of his appointees.
Well, that's how most of these issues arose. The question perhaps more frequently asked as the season wore on however was whether all this vetting and clucking was actually worth anything. What did it accomplish other than providing a clear signal to many highly qualified people that they should never allow their names to be considered for public office?
No insult taken because I dont really care if you care that I dont pay taxes or not. It just goes to directly dispute your statement that a flat tax would shift the tax burdeon to the poor. Dont like real life examples of how you are wrong, do you?
No one should in any case be impressed by pointless arguments from the outliers, favorite tactic of the so often out-gunned right-wing though they are. The statement made of course was that burden would be shifted from the wealthy, not onto the poor, but onto the middle class and down. That would be you and a lot of other people who at this point couldn't easily afford that cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Arent you one of those liberals who proclaim the tax burden on the top is so little and it should be increased? Now you are proclaiming that it moves this tax burden away from the rich, that very same tax burden that you claimed previously doesnt exist.
No, I'm one of the (apparently few) rational people who can actually look up such data as relative tax burdens and actually understand what the numbers mean. Given your long-standing inability to discover any of Clinton's budget surpluses and accompanying public debt paydowns, it seems clear that you are not a member of that club. Whatever the level of current tax burden on the rich, a flat-tax in any form resembling those that have been proposed since the days of Steve Forbes will act to shift burden down the income scale. It will leave more money in the hands of the rich and less in the hands of the middle class and below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Well I'm no supporter of flat taxes, I find your total statement non stop bs..
I would presume that to be because you prefer to shut your eyes to the data showing the increasing shift of income and wealth up the income scale during these recent tragic years of Republican ascendancy. It is quote clear to all who pay any attention that hypocrite right-wingers object to the idea of wealth redistribution only when it goes in one of two possible directions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Was that really the best argument you could come up with? Really, thats pretty sad..
Do you seriously claim to have had some methodology in mind in concluding that being an employee made Geithner's IMF tax mistakes TEN TIMES WORSE than if he'd been a consultant? I'll tell you what your methodology was -- you made it up out of nothing at all. It's a habit with you and yours. Entirely fictionalized accounts of the world are a right-wing specialty. More common than wine in France or pasta in Italy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
At least you made an effort to spin your errors into "they are someone elses errors".
LOL. No errors involved. P&OC is full of whiny complaint from your fellow travellers that those who don't pay taxes (such as you) have no "skin in the game" (this is one of their favorite phrases) and hence should have no say in how the place is governed. I can understand why you'd be a little sensitive on that score, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
So you are now claiming that LIHTC isnt in the tax codes, or tax liabilities on trusts, or partnerships? Or 1031 tax exchanges? Thats odd because the IRS says you are wrong..
No, LIHTC programs have been around since the mid-1980's, I'm merely scoffing at your claim of having to wade through 10,000 pages of the tax code in order to compile a zero-tax-owed 1040. Yet another case of your having pulled a rabbit out of a hat.
*Cough* Partisan hack *Cough* Seriously Sanganista, your credibility is wearing thin.
No, it's your ability to keep pace that's lagging behind. All you post about Geithner is low-grade slurs and pop analysis. These don't cut any mustard. The tax issues are a farce. You wonder how such an able and intelligent person could make such mistakes even though such are commonplace, yet you never wonder how such an able and intelligent person could come up with this as his best attempt at an income tax evasion scheme? Hello?
I noted your quotes from Byrd, Harkin, and Feingold earlier by pointing out that you can't take political speech by politicians as actual evidence of anything. Geithner went through the Finance Committee at 18-5 and through the full Senate at 60-34. There was no doubt of the outcome and ample room to allow those who saw a need to score some political points on the side their chance to say whatever they liked. Like it or not, that's how the game is played.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
And sorry, but yes Barney Frank IS in fact in support of holding congressional hearings over the email exchanges. Take your pick of links...
Decide what you are talking about. Only one of the links you supplied even refers to the matter of proposed hearings, and the only word quoted from Frank is "troubled", that being what he is by reports of AIG having been pressured by anyone to withhold counterparty detail. Frank told reporters before heading out for the weekend that he had not decided on hearings, though Edolphus Towns over at Government Oversight & Reform said that he has asked Geithner to testify there after the MLK Holiday. Your other links focus on either the delay disclosure e-mails (which went through outside FRBNY counsel, not Geithner's office) or the AIG counterparty deal itself with one after another of your pop-star wannabe analysts basing their everything on the notion of an Immaculate Negotiation. This is the scenario in which it is supposed that whatever government figures can sit alonside AIG and pressure counterparties into accepting steep haircuts. Here's how that negotiation actually goes...
AIG et al: We really think you should accept 70 cents on the dollar here.
Counterparties: No.
That's that. It's simply absurd to assume that the AIG side can sit there and pretend to counterparties that they risk seeing AIG go bankrupt when the USG has just bought the place for a steep price precisely so that it would not go bankrupt. On top of that, everyone at the table knows that the up-front AIG/USG interest now lies in being able to extinguish CDS risk by acquiring it back before it can get any worse than it already is. What kind of negotiating position are they in here? And since everybody hates them, let's look at the deal from Goldman's perspective. For every $10 in nominal CDS exposure at AIG they had, they already held $7.50 in collateral posted by AIG as the CDS deteriorated. They had hedged the remaining $2.50 and held collateral of $1.60 on that. Thus, their maximum actual risk was less than 10% of what it appeared to be in nominal terms, and that would assume total failure to pay off on remaining obligations by their hedge counterparties. Why would anybody agree to a substantial haircut to avoid a 0% risk of less than a 10% loss??? Goldman didn't get where it is by being stupid, but that's what your pop people apparently assume them to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
Go ahead and discredit the Huffington Post. This should be entertaining to say the least.
Um, these HuffPo articles are imported from outside. Damien Hoffman is an internet whackjob, and Janet Tavakoli is a Lindsey Lohan-style publicity hound and self-styled provocateuse. I'm afraid my tastes run a little more to the classical than that, actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatyousay
Seems like many in your party are now viewing Timothy Geithner as a toxic asset of the Democratic Party and distancing themselves from him. Go on, keep defending your guy at your own demise. Only serves to make you look like a fool. You've been had.
I don't claim that your garden variety Democrat necessarilty comes equipped with sophisticated views. As a group such folks are certainly far from the madding crowd of those feckless Beckbots and Tea Party popinjays, but they can be as puzzled by things that soar in over their heads as anyone else. All we actually have here is the right-wing off again into its outrage-of-the-day, flash-mob mode. They pop up like whack-a-moles all of a sudden around this arcane matter or that, proceed to create all manner of theatrical smoke and noise, and then the whole thing peters out into nothing at all and everybody forgets that it ever happened and tries to get back down to some actual business. It all gets rather tiresome after a while in a sort of The Boy Who Cried Wolf kind of way.
In the real world, Geithner has built a resume at a level that surprises even many of those who thought he would do well in this role. He's come through trial after trial with strong answers and solid peformance. Those who are content to know nothing beyond his tabloid profile may have different and certainly far less well-developed views, but the facts of the matter remain on the record nonetheless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/b]
