frankj Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Mr. Geithner is appointed to an important government post and discovers he needs to pay approximately $34,000 in taxes, interest and penalties. Then, Mr. Daschle is nominated for an important government post and he pays approximately $102,000 in back taxes, interest and penalties. If these two dollar amounts are the beginning of a series, how much will the next nominee likely owe in taxes, penalties and interest? a) $0 b) $50,000 c) $100,000 d) $306,000 Pardon my cynicism, but is this the change we were expecting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kahuna Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 >>Pardon my cynicism, but is this the change we were expecting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSScout Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I forget. What do you call it when you pay for the privilege of holding a public office? Maybe we've hit on the way to pay off the National debt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Perhaps Daschle and Geithner felt a tax cut would help stimulate the economy and were just leading by example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melgamatic Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 A fun problem, but I think I recall this happening to many appointees on both sides of the aisle. I think unreported nannies are the most common reason for congressional rejection of both Democratic and Republican candidates. I guess it would be easy to be cynical, but I think my opinion is that this is what happens when you have an absolute microscope on a moderately wealthy person's finances and taxes. I'm not sure anyone, even most middle class people, would survive the microscope without finding some minor (or major) issue. The history of appointees for all major positions is full of this. It is not a Republic, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative problem. -Melg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The answer is "d"...for democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 "The history of appointees for all major positions is full of this. It is not a Republic, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative problem." Melg, You may be correct, but wasn't this supposed to stop with this new administration? You know, change you can believe in? Now we have appointees with tax problems, and lobbyist being appointed to cabinet and other positions. "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over," Obama said in November 2007 in Des Moines, Iowa. "I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president." Hello Daschle and Lynn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalicoPenn Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 $145,000 more has already been brought into the US Treasury - so why are you complaining? Now if only we can start "vetting" all the lobbyists, ex-congresscritters, and corporate executives - on both sides of the aisle, maybe we can make a dent in the national debt. I'm comforted by the knowledge that the tax code is just as complex and confusing for these folks as it is for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I never had much of an impression of Geithner before now but at one time I thought very highly of Daschle. No more, as far as I'm concerned they both should be disqualified. No way they didn't know about this stuff. No way they didn't ignore or hide it while they weren't being carefully scrutinized. They cannot be entrusted with public responsibility. Geithner may be IN but I hope Daschle gets the boot. He deserves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunny2862 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 With only the two data points the equation looks a little hard to pin down but would most likely be D. Of course the government post in question still needs to be quantified somehow... Why is it that these officials (or official wanna be's) are getting a pass on this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yah, I expect few of us would pass da vetting process without findin' something amiss in our taxes. Do yeh really have receipts for those scout trips you took? I had no problem with Geithner. The odd treaty status of da IMF would fool any accountant unless they regularly did returns for employees of foreign embassies and da UN. That's obscure law. It's also just a workin' guy makin' a mistake on his taxes. I have no problem with some of Daschle's mistakes. Takin' a deduction for a donation to a wounded vet that didn't go through a qualified charity is an error, but one that I reckon most Americans would forgive without a second thought. What I dislike about da whole thing is this notion that a former Senator can somehow get a million dollar a year job and a private limo for personal use. "Consulting" for a firm that largely benefited from legislation he helped pass. Forget the tax bit, there's just way too much pro quo goin' on for a prior quid. Yeh can't tell me that Tom Daschle really has the experience to advise on media investments. He should be disqualified for that reason. Da tax thing is just the byproduct of a culture of entitlement to wealth by virtue of bein' a former senator. That ain't the same things as Geithner. Geithner actually worked for a living. How 'bout followin' the lead of the Energy Department, eh? Instead of appointin' a politico, perhaps we can appoint someone with real experience, like a Doc with deep experience in Public Health. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Are you sure about that? Are we allowed to take deductions for scout trips? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 "I'm comforted by the knowledge that the tax code is just as complex and confusing for these folks as it is for the rest of us." From what I've read, the tax infractions were not something requiring a CPA to figure out. If you receive income, or "income in kind", such as the use of a limo, you report it. Also, those providing the benefit should report it on a form 1099. Any moron like me with a copy of TurboTax should be able to get it right. All of this should have been discovered during the vetting process. What is even more disturbing to me is the Obama administriation's and Democrat Congress' attitude that "yeah, but so what, he's a good guy." Aren't there any Democrat "good guys" out there that don't have tax skeletons? Yes, you can deduct expenses due to scouting activities, within reason. You can deduct the cost of uniforms that are not suitable for wear for other purposes. You cannot deduct the cost of meals that you, yourself consume. I don't cheat on my taxes...never have. And no, my recordkeeping is not the best and, if audited, there are some expenses that I probably couldn't document. But I do so with the understanding that, if audited, I would probably have to give it back...not because I was trying to "get away with it". That being said, I'm not running for political appointment and not having a proper mileage log for summer camp isn't going to embarrass my President. (Assuming they are capable of feeling embarrassment unlike the Clintons). (Rdited for typos.)(This message has been edited by scoutldr) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 "Yes, you can deduct expenses due to scouting activities, within reason. You can deduct the cost of uniforms that are not suitable for wear for other purposes. You cannot deduct the cost of meals that you, yourself consume." Huh? I thought that only donations to a qualified whatever-the-number charity could be deducted. When did all this happen? How about mileage? What does "within reason" mean, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Brent, You should know better than to take campaign rhetoric seriously from any candidate on either side. George W. Bush to Al Gore in a 2000 presidential debate - "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going to prevent that." We are still in Iraq if I remember correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now