[X3pilot]

Apparently, paying is optional according to the nominated incoming Treasury Secretary. So is having documented workers. sheesh, just when you thought it'd get better.

President-elect Barack Obama is standing behind Treasury nominee Timothy Geithner after reports that his housekeeper’s immigration permits had expired and he failed to pay payroll taxes for the employee. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs says Geithner should “not be tarnished by honest mistakes.”

Story

But then again, how bad is this compared to the mess Paulson got us into?

For some reason, this seems like it should be questioned a little harder than it is.

 

[4xBoy]

At that level of government everyone is so f---ing corrupt, they look at it as not that he is bad, just that he could have done a lot worse.

 

[Defenestrated]

what a dick

 

[X3pilot]

what a dick

I don't think that makes him a dick, just bewildered at the lack of uproar from Congress. usually this type thing results in a lot of firebreathing from the partisan parties.

Seems like it's just confirm the Cabinet, everything else be damned.

 

[sanjuro]

I heard a good point, about Zoe Baird and Geithner: Baird, who was busted for hiring an illegal, was not an important appointee and it was a different time.

Geithner is extremely important and he is being appointed during a massive crisis. Since he made up the mistakes, obviously this is not a time to make political hay.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Geithner is extremely important and he is being appointed during a massive crisis. Since he made up the mistakes, obviously this is not a time to make political hay.

So the more important you are the less important it is that you follow the laws of the nation?
I guess some animals are more equal than others.



It is a good thing I am so dammed important. I will just explain that to the nice officer when he arrives.

 

[Silver]

So, he just sort of forgot about the IRS for a few years?

Must be nice...

 

[stevew]

Seems like it's just confirm the Cabinet, everything else be damned.

they want their cut of a trillion dollars for their state...you'd shut the fvck up for your taste......

 

[Cant Climb]

I don't think that makes him a dick, just bewildered at the lack of uproar from Congress. usually this type thing results in a lot of firebreathing from the partisan parties.

Seems like it's just confirm the Cabinet, everything else be damned.

from the article"
"In 2006, the Internal Revenue Service audited Geithner for tax years 2003 and 2004, and he paid $16,732 for the taxes and interest for those years, "

16K in taxes is probably a drop in the bucket for this guy......his accountant probably screwed up.....

I hope congress spends zero minutes in an uproar over this.......that would be a waste of the countrys time.

 

[dante]

from the article"
"In 2006, the Internal Revenue Service audited Geithner for tax years 2003 and 2004, and he paid $16,732 for the taxes and interest for those years, "

16K in taxes is probably a drop in the bucket for this guy......his accountant probably screwed up.....

I hope congress spends zero minutes in an uproar over this.......that would be a waste of the countrys time.

His accountant did screw up, and there's documentation on that as well. This is nothing more than republicans looking for a "gotcha" story.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/geithners_nanny_nonproblem.php

 

[Plummit]

His accountant did screw up, and there's documentation on that as well. This is nothing more than republicans looking for a "gotcha" story.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/geithners_nanny_nonproblem.php

So the more important you are the less important it is that you follow the laws of the nation?
I guess some animals are more equal than others.

Seriously? This was an accounting error that Geithner paid in full. Do we need Ken Starr to blow $40 or $50 million to prove this is nonsense?


Apparently on the "illegal" issue as well.

The issue involving a former housekeeper of the Geithner family is separate. The woman was in the country legally and was authorized to work when Mr. Geithner and his wife hired her in 2004, but her employment authorization expired three months before she quit working for them. The issue was discovered by the Senate Finance Committee, not by the Obama team, and it came as news to Mr. Geithner, according to a Democrat who was briefed on the situation.

Whole story from the NYT

 

[sanjuro]

So the more important you are the less important it is that you follow the laws of the nation?
I guess some animals are more equal than others.

It is a good thing I am so dammed important. I will just explain that to the nice officer when he arrives.

Did he make restitution? Was he convicted of any crime?

And yes, the guy who might be able to fix our economic crisis is more important than Joe The Plumber.

 

[RenegadeRick]

And yes, the guy who might be able to fix our economic crisis is more important than Joe The Plumber.

Well I guess you believe some people are special then, just like most Americans.

I don't really give a carp about whether or not this dude paid his taxes. I take issue with people who think how important someone is makes a funking bit of difference. Your importance is not a valid defense.

We don't live in a land of equal rights, we live in a land of special rights for special people.



I grow weary of this rant. It tires me to always hear how people want to be equal and then would rather be special when it suits their needs. I wish that America™ would one day walk her talk, but I recognize that it will probably never be.

 

[splat]

I heard a good point, about Zoe Baird and Geithner: Baird, who was busted for hiring an illegal, was not an important appointee and it was a different time.

Geithner is extremely important and he is being appointed during a massive crisis. Since he made up the mistakes, obviously this is not a time to make political hay.

Hypocrisy at its best.

 

[sanjuro]

Well I guess you believe some people are special then, just like most Americans.

I don't really give a carp about whether or not this dude paid his taxes. I take issue with people who think how important someone is makes a funking bit of difference. Your importance is not a valid defense.

We don't live in a land of equal rights, we live in a land of special rights for special people.

I grow weary of this rant. It tires me to always hear how people want to be equal and then would rather be special when it suits their needs. I wish that America™ would one day walk her talk, but I recognize that it will probably never be.

This is a senate confirmation hearing, not a court of law. They could deny his appointment because simply on his politics if it was a Republican congress.

Conversely, take Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. Hill spoke about his sexual harassment and Republican senators, led by Orrin Hatch, excoriated her. Thomas was confirmed by a Republican majority Congress.

If there was malfeasance on Geithner's part to scam the tax system, then I would be against his appointment. There were accounting errors which caused this, and 3 months of lapsed documentation at the end of a 2 year stint.

But you are right. We should use a high-tech lynching to get rid of him.

 

[RenegadeRick]

But you are right. We should use a high-tech lynching to get rid of him.

I suggested nothing of the type. I know nothing about the man or the situation in question. I frankly do not have enough information to have an opinion on the matter.

I just get uppity when I hear about important folk. I guess I must just be jealous.

 

[ohio]

I frankly do not have enough information to have an opinion on the matter.

Yet in spite of that revelation you continue to express them anyway.

 

[X3pilot]

True, while 16K is a drop in the bucket and yes we have more important matters to clear up, I still ponder the notion of why he waited to pay back the money until AFTER he was considered a nominee? If he was sorry for the mistake, why not pay it back when the mistake was uncovered?

 

[ohio]

True, while 16K is a drop in the bucket and yes we have more important matters to clear up, I still ponder the notion of why he waited to pay back the money until AFTER he was considered a nominee? If he was sorry for the mistake, why not pay it back when the mistake was uncovered?

Can you provide a timeline of when the mistake was uncovered, when it was resolved by IRS and personal accountants, and when he paid? I didn't follow that from the article and didn't feel like digging for dates.

 

[X3pilot]

Geithner failed to pay the proper self-employment taxes for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, even though he was sent documents telling him he had to do so.

But in 2006, Geithner got a document he couldn’t ignore. The IRS sent Geithner a notice saying he had not paid his taxes for 2003 and 2004, and Geithner paid up.

But he did not pay up for 2001 and 2002, even though he must have known that he skipped taxes for those years, too.

He didn’t pay those taxes until Barack Obama decided he wanted Geithner to head the treasury and Obama sent vetters to look into Geithner’s past.

The vetters discovered Geithner’s little tax error in November and told Geithner. Then Geithner paid up, with interest. The vetters also told Obama, of course.

The Senate Finance Committee has been looking into Geithner — it has to vote on his appointment — and discovered something else.

According to Gordon and Parnes: “In addition, Geithner included payments to overnight camps in calculating his dependent child care credit in 2001, 2004 and 2005. His accountant informed him in 2006 that the camps were not allowable expenses. The committee notes that Geithner did not file amended returns to fix the mistake.”

Story for above quotes

Questions and answers in Geithner's tax problems


Bottom line, this will not be an issue, even though the nominee to head the department that enforces the law of paying taxes did not obey that law and apparently had no intention of obeying that law until he was nominated. The bigger point is Obama's shiny new transparent form of governing appears to be more of the same.

I don't think I even have the energy to care anymore..

 

[ohio]

Bottom line

So basically he paid his taxes correctly to the best of his knowledge until 2006 when the IRS informed him of one mistake and his accountant informed him of another. On the former he paid promptly per the IRS request. On the latter,he then waited for the IRS to find the error which they did in November of 2008, at which time he again paid promptly per the request.

You're telling me that if you found a minor (-5% or so) error in your tax filings after the fact, you would pro-actively file an amendment asking to pay more taxes? The last time you found yourself speeding, did you report yourself to the highway patrol?

 

[X3pilot]

No, I wouldn't but then again, no one has tapped me to run the agnecy that oversees the IRS.

It's not about the point of the technicality of when he paid, it's the double standard being applied again. Where is the outrage? If it were a Republican nominee, Harry Reid would be screaming in the Rotunda.

 

[dante]

No, I wouldn't but then again, no one has tapped me to run the agnecy that oversees the IRS.

It's not about the point of the technicality of when he paid, it's the double standard being applied again. Where is the outrage? If it were a Republican nominee, Harry Reid would be screaming in the Rotunda.

And the Republicans (and foxnews) are dutifully bringing this up again, and again, and again. Are you really trying to make the outrageous claim that political parties are somewhat more lenient on members of their own party than the opposition?

It's a non-issue, and it would be if it was a Republican or a Democrat. This is nothing more than Rush & Foxnews banging a drum and trying to remain relevant as the public shifts farther and farther away from these "gotcha" stories... It's pretty hard to care that someone followed his accountant's advice and ended up underpaying his taxes, when the current (soon to be previous) president led us down the path to the next Great Depression.

 

[X3pilot]

I'm not outraged, just curious as to why it seemed to get such an easy free pass. I suppose if the guy turns out to be a good Secretary, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

 

[ohio]

just curious as to why it seemed to get such an easy free pass.

really?

no, really?

 

[MikeD]

Well I guess you believe some people are special then, just like most Americans.

I don't really give a carp about whether or not this dude paid his taxes. I take issue with people who think how important someone is makes a funking bit of difference. Your importance is not a valid defense.

We don't live in a land of equal rights, we live in a land of special rights for special people.

I grow weary of this rant. It tires me to always hear how people want to be equal and then would rather be special when it suits their needs. I wish that America™ would one day walk her talk, but I recognize that it will probably never be.

I grow weary of your bull****™. You live in one of, if not the, most fair and egalitarian places on Earth™. (edit: I'm imagining that some Scandanavian countries and perhaps New Zealand might be better at this than us--but they also are far further cries from your ideal libertarian state than America is...)

America is not perfect and privilege exists. Is it right? Not usually, and we should certainly take action when we can to ensure lawbreakers face the consequences. But you sit on the Internet™ and bitch endlessly on individual examples, which are typically and ironically undergoing scrutiny, as if it's some banana republic. What makes you so bitter™? Did America kill your dog or something?

I have no problem with examining individual issues of misconduct or corruption. We should. And those who violate the law should pay the price. Alas, they don't always. But to throw your hands up in the air and claim our system is beyond help (except perhaps Ron Paul's) is just whiny sour grapes from someone who is, in the world scale, quite privileged himself.

(By the way™, lots of non-important Americans get away with skipping out on taxes or hiring an illegal or whatever...their stories just don't find their way onto your computer screen when the prosecutor declines to take the case. And sometimes public figures or rich people get prosecuted, too.)

 

[Samirol]

I grow weary of your bull****™. You live in one of, if not the, most fair and egalitarian places on Earth™.

The US is far from egalitarian, because there are huge income and political power gaps between the rich and poor. All it takes is a look at the Gini coefficient and see what other countries are just as "egalitarian" as we are economically. The political power gap between corporations and the average person is vast as well.

Egalitarianism is something that isn't wanted in the United States by most people, because it requires taking from the top and giving to the bottom to create a more equal society.

 

[MikeD]

Egalitarianism can be spoken of in terms of opportunity instead of in terms of forced re-distribution of wealth.

However, even on those terms, you're right in the sense that we as a society fail many of our poor in the sense of opportunity through education. If you're not afforded the chance to build a foundation of knowledge and skills, or even perceive opportunities in the wider world, you're mostly unable to better yourself or your situation in any meaningful way. The public education system is broken. Teachers should not pay out of their own near-empty pockets to photocopy textbooks from 1982 for their students to have some sort of learning material. But this is not an irreparable situation.

 

[Samirol]

Egalitarianism is equality, not equal opportunity.

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=egalitarian&search=search

Egalitarianism strives for equality in three areas: social, economic, and political. The US is lags behind many other industrialized nations in all three.

 

[MikeD]

The second definition in your link is "Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people. "

This does not mean everyone is or should be equal (which requires an all-powerful, systematic collective function of some sort to redistribute resources, wealth, and opportunity to an almost unthinkable degree), but that they should have the same rights. There's a huge difference, and everyone should indeed have the same rights.

Anyhow, this is a semantic argument. (And I suspect the etymology of the word argues more towards your definition, whereas mine is likely more of a current common usage.) We're both for equal rights among a population. I just don't believe in "equality" as a natural result of equal rights (quite the opposite) or in such "equality" as an attainable or even desirable goal.

Not to argue into absurd territory, of course--I do believe we should all pay tax towards those public and social services and goals we share, and towards stimulating useful societal and scientific developments, etc.

 

[Silver]

I grow weary of your bull****™. You live in one of, if not the, most fair and egalitarian places on Earth™. (edit: I'm imagining that some Scandanavian countries and perhaps New Zealand might be better at this than us--but they also are far further cries from your ideal libertarian state than America is...)

Actually, if you measure by income mobility, the US scores pretty badly. The UK is almost as bad as the US, oddly, but Canada and the Nordic Countries are much better.

Then there is the justice system. If you're black and get in a fight, you get shot to death while you're handcuffed on a train platform. If you're white and steal $50 billion, you get house arrest so you don't have to hang out on Rikers Island with all the "real" (dark) criminals.

We're better than Brazil...and looking at the average American, I think that is a small miracle in itself.

 

[MikeD]

Yep, I forgot that cops execute minorities on sight. My bad.

I have no issue with pointing out injustice in individual instances, but those blanket "this place is soooooo awful and unfair!" to simply be out of touch with reality.

You're acting like the cop who shot a handcuffed black man wasn't just arrested himself. Nothing in the world is perfect, but we in the US do a decent job of keeping things in the relative "good" zone overall.

 

[Silver]

Yep, I forgot that cops execute minorities on sight. My bad.

I have no issue with pointing out injustice in individual instances, but those blanket "this place is soooooo awful and unfair!" to simply be out of touch with reality.

You're acting like the cop who shot a handcuffed black man wasn't just arrested himself. Nothing in the world is perfect, but we in the US do a decent job of keeping things in the relative "good" zone overall.

Like I said, better than Brazil. Not up to the standards of a first world country.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Nothing in the world is perfect, but we in the US do a decent job of keeping things in the relative "good" zone overall.

Agreed. Good. Not great. And just because there are many places that are worse, does not excuse anything. America™ could be great, and that is what I wish for.

As long as we continue to celebrate our diversity, and everyone's unique specialness, and the special rights and privileges accorded based on who you are, who you know, or what you do, instead of embracing the idea that we are all people and we all are deserving of the same rights as everyone else, no more and no less, this nation will not be as great as it could be.

 

[ohio]

As long as we continue to celebrate our diversity, and everyone's unique specialness, and the special rights and privileges accorded based on who you are, who you know, or what you do, instead of embracing the idea that we are all people and we all are deserving of the same rights as everyone else, no more and no less, this nation will not be as great as it could be.

Do you believe the celebration of diversity to be mutually exclusive with equal rights?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Do you believe the celebration of diversity to be mutually exclusive with equal rights?

It doesn't have to be but, in our current practice, yes it is.

Here is a simple example:

It is wrong to beat people up, right?

If you beat someone up you are charged with assault, but if you are white and you beat up a black person then you may be charged with a hate crime.

Why is it more serious to do the same crime to a different person?

 

[$tinkle]

Egalitarianism is something that isn't wanted in the United States by most people, because it requires taking from the top and giving to the bottom to create a more equal society.

"more equal"???

my signature. look at it.

 

[Samirol]

"more equal"???

my signature. look at it.

The irony of your signature is amazing, because it comes from a laissez-faire economist.

If you beat someone up you are charged with assault, but if you are white and you beat up a black person then you may be charged with a hate crime.

Why is it more serious to do the same crime to a different person?

Intent matters, it is why we have different degrees of murder.

 

[Silver]

The irony of your signature is amazing, because it comes from a laissez-faire economist.

It's even more ironic, because if Thomas Sowell wasn't black he'd be lucky to have a job as a teaching assistant at a community college...

 

[ohio]

Why is it more serious to do the same crime to a different person?

It's not. They are different crimes.

Are you unfamiliar with the concepts of intent and motive?