not feeling good about this one.....

On Jan 15, 3:15*am, riverman wrote:
Anyway, as one blog put it: its a cheap shot to say the problem is
that the head of the Treasury does not file his taxes properly...its
more accurate to say we need a tax code that the head of the Treasury
could understand. As well as the rest of us!

What continues to bug me is the hyperbole that because he was head of
the Federal Reserve or worked for the IMF or whatever, he should be an
expert at tax preparation. Being an expert economist, policy maker,
fiscal manager or whatever he does makes him maybe marginally better
than the rest of us when April 15 rolls around. To trot out his
professional expertise as indication of dishonesty is absurd.

I'm a damned good structural engineer. I can design multi-story
structures to withstand earthquakes or hurricane winds; but I wouldn't
build my own house. If I did, I gurantee I wouldn't do as good a job
as someone trained in that line of work. Engineers aren't builders,
and bankers and economists aren't bookkeepers.

I'm not familiar enough with what Geithner did or didn't do to comment
on his ethics or honesty, but anyone who argues his professional
financial expertise as evidence that he should know how to fill out a
1040 is an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:01:08 -0800 (PST), rb608
wrote:

On Jan 15, 3:15*am, riverman wrote:
Anyway, as one blog put it: its a cheap shot to say the problem is
that the head of the Treasury does not file his taxes properly...its
more accurate to say we need a tax code that the head of the Treasury
could understand. As well as the rest of us!

What continues to bug me is the hyperbole that because he was head of
the Federal Reserve or worked for the IMF or whatever, he should be an
expert at tax preparation. Being an expert economist, policy maker,
fiscal manager or whatever he does makes him maybe marginally better
than the rest of us when April 15 rolls around. To trot out his
professional expertise as indication of dishonesty is absurd.

Are you seriously suggesting that he and anyone with similar background
should not be expected to _know_, with or without further notice, that
he is subject to US income taxation? I think, or at least hope, that no
one would seriously make _that_ argument. So all that is left is to
determine what a similarly-situated reasonable person should know. In
this case, as I said in my first reply, the tax code or the alleged
complexities of 1040 form are not really at issue here - this was SS/SE
tax, which I would expect a reasonable person with his background to at
least have knowledge of. But even giving him the benefit of the doubt -
that he wasn't aware of such things prior to his employment with the IMF
- not only did the IMF gave him multiple notices, specifically, of his
obligation, they gave him the money _AT AND BASED UPON HIS WRITTEN
REQUEST_ with which to pay that obligation. Even allowing the
ridiculous assumption that he didn't have the slightest knowledge of
that portion of taxation, but simply filed out the form and got a
mysterious check, he was given the money and told who to give it to and
why.

And finally, he prepared his own tax in (at least) the year prior to his
employment with IMF (ironically, with the US Treasury).

I'm a damned good structural engineer. I can design multi-story
structures to withstand earthquakes or hurricane winds; but I wouldn't
build my own house. If I did, I gurantee I wouldn't do as good a job
as someone trained in that line of work. Engineers aren't builders,
and bankers and economists aren't bookkeepers.

So if you hire this builder to build your house, and he didn't build
basement steps, which you observed were missing but proceeded to step
through the door and fall, your argument would be "hey, I'm only an
engineer, what do I know about carpentry...?"...um, well, OK, bad
example...that is probably exactly what an engineer would do and say,
but this guy isn't supposed to be as goofy as an engineer...

I'm not familiar enough with what Geithner did or didn't do to comment
on his ethics or honesty, but anyone who argues his professional
financial expertise as evidence that he should know how to fill out a
1040 is an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

Exactly what an engineer would say after trying to use non-existent
stairs that he was convinced the design would clearly show should have
been there...

HTH,
R

On Jan 14, 7:49*pm, wrote:

they are paid
additional amounts to cover this tax obligation. *

Incorrect, they are paid additional to cover income tax liabilities,
they were not paid to cover the SSA and Medicare amounts.

Another point from earlier in this thread-self employed contractors
don't normally get W-2's which is an employee with-holding statement.
They typically get 1099's in which he case he should have known
better. If he did in fact get a W-2 statement, then frankly in my
mind, it could be rationalized, regardless of employer communications,
that since it wasn't with-held it didn't apply.

On Jan 15, 9:01*am, rb608 wrote:

I'm not familiar enough with what Geithner did or didn't do to comment
on his ethics or honesty, but anyone who argues his professional
financial expertise as evidence that he should know how to fill out a
1040 is an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

From the WSJ:

"Mr. Geithner didn't make any Social Security or Medicare tax
payments
on his income during the years he worked for the IMF, though he did
pay
income taxes. After the Internal Revenue Service audited him in 2006
and
discovered the payroll-tax errors, Mr. Geithner corrected them for
2003
and 2004. Only after Mr. Obama picked him for Treasury secretary last
fall
did Mr. Geithner pay the Social Security and Medicare tax he owed for
2001 and 2002."

Apparently, the statue of limitations prevented the IRS from going
back further on the audit.

It would certainly appear Mr Geithner had no intention of paying the
previous years
tax liability prior to becoming nominated.

Does that disqualify one for Sec of Treas?

I bet Leno and Letterman hope not.
--
SJM

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:45:28 -0800 (PST), Wayne Knight
wrote:

On Jan 14, 7:49*pm, wrote:

they are paid
additional amounts to cover this tax obligation. *

Incorrect, they are paid additional to cover income tax liabilities,
they were not paid to cover the SSA and Medicare amounts.

I didn't say they weren't paid to cover income tax liabilities, I said
they are paid additional amounts to cover SE tax. Which, according to
all accounts I've seen, including Myron's own cited source and the
actual statements and forms, is what happened via Geithner's request in
writing - he received an amount equal to his federal and state income
taxes _and_ his SE/SSA/Medicare amounts. He paid his fed and state
income tax, but did not pay his SE tax.


Another point from earlier in this thread-self employed contractors
don't normally get W-2's which is an employee with-holding statement.
They typically get 1099's in which he case he should have known
better. If he did in fact get a W-2 statement, then frankly in my
mind, it could be rationalized, regardless of employer communications,
that since it wasn't with-held it didn't apply.

HEY! I was saving the whole W2/1099 thing! The accounts I've seen say
"W2" and his statements talk about "W2 income," but I wasn't sure if IMF
fell into some weird "quasi" thing like Freddie and Fannie (and I've not
seen either W2s or 1099s, redacted or otherwise), but IAC, he did apply
for and receive the money for all three (fed, state income and SE) after
being repeatedly informed of his situation regarding taxes. Look, if
this guy was some scientist/doctor/biologist/whatever who never claimed
to be able to so much as balance a checkbook and had his wife prepare
the taxes, that would be one thing, but this guy got statement_S_ that
showed he received _several_ times a "SE Tax Allowance" of $dollars
redacted.various cents shown - 45, 'Y-T-D 35', etc.," he prepared his
own taxes before and during the period in question, etc.

TC,
R

On Jan 15, 6:01*am, rb608 wrote:

Boy I am sorry Joe but that is exactly something anyone elected to
local, state, or Federal office SHOULD know. The 1040 and the SE tax
are basic to our whole tax policy, basic to understanding the basic
framework for business dealings in this country, basic to
understanding the core of the entitlement issues and social policy,
basic to understanding ANY issue involving incomes policy, business,
retirement, savings, iie much of practical macroeconomics. etc...

This notion that he is such a high flyer that he should not be
expected to know is like saying someone else with expertise in long
division should do his math for him. He should not serve because. . .

1. It is not creditable that he was unaware of the basis for SS tax of
self employment. It is basic to anyone who would be involved in policy
decisions of a financial nature.
2. He is either very sloppy in his personal financial affairs,
unprepared as to basic knowledge for the job, or a conscious tax
evader. Hey, most small businessmen have skirted the tax laws from
time to time. But they are not up for high office.
This is garden variety venality. He got caught. They should figure out
another way he can serve, but under someone else's watchful eye. At
least his ethics are questionable, to think he could ignore the 2ior
years and not voluntarily clear up things as to prior years before the
statute of limitations kicked in? . ie did he actually report this
source of income for those years? . . . or just short the SS owed?

I can tell you this, I certainly will be watching him as i would
anyone who I had reason to believe was a sharpie. And that is the
question he is this man "too" much the sharpie to trust? Right now
I have to say he is.

Sorry to disagree but . . .

Dave

On Jan 15, 10:26*am, wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:45:28 -0800 (PST), Wayne Knight

wrote:
On Jan 14, 7:49*pm, wrote:

they are paid
additional amounts to cover this tax obligation. *

Incorrect, they are paid additional to cover income tax liabilities,
they were not paid to cover the SSA and Medicare amounts.

I didn't say they weren't paid to cover income tax liabilities, I said
they are paid additional amounts to cover SE tax. *Which, according to
all accounts I've seen, including Myron's own cited source and the
actual statements and forms, is what happened via Geithner's request in
writing - he received an amount equal to his federal and state income
taxes _and_ his SE/SSA/Medicare amounts. *He paid his fed and state
income tax, but did not pay his SE tax.



Another point from earlier in this thread-self employed contractors
don't normally get W-2's which is an employee with-holding statement.
They typically get 1099's in which he case he should have known
better. If he did in fact get a W-2 statement, then frankly in my
mind, it could be rationalized, regardless of employer communications,
that since it wasn't with-held it didn't apply.

HEY! *I was saving the whole W2/1099 thing! *The accounts I've seen say
"W2" and his statements talk about "W2 income," but I wasn't sure if IMF
fell into some weird "quasi" thing like Freddie and Fannie (and I've not
seen either W2s or 1099s, redacted or otherwise), but IAC, he did apply
for and receive the money for all three (fed, state income and SE) after
being repeatedly informed of his situation regarding taxes. *Look, if
this guy was some scientist/doctor/biologist/whatever who never claimed
to be able to so much as balance a checkbook and had his wife prepare
the taxes, that would be one thing, but this guy got statement_S_ that
showed he received _several_ times a "SE Tax Allowance" of $dollars
redacted.various cents shown - 45, 'Y-T-D 35', etc.," he prepared his
own taxes before and during the period in question, etc.

TC,
R



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jan 15, 2:23*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Jan 15, 6:01*am, rb608 wrote:

Boy I am sorry Joe but that is exactly something anyone elected to
local, state, or Federal office SHOULD know. The 1040 and the SE tax
are basic to our whole tax policy, basic to understanding the basic
framework for business dealings in this country, basic to
understanding the core of the entitlement issues and social policy,
basic to understanding ANY issue involving incomes policy, business,
retirement, savings, iie much of practical macroeconomics. etc...

This notion that he is such a high flyer that he should not be
expected to know is like saying someone else with expertise in long
division should do his math for him. He should not serve because. . .

1. It is not creditable that he was unaware of the basis for SS tax of
self employment. It is basic to anyone who would be involved in policy
decisions of a financial nature.
2. He is either very sloppy in his personal financial affairs,
unprepared as to basic knowledge for the job, or a conscious tax
evader. Hey, most small businessmen have skirted the tax laws from
time to time. But they are not up for high office.
This is garden variety venality. He got caught. They should figure out
another way he can serve, but under someone else's watchful eye. At
least his ethics are questionable, to think he could ignore the 2ior
years and not voluntarily clear up things as to prior years before the
statute of limitations kicked in? . ie did he actually report this
source of income for those years? . . . or just short the SS owed?

I can tell you this, I certainly will be watching him as i would
anyone who I had reason to believe was a sharpie. And that is the
question he is this man "too" much the sharpie to trust? Right now
I have to say he is.

Sorry to disagree but . . .

Dave

CORRECTION: . . . anyone selected to local, state or federal. . .

Dave

On Jan 15, 5:23*pm, DaveS wrote:
2. He is either very sloppy in his personal financial affairs,
unprepared as to basic knowledge for the job, or a conscious tax
evader. Hey, most small businessmen have skirted the tax laws from
time to time. But they are not up for high office.
This is garden variety venality. He got caught. They should figure out
another way he can serve, but under someone else's watchful eye. At
least his ethics are questionable, to think he could ignore the 2ior
years and not voluntarily clear up things as to prior years before the
statute of limitations kicked in? . ie did he actually report this
source of income for those years? . . . or just short the SS owed?

And I don't disagree with any of that. My only point (which I
obviously failed to narrow) was that being qualified to run a bank
does not necessarily make one expert at tax preparation. He may well
have (and it appears so) intentionally obfuscated SE income to avoid
paying the required tax. I'm shocked, shocked to learn that someone
tried to put one over on the IRS. If that is an automatic
disqualification, I daresay the pool of potential applicants will
narrow significantly.

Joe F.

"Why the innuendo with Obama's middle name? "

don't ask me...why don;t you ask his daddy, he gave hussein
his middle name........




On Jan 15, 1:18*am, riverman wrote:
On Jan 15, 10:45*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:





." .get a clue before you come play with the big
kids, ok? *"

yawwwnnnnnnn....... since when are hussein lovers big kids?

On Jan 14, 5:43*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in ...
it's a "Dem" mistake...no biggie....Hussein's folks assured everyone
today it was a simple oversight.....It sould not jepordise (sp?) the
nomination...........ha...too funny.......

thanks for reminding me.....no matter what minor mistakes Obama makes over
the next 8 years, it will be all fine with me as long as it ****es off
idiots like yourself.
Do us, and yourself a favor.....get a clue before you come play with the big
kids, ok?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Compared to racist idiots, we're the biggest kids on the block.

Come clean, Beancounter. Why the innuendo with Obama's middle name?
Are you insinuating something? State it clearly...so we can determine
just how big of a kid you really are.

--riverman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -