Obama's first failed appointment

[sugarpop]

ah, I thought it was something like that.

[classicman]

Cheese Itz - Do any of these people actually pay their taxes?

Sebelius admits errors, pays $7,000 in back taxes

Sebelius said she filed the amended returns as soon as the errors were discovered by an accountant she hired to scrub her taxes in preparation for her confirmation hearings. She and her husband, Gary, a federal magistrate judge in Kansas, paid a total of $7,040 in back taxes and $878 in interest to amend returns from 2005-2007.

Was she gonna hire someone if she didn't get appointed?

Charitable contributions over $250 are supposed to include an acknowledgment letter from the charity in order for a deduction to be taken. Out of 49 charitable contributions made, three letters couldn't be found.

Sebelius and her husband took deductions for mortgage interest that they weren't entitled to. The couple sold their home in 2006 for less than what they owed on the mortgage. They continued to make payments on the mortgage, including interest. But since they no longer owned the home they weren't entitled to take deductions for the interest. The same thing happened with a home improvement loan. Sebelius said they "mistakenly believed" the payments were still deductible.

_Insufficient documentation was found for some business expense deductions.

No big deal, but still - shes a Governor and he is a Judge. WTF?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by classicman

Cheese Itz - Do any of these people actually pay their taxes?
...

Was she gonna hire someone if she didn't get appointed?

Dude. You don't feel even the least bit hypocritical? You directly suggested to me that I fudge my taxes to save money. And yet here you are not only upset (again) that a politician did the same thing, but implying that she should have been honest even if she weren't getting appointed, thus bypassing any "politicians should know they're held to a higher standard" argument.

[classicman]

When did I do that?

[sugarpop]

I don't understand why they wouldn't have been able to take deductions on their taxes since they sold the house for less than what it was worth. That is a loss. Aren't you supposed to be able to claim losses on your taxes? And the charitable contributions, they have to have a letter? I thought a receipt would do.

The friggin' tax laws are so complicated in this country, it doesn't surprise me at all that so many people are having trouble with that part of the confirmations.

[lookout123]

The friggin' tax laws are so complicated in this country, it doesn't surprise me at all that so many people are having trouble with that part of the confirmations.

And yet you're all convinced an easy to understand flat tax would hurt the poor and working classes.

[sugarpop]

It would, because it favors the wealthier classes.

[lookout123]

Bullshit. You can't rest your flag on the idea that the current system favors the wealthy because of all the deductions and tax shelters which help them to pay a lower than expected tax rate AND say that a zero deduction flat tax also favors them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Gosh guys, isn't there a solution in between?

[DanaC]

Now you're just being ridiculous Bruce :P

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You directly suggested to me that I fudge my taxes to save money.

Originally Posted by classicman

When did I do that?

It was here. I kind of called you on it at the time too (post 1393,) because that was when the news stories about nominees owing back taxes were in full swing, and you had expressed frustration over it several times.

Originally Posted by lookout123

And yet you're all convinced an easy to understand flat tax would hurt the poor and working classes.

An "easy to understand" flat tax is absolutely regressive...hurting the poor and working class far more than higher income groups with far greater disposal income.

And the more "complicated" you make it to counteract that inherent unfairness, the higher the tax rate will need to be just to generate enough revenue to pay for basic national needs.

SO, the current tax system is unfair because it is progressive and the rich pay a greater share of their income.

A flat tax is unfair because it is regressive and the poor and working class pay a greater share of their income.

Which group should pay that greater share of their income.....the group that relies on a large portion of its income to meet basic needs and perhaps a few luxuries or the group with much greater disposable income?

The answer is easy to me.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by lookout123

And yet you're all convinced an easy to understand flat tax would hurt the poor and working classes.

Of course it would.

[Clodfobble]

Ah, but you forget the basic notion (almost considered a given with most flat-tax proponents) that there could be a floor underneath which there would be no tax. Say, the first $25,000.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Ah, but you forget the basic notion (almost considered a given with most flat-tax proponents) that there could be a floor underneath which there would be no tax. Say, the first $25,000.

Okay, then to gain sufficient revenue, you'd have to have your tax rate so high that you'd clobber the middle class.

Which is, of course, the whole point. The funniest thing is that the rich have sold this to the middle class (or at least their kids away at college).