I Urge you to call your Senator

[Bob78164]

Show of hands, please -- how many people here with private employers realized before this story broke that their employers actually pay FICA taxes on their behalf? I'm not talking about the FICA withholding that shows up on your pay stub. I'm talking about the other half, which the taxpayer normally is only responsible for if self-employed.

This quote explains a lot to me -- about you, not social security. If you truly believe that reasonably intelligent people don't understand how social security taxes work and who pays them, you underestimate a great many people, including most of the folks on this board.

Folks on the Bored -- maybe -- although the number of people here who wonder about tax treatment of their winnings, and the amount of simply inaccurate advice given on the subject (not, I hasten to add, by any of the professionals) leads me to stick to my guns even here. After all, I suspect most people here have a whole lot of things they'd prefer to think about other than taxes. Hell, I don't mind admitting that before I had to deal with self-employment taxes for the first time about eight years ago, I didn't have a clear understanding of the employer portion of payroll taxes. As further evidence specific to social security, during the debate on privatization, many people here didn't seem to realize that because social security is pay-as-you-go, it's simply not possible to divert even a portion of the payment to "private savings accounts" without reducing current benefits.

As for "reasonably intelligent people" more generally -- I spend a fair amount of time on the Tax Strategies Board at the Motley Fool. Based on my experience with that audience (which generally is motivated to understand tax issues), I'm certainly sticking to my guns on the more general point. --Bob

[Estonut]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If a guy can't handle his own taxes without error, he has no business being put in charge of the IRS.

Honest mistake or not.

Whether this guy did or not, you should know that people lie.

[Bob78164]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If a guy can't handle his own taxes without error, he has no business being put in charge of the IRS.

Honest mistake or not.

That's a pretty harsh position, albeit defensible (at least in theory). Geithner used an accountant in 2003 and 2004. The accountant made the same mistake Geithner did.

But by the same token, can't we say that if a guy can't get a simple statement like "He has WMDs and we know where they are" right, he has no business making war-and-peace decisions? And yet Bush got re-elected. --Bob

[Estonut]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If a guy can't handle his own taxes without error, he has no business being put in charge of the IRS.

Honest mistake or not.

That's a pretty harsh position, albeit defensible (at least in theory). Geithner used an accountant in 2003 and 2004. The accountant made the same mistake Geithner did.

But by the same token, can't we say that if a guy can't get a simple statement like "He has WMDs and we know where they are" right, he has no business making war-and-peace decisions? And yet Bush got re-elected. --Bob

If true, then no. Do you think Bush actually was the one behind such decisions?

I seem to recall several "experts" testifying before a huge bi-partisan committee about WMD. At the time, everyone seemed to believe the "intelligence." Are you now saying that Bush was so smart that he alone could have fooled everyone involved?

As far as the accountant goes, for all we know, he could have made the same mistake at his client's suggestion. I think it would be far more telling to find out how many of his associates in the same tax situation made the same mistakes.

[Bob78164]

As far as the accountant goes, for all we know, he could have made the same mistake at his client's suggestion. I think it would be far more telling to find out how many of his associates in the same tax situation made the same mistakes.

Lots. I have read that the IRS estimates that as many as 50% of the IMF's U.S. "employees" make this error. (I place "employees" in quotes because under the Bretton Woods treaty, they're apparently treated as independent contractors for purposes of U.S. tax law.)

As for the accountant, the advice was apparently rendered in writing and all of the documents turned over to the Finance Committee. --Bob

[Bob78164]

But by the same token, can't we say that if a guy can't get a simple statement like "He has WMDs and we know where they are" right, he has no business making war-and-peace decisions? And yet Bush got re-elected. --Bob

If true, then no. Do you think Bush actually was the one behind such decisions?

I seem to recall several "experts" testifying before a huge bi-partisan committee about WMD. At the time, everyone seemed to believe the "intelligence." Are you now saying that Bush was so smart that he alone could have fooled everyone involved?

No, I'm saying that if you take us to war saying, "We know where they are," rather than "We think we know where they are," then you had better be right. He wasn't. We knew by the 2004 election that he wasn't. And yet he was re-elected.

If the nation can forgive Bush a screw-up of that magnitude, I think it can forgive Geithner for making what is apparently a fairly common error, particularly since his professional advisor (in a context where it is reasonable to rely on professional advice) made the same error. --Bob

[Estonut]

If the nation can forgive Bush a screw-up of that magnitude, I think it can forgive Geithner for making what is apparently a fairly common error, particularly since his professional advisor (in a context where it is reasonable to rely on professional advice) made the same error. --Bob

I see your points. I guess my last (hopefully) thought on this is, aren't there other qualified candidates for this position who have nothing requiring the nation's forgiveness?

[silverscreenselect]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If a guy can't handle his own taxes without error, he has no business being put in charge of the IRS.

Honest mistake or not.

That's a pretty harsh position, albeit defensible (at least in theory). Geithner used an accountant in 2003 and 2004. The accountant made the same mistake Geithner did.

But by the same token, can't we say that if a guy can't get a simple statement like "He has WMDs and we know where they are" right, he has no business making war-and-peace decisions? And yet Bush got re-elected. --Bob

I have said on a number of occasions that Obama is going to be just another version of Bush. I'm glad to see that Bob agrees with me.

[Jeemie]

I have said on a number of occasions that Obama is going to be just another version of Bush. I'm glad to see that Bob agrees with me.

And this is the point I was trying to make.

Whatever your stance on Geithner's "mistake", Obama promised real change.

He's not starting out very well by nominating challenged candidates for office (this guy and Richardson).

If a guy's going to make bold promises, and has seen what has happened to people who have made similar bold promises in the past, don't you think he could have gotten off to a better start?

[minimetoo26]

We get income from multiple sources, with different things eligible for different types of withholding and retirement funding rules. Which is why we pay somebody else a ton of money to figure it all out.

So we just got a notice from the state we owe them more money. I guess I'm a tax cheat and my accountant is incompetent. Good thing I'll never run for office.

[littlebeast13]

We get income from multiple sources, with different things eligible for different types of withholding and retirement funding rules. Which is why we pay somebody else a ton of money to figure it all out.

So we just got a notice from the state we owe them more money. I guess I'm a tax cheat and my accountant is incompetent. Good thing I'll never run for office.

Good thing you know my attorney too....

Hey, Governor Blago is hiring a PR firm to boost his image (seriously!). Give them a call if you ever change your mind about entering the political arena....

lb13

[minimetoo26]

We get income from multiple sources, with different things eligible for different types of withholding and retirement funding rules. Which is why we pay somebody else a ton of money to figure it all out.

So we just got a notice from the state we owe them more money. I guess I'm a tax cheat and my accountant is incompetent. Good thing I'll never run for office.

Good thing you know my attorney too....

Hey, Governor Blago is hiring a PR firm to boost his image (seriously!). Give them a call if you ever change your mind about entering the political arena....

lb13

He could start with a haircut. I'm shallow enough to have trouble getting past that.

Guilty of all charges, I say! Just look at him!

[littlebeast13]

We get income from multiple sources, with different things eligible for different types of withholding and retirement funding rules. Which is why we pay somebody else a ton of money to figure it all out.

So we just got a notice from the state we owe them more money. I guess I'm a tax cheat and my accountant is incompetent. Good thing I'll never run for office.

Good thing you know my attorney too....

Hey, Governor Blago is hiring a PR firm to boost his image (seriously!). Give them a call if you ever change your mind about entering the political arena....

lb13

He could start with a haircut. I'm shallow enough to have trouble getting past that.

Guilty of all charges, I say! Just look at him!

I hope you don't end up on my jury the next time one of my neighbors dies under suspicious circumstances......

lb13

[Sir_Galahad]

Bob, you make some very good points. However, I will stick by my guns. And, I repeat, for a guy that supposed to be the smartest guy in the room, there's awful lot of fishy stuff associated with him that just makes me skeptical as to his fitness to be the head of the Treasury and IRS. If you're that smart you can't be making those simple mistakes and other things that SC pointed out. And, by virtue of the fact that he is a whiz kid in economics I just cannot believe that he make those "oversights." I have no proof other than gut feel but it seems to me that he was just trying to get away without paying those taxes. I don't have the legal mind you do - I go by my gut feelings and nose. And I smell something really fishy going on here. Do I expect him to get confirmed. Of course. With the decks stacked as they are in Congress, they will do pretty much whatever Obama wants. There are very few congress-people with spines these days.

[ulysses5019]

We get income from multiple sources, with different things eligible for different types of withholding and retirement funding rules. Which is why we pay somebody else a ton of money to figure it all out.

So we just got a notice from the state we owe them more money. I guess I'm a tax cheat and my accountant is incompetent. Good thing I'll never run for office.

Good thing you know my attorney too....

Hey, Governor Blago is hiring a PR firm to boost his image (seriously!). Give them a call if you ever change your mind about entering the political arena....

lb13

He could start with a haircut. I'm shallow enough to have trouble getting past that.

Guilty of all charges, I say! Just look at him!

Does the bored stalin lookalike have anything to worry about?

[Jeemie]

Here's my deal with the whole thing, as I said.

If you're going to make bold promises as to the integrity and transparency of your administration, then do not nominate someone with even a WHIFF of controversy surrounding them.

If you're going to make such bold promises, then I as an American citizen am going to hold you to a VERY high standard.

[a1mamacat]

Sure, this guy "inadvertantly" forgot to pay taxes, just like a pickpocket "inadvertantly" forgets that he is grabbing someone else's wallet.

He didn't "forg[e]t to pay taxes." He failed to realize that even though he was receiving W-2s, because he was employed by the IMF he was responsible for the employer's portion of FICA taxes, as well as the employee's portion (which he did pay). That's probably why no one on the Committee (Republican or Democrat) has claimed that he was trying to cheat the government. Even the five (out of ten) Committee Republicans who oppose the nomination appear to accept this -- they've simply taken the position that it's too big an error to forgive for this position, or that he should have volunteered earlier to repay the additional taxes that had fallen outside the statute of limitations before it came up in vetting.

Show of hands, please -- how many people here with private employers realized before this story broke that their employers actually pay FICA taxes on their behalf? I'm not talking about the FICA withholding that shows up on your pay stub. I'm talking about the other half, which the taxpayer normally is only responsible for if self-employed.

To me, this is reminiscent of Zoe Baird (who, by the way, is a distant cousin of mine), with one crucial difference. I think it was Orrin Hatch who, during her confirmation hearings, said that if she had gotten bad advice on the immigration issue or for some reason honestly failed to realize that use of household help was out of compliance with federal law, he would have been ticked but he could still have supported her confirmation. Instead, though, her position was that she knew there was a compliance problem but ignored it because everyone else did.

Geithner did not know there was a problem in 2001 and 2002. Admittedly, in light of the reams of paperwork he received, he should have, but everyone on the Committee seems to accept that he honestly did not. (By the way, I, for one, have never read my Firm's employee manual cover-to-cover, so I can understand where he's coming from.) And when he learned there was a problem, he did everything the law required him to do, and in my view, everything that almost anyone on this Bored (present company included) would have done in a similar position. When under consideration for a position in the Administration, he went above and beyond the requirements of the law. If this guy isn't eligible, then we've reached the point where an honest mistake permanently disqualifies someone for high government office. And if that's true, I can't understand how George W. "I thought there were WMDs" Bush got re-elected. --Bob

Bob, you appear to be smitten with this guy.

NTTIAWWT

[AlphaDummy]

Hey, Governor Blago is hiring a PR firm to boost his image (seriously!). Give them a call if you ever change your mind about entering the political arena....

Same PR firm that is representing Drew Peterson. As in, the suburban Chicago cop who is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife. And whose third wife's death is now under investigation by a grand jury.

Whatever medication these particular PR people might be taking that allows them to sleep at night...I want some.

[Bob78164]

Sure, this guy "inadvertantly" forgot to pay taxes, just like a pickpocket "inadvertantly" forgets that he is grabbing someone else's wallet.

He didn't "forg[e]t to pay taxes." He failed to realize that even though he was receiving W-2s, because he was employed by the IMF he was responsible for the employer's portion of FICA taxes, as well as the employee's portion (which he did pay). That's probably why no one on the Committee (Republican or Democrat) has claimed that he was trying to cheat the government. Even the five (out of ten) Committee Republicans who oppose the nomination appear to accept this -- they've simply taken the position that it's too big an error to forgive for this position, or that he should have volunteered earlier to repay the additional taxes that had fallen outside the statute of limitations before it came up in vetting.

Show of hands, please -- how many people here with private employers realized before this story broke that their employers actually pay FICA taxes on their behalf? I'm not talking about the FICA withholding that shows up on your pay stub. I'm talking about the other half, which the taxpayer normally is only responsible for if self-employed.

To me, this is reminiscent of Zoe Baird (who, by the way, is a distant cousin of mine), with one crucial difference. I think it was Orrin Hatch who, during her confirmation hearings, said that if she had gotten bad advice on the immigration issue or for some reason honestly failed to realize that use of household help was out of compliance with federal law, he would have been ticked but he could still have supported her confirmation. Instead, though, her position was that she knew there was a compliance problem but ignored it because everyone else did.

Geithner did not know there was a problem in 2001 and 2002. Admittedly, in light of the reams of paperwork he received, he should have, but everyone on the Committee seems to accept that he honestly did not. (By the way, I, for one, have never read my Firm's employee manual cover-to-cover, so I can understand where he's coming from.) And when he learned there was a problem, he did everything the law required him to do, and in my view, everything that almost anyone on this Bored (present company included) would have done in a similar position. When under consideration for a position in the Administration, he went above and beyond the requirements of the law. If this guy isn't eligible, then we've reached the point where an honest mistake permanently disqualifies someone for high government office. And if that's true, I can't understand how George W. "I thought there were WMDs" Bush got re-elected. --Bob

Bob, you appear to be smitten with this guy.

NTTIAWWT

It's not that. I have seen criticisms of Geithner with which I would not take issue, based on my present state of knowledge. But the suggestion that screwing up his self-employment taxes is evidence that he's dishonest smacks of the "gotcha" politics that has turned so many people off. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Here's my deal with the whole thing, as I said.

If you're going to make bold promises as to the integrity and transparency of your administration, then do not nominate someone with even a WHIFF of controversy surrounding them.

If you're going to make such bold promises, then I as an American citizen am going to hold you to a VERY high standard.

That standard would essentially give almost anyone a "heckler's veto" over the entire Administration. I would hope that you would instead make some effort to ascertain whether there's any fire beneath the smoke. --Bob

[Jeemie]

That standard would essentially give almost anyone a "heckler's veto" over the entire Administration. I would hope that you would instead make some effort to ascertain whether there's any fire beneath the smoke. --Bob

No- it would not.

Any idiot could see that Geithner and Richardson would be trouble- indeed the vetting committees knew of the issues beforehand.

Actually, there's an easier solution to avoid the "heckler's veto"- don't make bold promises like "This will be the most...administration in history".

Don't say anything stupid and patronizing like that, when everybody who understands the political game understands that that's an impossible standard to set, and you'll be just fine in my book.

But if you're going to set the impossible standard, I'm going to hold you to it.

[Estonut]

Hey, Governor Blago is hiring a PR firm to boost his image (seriously!). Give them a call if you ever change your mind about entering the political arena....

Same PR firm that is representing Drew Peterson. As in, the suburban Chicago cop who is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife. And whose third wife's death is now under investigation by a grand jury.

Whatever medication these particular PR people might be taking that allows them to sleep at night...I want some.

Also as in, the guy who found some nutjob willing to marry him and become his fifth wife/third? victim. Last I heard about him, anyway.

[Bob78164]

Actually, there's an easier solution to avoid the "heckler's veto"- don't make bold promises like "This will be the most...administration in history".

Don't say anything stupid and patronizing like that, when everybody who understands the political game understands that that's an impossible standard to set, and you'll be just fine in my book.

But if you're going to set the impossible standard, I'm going to hold you to it.

It seems like you're translating the phrase in quotes, which actually means, "I'll do it better than any previous Administration," as "My Administration will do it perfectly." The former standard is feasible. The latter is not.

Obama has already taken one step that goes a long way to keeping this promise. By forbidding members of his Administration from lobbying the federal government during his Administration, President Obama has taken an unprecedented step that removes a significant incentive toward corruption. No one thinks this Administration will be perfect, on ethics or anything else. Time will tell, though, whether he will be able to keep the promise he actually made. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Actually, there's an easier solution to avoid the "heckler's veto"- don't make bold promises like "This will be the most...administration in history".

Don't say anything stupid and patronizing like that, when everybody who understands the political game understands that that's an impossible standard to set, and you'll be just fine in my book.

But if you're going to set the impossible standard, I'm going to hold you to it.

It seems like you're translating the phrase in quotes, which actually means, "I'll do it better than any previous Administration," as "My Administration will do it perfectly." The former standard is feasible. The latter is not.

Obama has already taken one step that goes a long way to keeping this promise. By forbidding members of his Administration from lobbying the federal government during his Administration, President Obama has taken an unprecedented step that removes a significant incentive toward corruption. No one thinks this Administration will be perfect, on ethics or anything else. Time will tell, though, whether he will be able to keep the promise he actually made. --Bob

You speak politic now?

If he means to say "I'll be better than the previous administration", then he should SAY that!

Saying "I'll be the most....administration in HISTORY" is NOT merely saying "I'll do better than the previous administration".

This is my problem with politicians in general. They never just say what they mean, and so have to have legions of apologists "explain what they really meant".

PS Obama has already made two "exceptions" to his "no lobbying rule", BTW. In just the first week.

[WheresFanny]

Show of hands, please -- how many people here with private employers realized before this story broke that their employers actually pay FICA taxes on their behalf? I'm not talking about the FICA withholding that shows up on your pay stub. I'm talking about the other half, which the taxpayer normally is only responsible for if self-employed.

This quote explains a lot to me -- about you, not social security. If you truly believe that reasonably intelligent people don't understand how social security taxes work and who pays them, you underestimate a great many people, including most of the folks on this board.

Folks on the Bored -- maybe -- although the number of people here who wonder about tax treatment of their winnings, and the amount of simply inaccurate advice given on the subject (not, I hasten to add, by any of the professionals) leads me to stick to my guns even here. After all, I suspect most people here have a whole lot of things they'd prefer to think about other than taxes. Hell, I don't mind admitting that before I had to deal with self-employment taxes for the first time about eight years ago, I didn't have a clear understanding of the employer portion of payroll taxes. As further evidence specific to social security, during the debate on privatization, many people here didn't seem to realize that because social security is pay-as-you-go, it's simply not possible to divert even a portion of the payment to "private savings accounts" without reducing current benefits.

As for "reasonably intelligent people" more generally -- I spend a fair amount of time on the Tax Strategies Board at the Motley Fool. Based on my experience with that audience (which generally is motivated to understand tax issues), I'm certainly sticking to my guns on the more general point. --Bob

I'm would be really surprised that even a sizable minority of people would be unaware of this. I'm pretty sure I learned this in school, so it couldn't have been any later than the 10th grade (and I think it was 9th).