Archive for April, 2009

The complicated US tax code… or a bunch of liars

Five Obama appointees incorrectly filed their taxes. Ironically, none of these errors were in the form of an overpayment. They never are.

There are two possibilities. Either these appointees intentionally underpaid their taxes, or they accidentally misfiled them.

I’m going to take the high road and assume that all five tax problems were accidental. However, these are smart, college-educated professionals and politicians. They should be able to understand the tax code. Not only were they unable to understand it, like most government documents, they wouldn’t even be able to read the whole thing. According to Florida Congressman Connie Mack, “Our current tax code is over 17,000 pages long and over 60% of Americans pay someone else to do their taxes for them.” According to Virginia Congressman Bob Goodlatte, “The tax law has grown from 11,400 words in 1914, to seven million words today.” Congressman Goodlatte has also claimed that, “American taxpayers spend $200 billion and 5.4 billion hours working to comply with federal taxes each year, more than it takes to produce every car, truck, and van in the US.”

There is something wrong with this system.

While many of these tax filing errors were likely mistakes (especially Ms. Killefer and Ms. Sebelius), they happened nonetheless. Between these five appointees, there were twelve problems filing taxes. I believe that the underlying issue isn’t dishonesty, but an overly complicated tax system. If the same people who oversee the tax code can’t understand and comply with it, there’s a problem. It’s time to reform the tax code.


Tim Geithner
Tim Geithner was selected to be Treasury Secretary of the United States, a position that includes overseeing the bloated beast itself, the IRS. It was quickly discovered that Mr. Geithner owed $42,702 in back taxes for various reasons including:

  • Failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while employed by the International Monetary Fund
  • Illegally claiming that his children’s summer camp was a dependent care expense
  • Employing an individual who lacked legal immigration status

Tom Daschle
Tom Daschle was considered for Secretary of Health and Human Services until it was discovered that he owed $140,167 in taxes. Mr. Daschle’s offenses include:

  • Failure to declare a limousine and chauffeur as taxable benefits (over $250,000 worth)
  • Undeclared income ($83,333) from InterMedia Partners earned in 2007
  • Declaring tax deductions of $14,963 for unapproved charitable organizations

Nancy Killefer
Nancy Killefer was considered for Chief Performance Officer before her past tax complications were unearthed. Although Ms. Killefer had already resolved her $946.69 tax problem, she joined the list of Obama appointees who withdrew their candidacy due to tax issues. Ms. Killefer’s offence was:

  • Failure to pay unemployment compensation to an employee in 2005

Ron Kirk
Ron Kirk was selected as United States Trade Representative on March 18 despite his
$9,975 tax issue. Mr. Kirk’s offences include:

  • Failure to declare compensation for speeches worth $37,750
  • Illegally declaring three seasons of Dallas Mavericks season tickets as qualifying entertainment expenses (without completing the required documentation)

Kathleen Sebelius
Kathleen Sebelius was the second appointee for Secretary of Health and Human Services to have tax problems. Ms. Sebelius’s back taxes amounted to
$7,918 for offenses including:

  • Declaring three charitable contributions without receiving proper documentation
  • Filing mortgage interest deductions after selling a home
  • Declaring business expenses without having sufficient documentation

Tags: ,

Numbers without context can be confusing

I think it was second grade. It might have been third. At some point we all learned about big numbers. We learned that there are thousands. A million is a thousand thousand. A billion is a thousand million. And finally (for practical purposes), a trillion is a thousand billion.

As we got older, it’s something we remembered because we’d see the numbers frequently. We all knew the difference. I could easily spend a thousand dollars. Somebody with a million dollars was rich. Somebody with a billion dollars was super rich. I didn’t know any billionaires, most of us didn’t. $1 billion was so much money that we wouldn’t even be able to spend it all. Then there were the trillions. That was a number reserved for government. Nobody was worth a trillion. No family was worth a trillion. No company was worth a trillion. In 1980, the total debt of the US government wasn’t even a trillion… although 30 years later it’s well over 10 trillion.

The point is, we know what the numbers mean. But when they’re used out of context, on purpose or not, it’s easy to miss the point.

Tricky numbers

A few recent examples of numbers out of context are AIG bonuses, bank repayments and earmarks. All three of these have made big news, but they’re really minor details.

AIG
The government has given AIG somewhere around $180 billion. The bonuses at AIG, regardless of whether they should have been given out, totaled $165 million. So 165/180 means that almost 92% of the bailout money was given out as bonuses. That seems like a misuse of taxpayer money. Something we should all be upset about. Wait… 165/180,000 means that less than .1% of the bailout money was given as bonuses. Right or wrong, .1% means that this shouldn’t be the biggest issue. Don’t worry, after weeks of media attention 9 of the top 10 AIG execs gave the bonuses back.

Bank repayments
Want a bailout? Everybody’s doing it. The government created a $700 billion bailout fund (among other bailouts). According to the Associated Press, yesterday,

“Five banks have repaid millions of dollars they received from the government’s $700 billion financial bailout pot, the Obama administration said Thursday.

The Treasury Department, which oversees the bailout program, said the banks returned a total of $353 million.”

So the banks have already repaid 50% (373/700) of the bailout plan. It looks like the government’s illegal, colossal blunder might have actually worked. No. Again, that’s 373/700,000. That means .05% of the money has been repaid. That’s not news. If I borrowed $100 from you, it’s the equivalent of me repaying you one nickel. It’s not a start, it’s not symbolic. It’s an insult as much as anything else.

Earmarks
Earmarks. Horrible, horrible earmarks. Anytime a discussion about government spending comes up, somebody undoubtedly complains about earmarks. Don’t get me wrong, I think earmarks should be cut (along with 90% of government spending), but this isn’t as big an issue as the media makes it out to be. In 2005, $27.3 billion of the $2.4 trillion (the government spends in trillions now) was spent on pork. That’s around 1.1%. In 2006, around $29 billion of the $2.66 trillion spent by government was pork. Again around 1.1%. Yes, it’s an issue. No, it’s not THE issue. It should be discussed and eliminated, but it should not be the focus of the media or the linchpin of a government spending argument.

Whether it’s AIG, bank repayments or earmarks, it’s all relative. What I mean, is that one number is relative to the next. $1 million is a big number if you compare it to $2. But it’s insignificant when you compare it to $1 trillion. The next time the media spouts some numbers and makes a huge deal out of it, think about what it relates to.

Tags:

My first post

I’ve been thinking of blogging for a while. And I just did it.

Tags: