Conversation | 02/14/2009 6:00 am

Lesley Stahl Asks: Has Public Outrage on Excess Reached 'Tipping Point'?

With Cynthia McFadden, Lesley Stahl and Liz Smith

CYNTHIA: Did you hear the joke the other night from one of the late-night talk shows: “Well, you know, now we know why Democrats don’t mind tax increases. They don’t pay the taxes.”

LIZ: Well, some of us do. And I know so many people that really pay lots of attention to their taxes. And when I think about what I’ve been through with the Internal Revenue Service, I don’t think I’ve ever particularly gotten a break, and I’ve had a lot of intense examinations. So I can’t get over these people. The minute the shadow of the White House falls on you, you better remember whether you paid your taxes or not. This is a really dismaying beginning for Democrats. I know it’s not the end of the world, and Obama will overcome and all of that, but, boy, it’s really depressing for those of us who’ve been paying attention. I’ve been filing taxes since I was 16. And you all know how old I am.

LESLEY: The question is really whether they deliberately set out to cheat the government. And I have to say, I don’t believe that they did. I have a feeling that they hire accountants whose job is to try to save you as much money as possible. And maybe they’re the ones that are getting a little cute here. If, like me, you want to give these people the benefit of the doubt, you say, “You know, they really didn’t know. They honestly, truly didn’t know that having a car and driver was a taxable item.” I find the tax code to be incomprehensible. Completely impenetrable, and I am willing to believe that they’re not venal.

CYNTHIA: But in Mr. Geithner’s case, by way of example, he knew perfectly well.

LESLEY: That’s an egregious case. I was really thinking of Daschle. And I know the bill was enormous, but I looked at it and I thought, “I can see how people wouldn’t know you’re supposed to pay taxes on X, Y and Z.”

LIZ: You’re saying they didn’t really realize that they owe taxes or whatever — their ignorance being no excuse, but nevertheless that was the excuse. But they’re the ones who have to blow the whistle on themselves eventually. This wasn’t discovered by outside forces, that they hadn’t paid taxes. Didn’t they all just fess up at the last minute?

LESLEY: Some of the cases were discovered during the vetting process. But Daschle put it out there.

CYNTHIA: I think Geithner and Daschle are in rather different situations.

LESLEY: Yeah, you’re right.

CYNTHIA: Geithner, the one who didn’t get disqualified, and Daschle, the one who did – it seems to me Geithner’s offense is worse.

LESLEY: No, that’s right – in the sense that they had identified that he hadn’t paid his taxes for …

CYNTHIA: In ’03 and ’04, he paid ‘em. And guess what? He had the same job and had evaded the same taxes in ’01 and ’02.

LESLEY: And he knew that and didn’t pay them.

CYNTHIA: They decided to go ahead and approve Geithner, and Daschle stepped down. Why?

LESLEY: Let’s face it, Daschle would have been approved, I think, if Nancy Killefer hadn’t withdrawn her own name. And what were her taxes? Nine hundred dollars?

LIZ: Don’t some say she was sort of a sacrificial lamb?

LESLEY: I think that she withdrew because she just didn’t want to be the second one. But if it had only been Geithner, I think they would have gone and tried for Daschle, because there wouldn’t have been such an uproar. It was public opinion that forced him out.

223 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I agree with most of the above except the “tax code truly voluntary”. That just cannot be. Many people that don’t understand how the tax base is spent, will just choose to quit paying. And I wouldn’t think there would be a millionaire alive that is going to be overly generous and pay more than their share, why would they? Many of them try to find loopholes now. We have to have some of the government programs such as social security because there will always be people that won’t understand how to save for themselves, there are disabled folks that need help, we need roads, police, fireman, etc. This is a very liberal plan and won’t see the light of day, and that’s really too bad. I will try to get the book. And I am sure I won’t forget the name. As for the hidden taxes, we just got done paying for the Spanish-American war a few years back that happened in the mid to late 1800’s. Wonder where all that money went? We know…

By jules verne on 02/15/2009 6:24 pm

e-mail alert

Jules — The book was written by Neal Boortz who is a Libertarian. He states, in the book, that his book is not a partisan effort. It’s not about Republicans, Democrats or Libertarians. Liberals or conservatives. I hope you can find the book, it’s really quite intersting. Whether it will see the light of day — I don’t know. However, I do agree with him on his statement “any progress we can make to rid ourselves of our current tax code might be an improvement”. I know you can get the book on the Internet. If you do, let me know what you think. Good talking to you.

By Lady Gator on 02/15/2009 7:41 pm

e-mail alert

I will try to get it on my amazon Kindle first. thanks. good talking to you as well. i love this webpage moreso than any other i have found in my years of being on the internet.

By jules verne on 02/15/2009 8:25 pm

e-mail alert

The job of government is TO SPEND MONEY. The only question is on what. At one time there was a 90% tax on earnings after several millions (about 5 million $). It never stopped people from becoming multimillionaires, it just relieved the tax burden on the average man. This is the burden we assumed from the reduction of taxes on the super-rich. Our disgusting congresses are outright owned by big money.We are all going to discover that this one won’t be any different. One sure sign of the over taxation of the super-rich, is their numerous estates, yachts,planes,cars,etc. The parasitic nature of the super wealthy is yet to be realized by the populace. Just read about the robber barons and the building of railroads.

By albert miller on 02/15/2009 1:02 am

e-mail alert

The parasitic populace is the percentage of welfare recipients that won’t get off their dead asses and work. When I was in my 20’s and 30’s I worked 2 sometimes 3 jobs, not because I couldn’t make enough money to pay my bills, because I wanted to get ahead. I worked from home and went on my lunch hours and after work and did bookkeeping for other people. I have 4 stepkids and 2 of them work part-time. One of them is a girl and she has 2 kids. She is on welfare and gets a link card and a medical card. She had both the kids on the medical card and 2 operations for herself. She could put the kids in daycare and get a better job, but she doesn’t want to. (Must be nice to have choices) Anyway, I blame the tax burden on the government overspending, welfare and the illegal immigrant problem in this country.

By jules verne on 02/15/2009 12:03 pm

e-mail alert

I agree that only American citizens should benefit from American citizens, but no way in a good society should anyone have to work more than one job. How can you believe that working yourself to death shows what a great society we have? The super rich are riding on the backs of all us who are not rich.They usually steal the ideas of inventors,then merchandise and distribute and sell at inflated prices to us suckers who produce everything for them. Did you happen to notice that their solution to every problem is to raise prices?To lay off people when their profits aren’t as high as they would like? Even now , when they’re on the ropes, they try to convince us that 35 mpg hiway,is good mileage. Over in Europe, cars produced by GM and Ford, get 45 plus mpg. What about the compressed air car? Did you ever hear of it? Gee, I wonder why they don’t talk about it on tv. I’m sure they will mention a multitude of things wrong with it. Mainly that it uses air to drive it, doesn’t pollute or need GASOLINE. Who could ever call that an answer to anything? As long as we have uncontrolled profit margins allowed, you can look forward to working more jobs,less benefits, and longer hours. If the financiers and corporate bosses had their way, we would be having worker’s conditions like the 1800s. If you read the origins of unions, you’ll see how we’re headed in that direction.By the way; how do you know when you’re ahead?You’re always going to be behind the previous generation, and always ahead of the following, so what do you mean? We all can only be where we were placed originally.

By albert miller on 02/15/2009 1:59 pm

e-mail alert

If the alternative is welfare and you have no pride, then go ahead, work a part-time job and suck the tax benefits from those that work hard. It’s not all any one group’s problem. But if you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of lazy kids these days because the babyboomer’s spoil their kids and let them live with them until they are 30 years old. I gave my kids 6 months from the date they graduated high school. My own son was out in 4 months because he and his girlfriend wanted to move out and be independent. There is nothing wrong with working 2 jobs to keep your pride. When we had six kids at home and was getting no child support from either of the other parents, we still never took anything, we watched our pennies, cut back where we could and my husband would work the overtime. We tried to instill those kind of values in our kids. Some of them picked up on it, some of them didn’t. There is corporate greed, I would wholeheartedly agree with that. But you didn’t mention once in your paragraph that there is a welfare problem and that is something you cannot ignore. As for the issues with the air car (no I did not hear about that one) and other alternatives, they are coming out of the woodwork now and getting recognition. I understand that we don’t have cars that get 45 mpg and Europe does. However, Europeans have been paying three times what we are for a gallon of gas too and there has to be a give and take. I agree that there is Corporate greed. I hate it when I hear that a CEO got a multi-million dollar bonus and then it follow by 3500 people getting laid off. Or that he got a severance package because the company lost billions 3 quarters ago and he still walks away with a gimme. But I also know that 17 and 18 year old single young men are getting link cards with $400 on them per month because they are too lazy to work. Hard work never hurt anyone. I don’t know about you but my family was not born with silver spoons in our mouth nor did we win the lottery, we are working class people.

By jules verne on 02/15/2009 2:34 pm

e-mail alert

I have no interest in spending any time with people who know pretty much nothing about this topic. My thoughts are offered to all of you on my blog: www. mugsypeabody.blogspot.com, under “Once there was a way ….”

By Fanny Peabody on 02/16/2009 2:41 am

e-mail alert

Sorry folks. Fanny was logged in on my laptop, and I didn’t notice. The post above is my, not my sister’s.

By Mugsy Peabody on 02/16/2009 2:44 am

e-mail alert

Hi Lee—

The thought of taxing people who make $6 million+ per year (that’s per year) does not scare me! Whom does it scare? (In your opinion?) They would still have $3 million dollars to "live" on — that is NOT leaving them destitute. They can send their children to college, or go to Disney World, whatever, on that kind of $$$$. Really — if you find that "Scary" — you need therapy!!!

By Linda Mason on 02/18/2009 10:00 pm

e-mail alert

Linda,

What scares me is the statement, "in order to equalize things.”

By Lee Harrison on 02/19/2009 6:21 am

e-mail alert

I agree. Besides, the more you give the politicians for taxes, the more they will spend. It will never, NEVER be enough.

By jules verne on 02/19/2009 9:28 pm

e-mail alert

why don’t they just charge everyone the same, 10% off the top no deduction, none anyone making over 1000k a year. some of the high power people hire these CPA and get away with murder! leap holes sucks.

By shirley adams on 02/14/2009 6:57 am

e-mail alert

Shirley, “why don’t they just charge everyone the same, 10% off the top no deduction”? Because that would disproportionately affect people who can least afford it. If you have poverty-level wages, 10% off that would be HUGE.

By Rita@ Goldivas on 02/14/2009 10:08 am