Is Joe Miller a Tax Cheat?

[DavidJames]

First I am not a republican but on the issue of Tu Quoque.

I never heard of the term before seeing it on message boards but I am tempted to use what people would call a Tu Quoque at times but not because I want to discredit the argument but because I think the person is hypocritical for taking a certain posistion when other times it wouldn't be important to them. Is it a Tu Quoque if I know it doesn't discredit the argument?

Take this case If i were to make a comment like Drysdale did , it would not be because it lessens any argument that Joe Miller is a tax cheat instead it would be to point out that some of the same people probably thought what Geitner did was unimportant. Likewise many of those who thought what Geitner did was bad would not probably not think it that bad if Miller cheated.

In this particular case I don't know if Miller reports everything correctly on his taxes but I do believe that the argument made is not valid.
The only issue is whether the salary he took is reasonable. You do not know from those statements how much income his S-Corp reported. The ability to report a salary of less than the income claimed is one of the reasons people form an S-Corp. (that and the protection of a corporation) .

Even the quoted article states this although I think the author forgot it in his zeal



See this article
http://www.fitz-cpa.com/s-corp.aspx

You're lengthy defense misses the point. The issue at hand is Miller, not anyone else. It's like the 6 year who comes in from playing in the mud and when his mother scolds him, he says, but Billy did it to.

Except we're talking adults.

On a skeptics forum.

 

[eeyore1954]

You're lengthy defense misses the point. The issue at hand is Miller, not anyone else. It's like the 6 year who comes in from playing in the mud and when his mother scolds him, he says, but Billy did it to.

Except we're talking adults.

On a skeptics forum.

How did I miss the point? I said If i were to make a comment like Drysdale did , it would not be because it lessens any argument that Joe Miller is a tax cheat . I know it isn't an argument against the initial claim.

Regardless if this is a skeptics board I think you have to admit frequently posters exhibit the behavior I was referring to.

I did separately address the initial claim.

 

[Drysdale]

The reason it's a fallacy is that it doesn't address the specific topic. While questioning the motives of the arguer may be something to consider, it's still "bad form". One should probably take discuss the actions of others separately. But this is just an interweb forum.

But that's all just my opinion.



Drysdale wasn't pointing out that other people did it (which they have), but used it as a cheap shot at the opposing party.

I used it because that's exactly the way it appears to me. You're no newbie to this board. There's multiple threads about Obama's cabinet and tax issue.
It's pretty obvious it's a Tu Quoque in response to those threads.

It is hard to judge whether he's cheating his taxes or not. The IRS will decide that. But just a suspicion he may be deserves it's own thread? Riigghhtt.

 

[Drysdale]

Nice attempt to warp the truth. Nobody is buying.

Hmmm, so there has been no tax issues regarding multiple Obama appointees?

That's your contention?

 

[elbe]

I used it because that's exactly the way it appears to me. You're no newbie to this board. There's multiple threads about Obama's cabinet and tax issue.
It's pretty obvious it's a Tu Quoque in response to those threads.

I didn't say they hadn't, in fact in that quote I even said they had, but your response was just a tu quoque cheap shot.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

That's rich,considering the OP is a Tu Quoque.

It is? How?

Ummm, because numerous Obama appointees had tax issues?

Where did I even talk about any of the Obama Appointees.

I was posting about Joe Miller.

In fact, if you read it carefully, I tried to be somewhat neutral on the whole issue of the validity of the claim made on Daily Kos. Tax law is not my area of expertise.

 

[Drysdale]

I didn't say they hadn't, in fact in that quote I even said they had, but your response was just a tu quoque cheap shot.

Welcome to politics.

Where it seems like nearly every thread is a cheap shot. And filled with cheap shot responses,even on a supposed skeptics forum.
Which you yourself demonstrated.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Welcome to politics.

Where it seems like nearly every thread is a cheap shot. And filled with cheap shot responses,even on a supposed skeptics forum.
Which you yourself demonstrated.

Like the cheap shop you took at me.

 

[Drysdale]

Like the cheap shop you took at me.

You mean pointing out this thread is a hit piece like so many others?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

You mean pointing out this thread is a hit piece like so many others?

How so? Either Miller's tax filings are legit, or they are not. I made no claim on that issue either way. Your attempt to bully and disrupt the thread, on the other hand, is noted.

 

[Praktik]

also noted over here..

sheesh... some people got thin skins!

 

[eeyore1954]

The reason it's a fallacy is that it doesn't address the specific topic. While questioning the motives of the arguer may be something to consider, it's still "bad form". One should probably take discuss the actions of others separately. But this is just an interweb forum.

But that's all just my opinion.



Drysdale wasn't pointing out that other people did it (which they have), but used it as a cheap shot at the opposing party.

I agree it is just an interweb forum. We are not competing on a school debating team.

I don't think it was cheap shot, it was just a funny line and I would have thought so if it had been aimed the other way.

 

[Drysdale]

How so? Either Miller's tax filings are legit, or they are not. I made no claim on that issue either way. Your attempt to bully and disrupt the thread, on the other hand, is noted.

Huh? Bully and disrupt? I made a snide remark about Obama's cabinet because of the number of his appointee or attempted appointees that have had tax issues. Mainly because I find it hilarious many on the left want to brush off those yet scream about any ALLEGED tax issues from the GOP. After that Mr James replies thusly...

Is there a Republican on this forum, any Republican, who doesn't think Tu Quoque is a valid argument?

To which I stated the OP was a Tu Quoque in itself.

That's bullying?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I made a snide remark . . .

Yes. And I took umbrage at it. Slow day today.

whatever . . .

 

[stevea]

Assuming the Kos reports are honest ... exactly where is the "cheating" ?

I have no clue who Miller is, but since he isn't paying into SS, and Medicare, then he isn't eligible for their payments or services either (or proportionately less for the lesser reported income). Mennonites, Amish, Christian Scientists and others can opt-out of these programs but they aren't eligible for the programs either --- are all the Amish "tax cheats" too ? I don't buy that definition of "cheat".

He isn't paying SS and he won't receive SS - opting out isn't cheating.

I may be mistaken, I've never been a lessor, but I am not aware of any rule that requires the leasing biz to charge a "customary and reasonable" rent. There are some interesting and possibly relevant rules about "arms length" business transaction that might apply, but that is very dependent on how he structured the lessor entity.

 

[eeyore1954]

Assuming the Kos reports are honest ... exactly where is the "cheating" ?

I have no clue who Miller is, but since he isn't paying into SS, and Medicare, then he isn't eligible for their payments or services either (or proportionately less for the lesser reported income). Mennonites, Amish, Christian Scientists and others can opt-out of these programs but they aren't eligible for the programs either --- are all the Amish "tax cheats" too ? I don't buy that definition of "cheat".

He isn't paying SS and he won't receive SS - opting out isn't cheating.

I may be mistaken, I've never been a lessor, but I am not aware of any rule that requires the leasing biz to charge a "customary and reasonable" rent. There are some interesting and possibly relevant rules about "arms length" business transaction that might apply, but that is very dependent on how he structured the lessor entity.

In this case he is not opting out and it appears he is paying on about 60,000 of income (although there isn't really enough information to tell). There is also a salary reported on the form from another source of about 38,000. I don't know what this is for but I would guess SE tax was paid on this also.

The fact that he reports rent that might be too high in most cases would have no bearing on the amount of salary he should be taking from his S-corp.
People use S-corps in order to be able to report a salary less than the total earnings. It is a common planning technique. The only requirement is the salary is reasonable.
All the calculations don't really mean much, they are a bunch of numbers done by someone who doesn't really know what he is doing. His initial statement that he later corrected demostrates clearly he does not understand the tax issues.
Even his calcs about the amount of rent compared to value of the property do not make sense to me.

this Miller guy may very well have been doing something wrong but there is nothing here that leads to that conclusion.

 

[elbe]

I agree it is just an interweb forum. We are not competing on a school debating team.

True enough. Use them if you want, though someone might call you on it. If your intent is to call out hypocrisy on the poster it might backfire if that poster said similar things about his/her own party in older threads.

I don't think it was cheap shot, it was just a funny line and I would have thought so if it had been aimed the other way.

I don't think funny and cheap shot are mutually exclusive. I wouldn't have really appreciated it in reverse either, but I don't really care for generalized insults. I didn't, however, respond to it directly because it's just not important to me.

 

[stevea]

this Miller guy may very well have been doing something wrong but there is nothing here that leads to that conclusion.

Thanks for the clarification eeyore1954. I guess the point is that the hard left knows no bounds when it comes to namecalling and baseless innuendo.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Thanks for the clarification eeyore1954. I guess the point is that the hard right knows no bounds when it comes to namecalling and baseless innuendo.

It works both ways.

 

[eeyore1954]

Thanks for the clarification eeyore1954. I guess the point is that the hard left knows no bounds when it comes to namecalling and baseless innuendo.

My point would have been that some people know no bounds when it comes to baseless innuendo.