Tax dodging Charlie Rangel: We need a 5.4-percentage point income tax surcharge. It's the moral thing to do

Skip to first unread message

Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head

Jul 27, 2009, 9:31:01 PM7/27/09

Morality and Charlie Rangel’s Taxes

Ever notice that those who endorse high taxes and those who actually
pay them aren’t the same people? Consider the curious case of Ways and
Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who is leading the charge for a new 5.4-
percentage point income tax surcharge and recentlycalled it “the moral
thing to do.” About his own tax liability he seems less, well,

Exhibit A concerns a rental property Mr. Rangel purchased in 1987 at
the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. The rental income
from that property ought to be substantial since it is a luxury beach-
front villa and is more often than not rented out. But when the
National Legal and Policy Center looked at Mr. Rangel’s House
financial disclosure forms in August, it noted that his reported
income looked suspiciously low. In 2004 and 2005, he reported no more
than $5,000, and in 2006 and 2007 no income at all from the property.

The Congressman initially denied there was any unreported income. But
reporters quickly showed that the villa is among the most desirable at
Punta Cana and that it rents for $500 a night in the low season, and
as much as $1,100 a night in peak season. Last year it was fully
booked between December 15 and April 15.

Mr. Rangel soon admitted having failed to report rental income of
$75,000 over the years. First he blamed his wife for the oversight
because he said she was supposed to be managing the property. Then he
blamed the language barrier. “Every time I thought I was getting
somewhere, they’d start speaking Spanish,” Mr. Rangel explained.

Mr. Rangel promised last fall to amend his tax returns, pay what is
due and correct the information on his annual financial disclosure
form. But the deadline for the 2008 filing was May 15 and as of last
week he still had not filed. His press spokesman declined to answer
questions about anything related to his ethics problems.

Besides not paying those pesky taxes, Mr. Rangel had other reasons for
wanting to hide income. As the tenant of four rent-stabilized
apartments in Harlem, the Congressman needed to keep his annual
reported income below $175,000, lest he be ineligible as a hardship
case for rent control. (He also used one of the apartments as an
office in violation of rent-control rules, but that’s another story.)

Mr. Rangel said last fall that “I never had any idea that I got any
income’’ from the villa. Try using that one the next time the IRS
comes after you. Equally interesting is his claim that he didn’t know
that the developer of the Dominican Republic villa had converted his
$52,000 mortgage to an interest-free loan in 1990. That would seem to
violate House rules on gifts, which say Members may only accept loans
on “terms that are generally available to the public.” Try getting an
interest-free loan from your banker.

The National Legal and Policy Center also says it has confirmed that
Mr. Rangel owned a home in Washington from 1971-2000 and during that
time claimed a “homestead” exemption that allowed him to save on his
District of Columbia property taxes. However, the homestead exemption
only applies to a principal residence, and the Washington home could
not have qualified as such since Mr. Rangel’s rent-stabilized
apartments in New York have the same requirement.

The House Ethics Committee is investigating Mr. Rangel on no fewer
than six separate issues, including his failure to report the no-
interest loan on his Punta Cana villa and his use of rent-stabilized
apartments. It is also investigating his fund raising for the Charles
B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York. New
York labor attorney Theodore Kheel, one of the principal owners of the
Punta Cana resort, is an important donor to the Rangel Center.

All of this has previously appeared in print in one place or another,
and we salute the reporters who did the leg work. We thought we’d
summarize it now for readers who are confronted with the prospect of
much higher tax bills, and who might like to know how a leading
Democrat defines “moral” behavior when the taxes hit close to his


Jul 28, 2009, 2:41:55 PM7/28/09

"Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head"
<> wrote in message

>Morality and Charlie Rangel�s Taxe<SMAK!>

Couldn't because they cant think for themselves, could it?


Anonymous Infidel

Jul 27, 2009, 11:44:40 PM7/27/09
As usual, tHe_PC_JelLlLy_idiot, Usenet's official joke, is to stupid
to realise this is a newsgroup where grown ups discuss news. [Someone
really needs to get his parents]

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages