Monday, April 17, 2006
Kirsch: Cheney Tax Return Shows Katrina Tax Benefits for Non-Katrina Charitable Contributions
Michael Kirsch (Notre Dame) points out an interesting aspect of the Vice-President's 2005 tax return:
It appears that the VP is a major beneficiary of the Hurricane Katrina tax relief act. In particular, he claimed $6.8 million of charitable deductions, which is 77% of his AGI -- well in excess of the 50% limitation that would have applied absent the Katrina legislation. The press release indicates that the charitable contribution reflects the amount of net proceeds from an independent administrator's exercise of the VP's Halliburton options -- apparently, the VP had agreed back in 2001 that he would donate the net proceeds from the options to charities once they were exercised.
The press release seems to confirm, at least implicitly, the VP's efforts to take advantage of the Katrina legislation -- it mentions that the Cheneys wrote a personal check of $2.3 million to the administrator in December in order to "maximize the charitable gifts in 2005." Admittedly, I don't know anything about the transactions beyond the info in the press release, but my gut reaction is that the personal check was given in order to make sure the independent administrator had sufficient liquid assets to pay all of the promised charitable contributions before the 50% limit returned on 1/1/06.
Despite the importance of the Katrina legislation to his tax return, it looks like none of the charitable contributions actually went to Katrina-related charities (the press release lists the 3 charitable recipients, all of which were designated in the original 2001 gift agreement). While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal perspective, it does demonstrate how the legislation, which was sold to the public as providing relief to Katrina victims, provided significant tax benefits to the VP (and potentially other wealthy individuals) in situations that have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina.
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/04/kirsch_cheney_t.html
Comments
Hey, wake up people. Cheney got these stock options when he was in the PRIVATE sector (flush all the conflict of interest crud). His investments are managed by a third party (flush all the comments about him manipulating his taxes). The "Katrina" deduction window was to encourage charitable contributions -- Katrina was the inspiration, not the sole beneficiary (flush all comments about what charities benefitted). Bottom line -- Dick Cheney gave $6.8 million to charity in ONE YEAR . . . what have you given lately that gives you the right to give him a hard time?
Posted by: Tim | Jun 12, 2008 11:43:20 AM
The real story is not the donation, which I have little problem with, but how he got the stock to begin with (conflict of interests IMHO), inflated it's value by giving no bid contracts to his old buddies at KBR- who cheated the taxpayer by the way on thier contracts- and then he gives a bit of it away like it isn't tax money in his pocket to begin with. "what a hero"
Real capitalists should be FURIOUS!
When I was a cook and soldier in Iraq, my job for a time was to keep head count because KBR was claiming to have fed more of us than they did.
So I'm a soldier getting 3000 a month and trained to cook for troops but I'm pushing buttons on a clicker to keep these crooks honest. These crooks meanwhile are doing MY job, feeding MY soldiers for 14,000 a month. And the US taxpayer pays both of us. Way to create jobs! And even after that they still can't help but pad the bill.
I don't have a problem with Republicans so much. I used to be one when I joined the Army.. But I just don't recognize them anymore. SAD..
Posted by: TOM | Jun 20, 2007 2:53:29 PM
I feel like a complete blank, but I don't care. Pfft. I've pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.
Posted by: Kaka50343 | May 11, 2006 10:43:43 PM
While you have all been complaining about how much has been donated, have you bothered to check how much you have donated. Its amazing to see these attacks on someone's giving go so far as they have. Pink wrote a song blaming the president for the homeless while he gave 10 times the amount to charity than she did. If you people would put the effort into dealing with charities in your local area that you do in hating the whitehouse, there would be no hunger in the U.S.
Posted by: rj | May 9, 2006 6:11:39 PM
I've just been hanging out not getting anything done. What can I say? I've basically been doing nothing worth mentioning, but pfft. Not that it matters. Pretty much nothing exciting happening to speak of. I haven't been up to much these days.
Posted by: Kaka32801 | May 9, 2006 2:58:35 PM
I'll bet Dicky-poo made charitable donations in the spirit of 'ol Babs Bush make a Katrina donation and earmark it to go to your son's company, a company that will have nothing to do with helping Katrina victims but she gets the deduction on her taxes and her son gets the benefit of her millions - why not like every other parent just give the money to your son why try to make it look like your doing something to help Katrina victims 'eh Babs?
Posted by: impeachw | Apr 26, 2006 1:14:40 PM
I have to agree that its absolutly crazy you people are complaining about his donating the majority of his income to charities , sure he gets a tax break , how many of you out there would do the same thing. Id say a safe guess is all of you. But I encourage all of you to look into the stocks that the whole administation has invested in. Some may be frozen cause of the office they hold but how many of those companies that they have stock in is going to line there pockets even more when they leave that office. Why are they giving the big business tax breaks?? Cause they are making money off of the big businesses. What it boils down to is this , NONE of them in the white house give a rats ass about us they care about how much money they can make while they are there. And I hate to say it but we put those fools in office so maybe we should shut up and take our punishment or get off our lazy asses and do something about it. We can talk and complain about it all day long but until we stand up and do something about its just like we are doing it ourselves. But check into their stocks , i think it will shock you.
Posted by: Diane | Apr 25, 2006 10:15:10 AM
The vast majority of you people are total slobbering IDIOTS!!!!!!
Cheney gives his money away to charity and you want him out of office and in jail? Gives more money away in one year, probably, than everybody posting to this blog gives away in their lifetimes, combined? Next time he helps a little old lady across the street, he gets the electric chair! Wow.
Posted by: radar | Apr 23, 2006 10:15:29 PM
Cheney gives nearly 7 million dollars to charity and these libs want to thorw him in jail... Ninkompoops! All of you.
Posted by: RSM | Apr 21, 2006 11:35:49 AM
As a practiciing tax lawyer with 30 years of experience in the profession, I am astonished at your take on Cheny's generosity! The Katrina legislation was a shot in the arm for the entire charitable community who collectively contributed to the aid of Katrina victims whereever they relocated. Local Northwest charities sent truckloads of food, clothing and medical items to New Orleans. So government would have done better with the tax money?
Posted by: Pat | Apr 21, 2006 10:59:33 AM
I guess I don't get it. Our Vice President gives away millions of dollars to help those in need and he should go to jail for it. I work for a nonprofit raising money to help those less fortunate and I think we should praise Dick and Lynn Cheney for this. They are setting a great example for others to follow.
It seems like people are letting their personal feeling about the war, Dick Cheney and other issues get in the way. You don't have to support anything else that Vice President Cheney or this administration has done to applaud the generosity of the Cheney's.
Posted by: Doug | Apr 21, 2006 9:30:48 AM
How dare Dick Cheney give 77% of his income to charity, then follow up by donating the tax break he gets because he donated so much? The nerve of some powerful people--giving away 3/4 of their income to those in need. Clearly, something should be done about this.
Posted by: Jekke | Apr 21, 2006 8:55:14 AM
You imply that VP did something inherently immoral and corrupt in making these gifts. I think that your comments are rather foolish and self-serving. Since when does one profit financially by giving? This is a deduction…not a credit. Do you understand the difference? Apparently, most of your commentators don’t. Until the income tax rate exceeds 100%, philanthropy in any form is not financially profitable. Your comments and analysis are irrational. It’s evident that your comments serve only to advance your “off the wall” political bias. Furthermore, most of your commentators are equally irrational. Evidently they haven’t a clue. Rather than addressing the issue from a legal or rational analysis and discussion of the tax code and its ramifications, they resort to crude vilifications, personal slurs and obscenities. I wonder how much of your income, or that of your commentators, was given to any charity last year? Could it be that you, and the majority of your commentators, are ashamed by your own lack of charity and find solace only in condemning others who are more selfless than you in their generosity? You guys are always the same…so willing to talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, that’s a different matter.
Posted by: McGhee | Apr 21, 2006 8:50:10 AM
I am amazed that a tax professor at a school supported by charitable deductions and whose salary is subsidized by those same deductions would complain about anyone donating to a qualified charity. It just confirms the predispositions of acedemia (as well as many of the commentators)
Posted by: David | Apr 21, 2006 8:14:03 AM
The original posting by the 'professor' displays typical ivory tower academic arrogance and pseudo-moral superiority, but it's also an amazing demonstration of ignorance about the tax law in which he professes expertise. What I think is scandalous is that relatively few gifts were made during the Katrina window of opportunity, due mostly to the professional and charitable communities' inability to understand and get the message out to their clients and donors. The Cheneys certainly displayed admirable philanthropy by making a generous gift; too bad other high profile taxpayers didn't follow suit and allow their wealth to be passed on to their communities. The only benefits accrued to the charities; you can not make money by giving it away.
Based on contributions to date, about 2% of US philanthropy was directed to Katrina/Rita recovery and relief efforts; this still leaves 98% of the charitable community out there with their important missions that require funding and support.
Posted by: VWHenry | Apr 21, 2006 8:03:58 AM
Just goes to show, when you're filled with blind hatred for a man you see evil in everything he does and the facts be damned.
Posted by: amazed | Apr 21, 2006 7:34:38 AM
The issue isn't the deduction - it's legal under the statute as passed. The issues are: what portion of the options granted are based on current profits on no-bid contracts related to Iraq "reconstruction"; when were those stock options set to expire; and were representatives privy to the terms of those stock options when they drafted the new law and used Katrina is the Bill's name? I don't know the answers to those questions; maybe someone else does?
Posted by: Nan | Apr 21, 2006 7:21:15 AM
Mr. Cheney said,with his dollars,that he trusts people outside of government more than those inside of government to spend those dollars wisely. He doesn't trust those in power, and neither do you. You have something in common with Vice President Cheney! How do you feel about hunting?
Posted by: Everette | Apr 21, 2006 7:14:36 AM
He donated funds he had previously guaranteed to donate. Therefore, the new tax law that His Administration set up did help him financially. He would have had to donate the money eventually, but he utilized the law to avoid paying a lot of taxes in the current year (deferral of taxes a very important idea in the world of wealth management). If Cheney had pushed the tax change into effect thinking of his personal benefit and not the good of Americans, especially Katrina victims, then Cheney would be the villian. Otherwise, there is no story here (except if the charities are corrupt, but that's a whole other question).
Posted by: Dick's Financial Planner | Apr 21, 2006 6:58:11 AM
So he took a tax deduction ok thats not so bad, so did I. What takes the cake for me is he should not be enriching himself with Halliburton money ie., getting rich off the deaths of our kids get it cheney? you are benefitting on the deaths of OUR kids. Secondly, the money didn't go for Katrina charities anyway so therefore he shouldn't get the 100% benefit of his tax deduction, get it cheney? you're stealing from Katrina victims get it? aw ya filthy pig!
Posted by: impeachw | Apr 21, 2006 12:48:01 AM
You people need to open your eyes and see that the whole left-wing, right-wing, bipartisan bullshit is all a front to give the illusion of choice where there is none. The new world order is becoming more and more prominent and their agenda will be forwarded no matter who is president. Someone earlier said that it's our fault because we, the people, elected Bush twice but that is not exactly correct. Bush was selected for president long before any ballots were cast as was much more evident in the latter Bush "election". Just as Bush said numerous times on camera ... "..I'm not gonna lose (the election)" ... "..you can write it down, bet on it (about being elected)". A lot of people are now waking up to just the edge of what is an all encompassing tyranny that will, if we don't stop it, change the world forever...and not for the good of all either. Hitler was nothing compared to these guys, if anything he was a prophet for the clandestine nature of what was to come.
Posted by: AntiNWO | Apr 21, 2006 12:42:20 AM
Now, I hate Dick Cheney as much as the next guy. But I hope the critics on this thread realize you sound just like the right wing from the 1990s blithering about how much they hated Bill Clinton.
Grow up!
Posted by: Dan | Apr 20, 2006 5:06:29 PM
Yeah Dick's a real champ taking advantage of a tax right off for Katrina aid yet none of it went to Katrina victims. What a DICKHEAD!
IMPEACH THIS PEICE OF SHIT AND HIS CORRUPT POSSE!
Charities can do without blood money!
Posted by: FUGWB | Apr 20, 2006 8:22:51 AM
Gee! If only he had donated his underwear, I would not have felt so outraged!!!
Posted by: dman | Apr 20, 2006 6:26:55 AM
Are you people serious? Let me see if I can get your hatred straight.
You wanted Cheney to KEEP his money rather than give it to charities, so that he could do what? You want him to pay the government taxes on the difference of what he would have been able to claim in previous tax years and what he did claim this year? Regardless of who benefited from the tax law change, isn't the most important thing the fact that a person gave more than he normally might have to a charity to help those in need?
I would be willing to bet that this is the very reason for the change in the law!
Everyone, including those posting comments here, practice tax avoidance in one way or another, every day. Why should that be a bad thing? I detest paying the government a dime, as do a lot of people.
It is ridiculous for us to worry about his motives for giving to charities (whatever charities they are).
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 20, 2006 6:10:54 AM
haha. you guys are so foolish you made the best of the webb. congrats!
Posted by: yohon | Apr 20, 2006 5:30:47 AM
Maybe it's time to think about reforming the federal income tax's charitable deduction? http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1191.html
Posted by: Andrew | Apr 20, 2006 4:34:16 AM
naturally these boneheads prefer the likes of Bill Clinton and John Kerry who only give to charity in years in which they are up for re-election.
So accustomed to the institutionalized corruption and dishonesty of the Democratic party, they go stark raving mad when they encounter demonstrably good, honest politicians like Dick Cheney and George W Bush.
Posted by: Will | Apr 20, 2006 2:53:25 AM
You have an impressive background for someone apparently stupid enough to believe: (1) that it is better to give away a couple of million than to keep it, simply because you receive a tax deduction, and (2) it is an unfair, "substantial benefit" to be allowed to give away even more in one particular year than the previous or next. I guess it would be true if the tax rate was greater than 100%, but then one would have no income to give away would one?
Posted by: Oldtimer | Apr 19, 2006 9:40:20 PM
STORM THE BASTILLE! BRING OUT THE GUILLOTINE! I THINK CHENEY SHOULD BE FORCED TAKE THE MONEY BACK FROM THE CHARITIES!
Oh how underwhelming this is.
Posted by: davemeister | Apr 19, 2006 7:10:20 PM
This kind of blind hatred is just the P/R that will help keep the House/Senate/White House in the capable hands of the Republicans.
I'm not happy with many issues that the repub's are ignoring, but the alternative is just too frightning to contemplate.
Still waiting for sanity to return to the public forum.
Posted by: dC in fly over country | Apr 19, 2006 5:39:03 PM
What is wrong with you people? You're complaining because a man donated more money than would normally be deductable because of a change in the tax law? And you're complaining because it didn't go to the "right" charities? Moonbats!
Posted by: Larry | Apr 19, 2006 4:50:16 PM
Someone complained that Cheney promised not to take a deduction on his contributions and then pointed to an article that said he would donate the AFTER-TAX value of the otions. For this we pay billions for a public school system.
Just so you can understand, he took advantage of the current law so that a LARGER amount would go to charity rather than the federal Government. What kind of person complains that someone is too generous?
Posted by: ImWithStupid | Apr 19, 2006 4:48:24 PM
"The [Gift Administration] Agreement directed the gift administrator to maximize the gifts to the three charities while avoiding financial or after tax benefit or detriment to the Cheneys."
In other words, the Cheneys' charitable gifts were worked out by the gift administrator (almost certainly after consulting with competent tax attorneys), according to the provisions of the agreement by which they were retained. Had the administrator failed to take the full available deduction, he would most likely have opened himself up to professional malpractice liability.
There is absolutely nothing improper here, any more than it is improper for a Democrat who favors higher taxes to decline to pay a 50% rate when the law only requires 35%.
Posted by: TheProudDuck | Apr 19, 2006 4:39:10 PM
Amazing! The man GAVE away 77% of his earnings! He could have kept the money and paid the taxes and still have more left over than than what he gave away! Only a lefty or an idiot would complain, but then again I repeat myself. How many of those commenter's damming Cheney actually gave anything to a charity? 5%? 1%? Did Teddy Kennedy give 77%? Did George Soros? Barbara Streisand? Lets eliminate all tax deductions and tax exempt status. Let everyone and every entity pay. And let's eliminate the secret ballot and tax people on how they vote. The more left you vote the more you pay. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's see how strong your convictions are when you have to pay for them with your money instead of other people's money.
Posted by: cubanbob | Apr 19, 2006 4:19:42 PM
So the VP gave away 77% of his income and does not have to pay the income tax on that 77%...err...how is this bad?
Posted by: Ron | Apr 19, 2006 4:06:11 PM
What a collection of moronic, elitist comments (oh, that stupid electorate) about a LEGAL tax deduction for charitable gifts that fuly complies with the rules. It's really a close call as to whether the loony left is becoming actually dumber by the day or just more unhinged. If I want stupid, I'll read democraticunderground, but tois place may be funnier.
Posted by: Demosthenes | Apr 19, 2006 3:59:50 PM
You have got to be kidding me. You are criminalizing the VP for being..what? Too generous?
He needs to go to jail because he gave too much money to charity?
He needs a perp walk because he upped his charitable contribution by 22%?
He didn't keep the money - it went to CHARITY!!!
Could someone please explain to me how giving money to CHARITY constitutes a crime? And, please, don't let logic get in the way of your reasoning.
Posted by: Kelly Prestige | Apr 19, 2006 3:57:35 PM
Boone Pickens donated to OSU's sports programs in general, not golf. The reinvested funds do not earn Pickens any fees (he waived them), and have increased significantly since the donation because of strong returns. Sure, he got a tax deduction, but he would have been better off personally if he had simply kept the money and paid the taxes. This is "disgusting?"
You're certifiably nuts, completely consumed by hate and envy. I suppose you'd rather burn Pickens' wealth than have it benefit others in a way not of your choosing.
Oh, and separately from the $165MM donation, Pickens was also the single most generous individual donor to Katrina relief in 2005. What did George Soros or Theresa Heinz do?
Posted by: Atrios | Apr 19, 2006 3:48:00 PM
He gave only 77% of his income to charity?? Disgusting selfish prick!!!
Posted by: mikem | Apr 19, 2006 3:29:29 PM
It's people like you that made me stop voting for Democrats. As soon as that party decides to rejoin the civil debate in this country, it'll take me twice as long to fill out my ballot.
Posted by: Blue State Conservative | Apr 19, 2006 3:22:25 PM
This is commical. The hate mongers here are irrational. He donated money and your complaining because he doesn't have to pay taxes on the amount greater than 50% of his AGI? How many of you didn't take your 2005 Federal income tax return, or returned it, because you feel like you're paying too little in taxes. The answer...none of you. You're crazy if you pay more taxes than need be. No...not crazy but dumb.
Posted by: J | Apr 19, 2006 3:22:03 PM
I can't beleive he could be so greedy. Of course, greed is not a crime any more than it is limited to a single party.
I say we should demand that he take back the extra 27% he gave. Surely he could have invested that money.
Oh the shame!!!!
Posted by: Buddhist Neocon | Apr 19, 2006 3:20:16 PM
How dare Vice President Cheney donate 77% of his personal income to charity! I'm horrified! That $6.8 million could have been spent on personal investments or a handful of new yachts. But instead he gave it to CHARITY?!?!
This man is obviously a menace and should be reprimanded for his generosity! In protest, I think we should all withhold any charitable donations for the next year. Generosity should be punished, not rewarded.
I'm just so sick with misery over how somebody we all know is the devil incarnate could have done something so disgusting as to have given almost $7 Million to worthy causes.
String him up! Impeachment! Anything, just stop the generosity of this man!!!
Posted by: Mako | Apr 19, 2006 3:12:37 PM
This guy should be lynched! I mean...How DARE he give 77% of his annual gross income to charity...The bastard!!!
Posted by: Alan Grey | Apr 19, 2006 3:11:07 PM
The three charities that received the money are named in the press release, which most of the posters don't seem to have read.
"In a press release of March 5, 2001, the Cheneys reported that they had established the Gift Administration Agreement on January 18, 2001 to donate all net after tax proceeds from various stock options that the Vice President had earned at Halliburton and for their service on the boards of directors of other companies to three designated charities--George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Inc. for the benefit of the Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming for the benefit of the University of Wyoming Foundation, and Capital Partners for Education for the benefit of low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area. By entering into the Gift Administration Agreement the Cheneys divested themselves of the economic benefit of the options and granted the gift administrator full discretion, power and control over the options. The Agreement directed the gift administrator to maximize the gifts to the three charities while avoiding financial or after tax benefit or detriment to the Cheneys."
Could someone tell me why what Cheney did is wrong? It seems admirable to me.
Posted by: keypusher | Apr 19, 2006 3:08:28 PM
It's quite amazing that you people possess such hatred and venom for Cheney that you could find such fault for being too generous and philanthropic. Incredibly vapid, but very typical.
Posted by: walker | Apr 19, 2006 2:56:48 PM
Come on, you think giving millions of bucks to charity is evidence of his dishonesty?
If I ever thought he was sleazy, this act, and the resulting uproar from those who *claim* to be liberal has set me straight.
G-d bless him. Now I know why he can sleep at night.
Posted by: Steve-O | Apr 19, 2006 2:55:48 PM
so, the VP takes advantage of the same tax loop-holes available to EVERYONE else, and the haters (ie liberals) stampede again?
does anyone get the point that $2.3 million (that's millions with an M) made its way to charity? stop b*tching and moaning and piling on useless phrases from your other hate filled articles (haliburton, iraq war, hunting accident, etc) and think about it...$2.3 million went to charities.
talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth! haters!
Posted by: ginger-hater | Apr 19, 2006 2:51:23 PM
This is really sick! You people are BITCHING about somebody giving $6.8 Million dollars to help people who need help. YOU need help. I bet that most of you complained that this administration didn't do enough about Katrina; now you complain that they are giving too much of their own. How much did your precious Bill Clinton give? How about Ted Kennedy?
BTW:
OVERTAXED, Agitated only has 1 "g", and wuss has 2 "s"'s
TALLMOM, congress passed this bill, not the VP
VANNA, Clinton was impeached, and managed to pardon quite a few real criminals just before his term was over.
PAUL and GINGER, Bye!
Do you people really have any original thoughts, I noticed that most of these entries were copies.
I noticed more misspellings, but I tire of you now.
Posted by: Pete | Apr 19, 2006 2:49:16 PM
F***ing leftist twits. He's so generous he belongs in prison? You people are absolutely pathetic. Seriously.
What would you do if he didn't donate a dime? Call him greedy and demand he be led out in handcuffs? You leftist, Socialist moonbats are moronic and your petty jealousies are laughable.
Feel free to go play with yourselves, including the loonie directly above me. We're killing TERRORISTS who want to kill you. You want Saddam back, and the torture chambers and the death squads? Kiss my black a$$, you ignorant twazzle.
Posted by: Omega | Apr 19, 2006 2:41:47 PM
Listen to yourselves...you are so steeped in unthinking hatred that you are condeming a man for giving away 75% of his income last year to charity....does it even matter what charity? I challange those of you who are so upset to do the same.
Posted by: doug Danhoff | Apr 19, 2006 2:41:02 PM
Let me get this straight....you want this guy put in jail because he is giving too much of his money away? American schools must be failing. Some of you can't even think rationally!
Posted by: D. Michaels | Apr 19, 2006 2:37:54 PM
AND how come Halliburton and Shaw have made millions already "rebuilding" New Orleans?
http://www.lademo.org/index.php?display=ShowPage&i=329508&pid=329508
J. M. Bernhard, Jr. is the Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Shaw Group Inc., a Fortune 500 company offering a broad range of services to the power, process, environmental, infrastructure and emergency response markets.
An active participant in many civic and philanthropic endeavors, Mr. Bernhard was recently selected as Chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party.
Posted by: joey | Apr 19, 2006 2:32:44 PM
Typical irrational leftist moonbats. Al Gore donated $300.00 to charity. The Clintons donated their soiled underpants and claimed that on their taxes. Cheney donates $6,869,655.00 to charity and you idiots are foaming at the mouth and filled with rage.
It's fun to watch. I'm putting my money into anti-psychotic manufacturers. I'm selling the Halliburton!
Posted by: joey | Apr 19, 2006 2:30:06 PM
So VP Cheney is guilty of criminal generosity, you say. Excuse me if my outrage is a little underwelming.
Posted by: Bob | Apr 19, 2006 2:27:37 PM
Are all the readers here crazy or just democrats? I see many accusations of criminality; evil doing; etc yet the author points out no wrong doing. I wonder what these same readers said about a certain president who was disbarred for his conductr in front of grand juries. One suspects that facts never enetered into their consideration there either.
Posted by: Thomas Jackson | Apr 19, 2006 2:13:04 PM
Where's the crime? What greed? You're complaining that a man gave 77% of his income away! We should all be so greedy.
Posted by: Fred | Apr 19, 2006 2:12:44 PM
WOW! You people need to stay away from sharp objects and high cliffs so you don't hurt yourselves, or worse!!!
Posted by: Tony | Apr 19, 2006 2:11:47 PM
I guess you're using that "new math".
The old way of calculating numbers says that Cheney would have kept a good chunk of the money after tax, had he not donated it.
One of us is retarded, and I'm pretty sure it's not me.
Posted by: Reggie Thornton | Apr 19, 2006 2:11:28 PM
The tax law was written this way so that people wouldn't divert their charitable contributions away from all the other non-Katrina related charities out there. This was a protective measure, not a loophole, so that the local homeless shelter in San Francisco wouldn't have a budget shortfall because people were donating only to Katrina relief. Net charitable contributions to charities last year were way up, in part because of the increased incentive.
Posted by: cp | Apr 19, 2006 2:10:53 PM
And here I thought the term 'Moonbat' could not be applied to any one group but I think I found that group - right here.
It sure says a lot about a person who cannot praise another for giving this much money to charity and still be castigated for it among other things. Blind hatred sure is an ugly emotion.
Bush Derangement Syndrome sure makes the sufferer look like a whiney little child.
Posted by: jcrue | Apr 19, 2006 2:06:11 PM
Get a life people. This bill passed the House with almost a unanimous majority and you want to blame the Administration for it? Pretty sad when you decide to hate someone for giving TOO MUCH to charity.
Posted by: Bob | Apr 19, 2006 2:05:19 PM
I'm missing something here. The deduction was available to all taxpayers. According to the same report, he donated over 75% of his 2005 income to charity, and still paid over $2,000,000 in income tax. (if I remember correctly). Yes he had a refund of something like 1.7 million. That means that he paid in too much during the year. I may not like everything politicians do, but please don't let hatred get in the way of intellengence. There are plenty of real reasons to complain. I'd be more upset with Mr. Gore only contributing $300.
Posted by: David McMillan | Apr 19, 2006 1:49:22 PM
So donating 77% of your income to charity is "classless, greedy, and ignorant"?
Posted by: Ravenwood | Apr 19, 2006 1:48:01 PM
OK, just as a fun little excercise, is there ANYTHING Cheney could POSSIBLY do that you wouldn't condemn him for? For goodness sake, he gave 77% of his income to charity, and that's BAD?!? What is the "good" amount to give?!?!?!?
What is wrong with you people? Stuff like this is why people don't want to listen to you on other things (where there might beee a point). If giving 77% of his income to charity is "evil", "corrupt", "REPREHENSIBLE", and in ned of a "perp-walk", then we need more people that you call "evil", not less.
In other words, this just shows that you're over-flowing with venom towards the guy (and the rest of the current administration). Being hyper-partisan is not a useful way to convince people that you are rational, OK?
Posted by: Deoxy | Apr 19, 2006 1:47:21 PM
That bastard! Giving $2.3 million more to charity so he can save a couple hundred thousand on his taxes. How dare he?!?!
Posted by: Rob | Apr 19, 2006 1:45:58 PM
Talk about blinded by hate...
The vast majority of the above commentors are actually attacking the man for giving 75% of his AGI to charity! What a crock!
Ignore that fact that donating to charity (!!) in accordance with all laws isn't unethical, much less illegal, and continue to call this a "slimy" act. Ignore the fact that his entire tax return is available for your review and continue to shrilly claim he cheated.
No wonder the GOP keeps winning elections (and likely will continue to in the future) -- the opposition is being driving to the fringe left by a loud, radical few.
Posted by: CDT | Apr 19, 2006 1:45:31 PM
What is wrong with you people. This man has given millions to charity, and you have to tear him down for that too? He gave millions before this loophole and he'll continue to give millions if it's closed. Gore gave 400 bucks in 2006!!! WHAT THE HELL! Biden gave less than 3000 dollars in 2007 even though he makes 250,000 plus!
You people have such a sick view of the world.
Posted by: Kane | Jan 2, 2009 5:27:13 PM