Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Kirk complains that dog bites man? Giannoulias and Brady pay only the required income taxes

Alexi Giannoulias, meet Bill Brady

The big issue in the U. S. Senate and gubernatorial races in Illinois continues to be why didn't the candidate pay more in taxes than he was legally required to pay. Doesn't John Q. Citizen do that? Not really, but it is argued that your average taxpayer has salaried income and no business losses, so he can't understand how a pol who gets a salary doesn't pay income taxes on that salary.

A few months ago it was State Senator and Illinois Republican Gov nominee Bill Brady who was taken to task by Gov. Quinn and the pundits for paying little or no income taxes in certain years because his business losses offset salary income received for his state senate duties. He had no net income so he paid no income taxes. What a sin! Brady could have imitated Steve Martin and said: "Well, excuuuuse me."

A few days ago, State Treasurer and Democratic U. S. Senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias disclosed that he paid no income taxes because his big time losses from the Broadway Bank failure swamped his State Treasurer salary, meaning like Republican Brady, he had no net income for 2009, and therefore owed no income taxes.

Mark Steven Kirk: Better than your average pol or just not a businessman?

Cong. Mark Kirk (Republican nominee for U. S. Senate) tried to be "fair and balanced" by stating in yesterday's news conference that both Brady and Giannoulias should have found a way to pay income taxes on their government salaries. Yes, I suppose they both could have sent a check to Illinois and the Feds (or not asked for a refund) for the taxes that would have been due on their government salaries, had they incurred no business losses.

But, then logically, shouldn't Kirk have examined Gov. Quinn's income tax returns and if Quinn had taken say, a deduction for charitable contributions in excess of that taken by the average taxpayer, shouldn't Kirk have gone after Gov. Quinn, too.

Further, what if Cong. Kirk had taken a mortgage interest deduction in excess of that of the average taxpayer, should Senate Candidate Kirk have gone after Cong. Kirk for not paying more in income taxes that he was legally required to pay.

Now is the time?

Or, do you suppose voters would rather hear Cong. Kirk and Treasurer Giannoulias talk about their specific positions on past, present and future tax increases or tax decreases? I mean now that Kirk has almost dropped, sort of, for a while, his attacks on Giannoulias' Broadway Bank sub-par lending performance and Giannoulias has almost dropped, sort of, for a while, his attacks on Kirk's misrepresentations of his military and teaching experience, is it time to start focusing on national issues such as unemployment, tax rate change, government spending, illegal immigration, Iran's acquisition of a nuclear capability, etc.?

I mean I am just asking. Is it time?