Gothamist: Oops: Rangel's $75,000 of Unreported Income

Jerky

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:54:44 -0500

Throw his fat lazy tax-evading ass in jail. Rangel is a disgrace. Between his apartments and this, he's no better than the sleazy Republicans he claims to be fighting....

glennQNYC

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:39:14 -0500

Another Democrat crook...

phastmike

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:44:36 -0500

So, he rents out luxury villas in the Caribbean and still qualifies for a (multiple) rent-controlled apartments in New York. What a scammer.

Politburo

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:06:39 -0500

If the math doesn't add up, then that changes things. I'm not familiar with the details of how foreign real estate is taxed, so I can't really comment on that aspect.

TK

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:01:08 -0500

Politburo, you're right. I stand corrected. Something doesn't sit right with me though - he paid $82k 20yrs ago for a rental property and though similar units currently earns upwards of $1,000 per night, his go for $500/night. He has only received $75k in income over that time? I understand mgmt fees and w/h taxes are applied but this means he has lost $7k in this investment before depreciation and reclaim on w/h taxes? Considering the stock market returns during this time period is this the worst investment ever?

jenspellnogood

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:56:54 -0500

i stopped reading the comments when i actually saw a few lemmings defending this piece of garbage. i realize some, oh ok most, of you are basically tourists, but this guy has been raping this city for years. i love that it's in DR too - prostitution is legal there!

Politburo

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:38:49 -0500

TK - I don't think it's $75k per year. I think it's $75k over 20 years, an average of ~$4k per year. This is a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but it still looks pretty bad, especially on top of the rent stabilization scandal (which is bad). The photo is hilarious, though.

Steven

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:34:27 -0500

This is the way of politicians. They only care about themselves and use the power they have to make a better life for themselves.

zodak

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:33:54 -0500

everyone keeps mentioning how much good this guy does for the city & his powerful position, but really, how have we benefitted from this guy?

faprilano

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:32:55 -0500

again - all i can say is arrogant pimp. he needs to removed from office immediately and a full on ethics investigation launched.

spnder

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:28:37 -0500

I'm waiting for that commentor that always says "GOD BLESS YOU CHUCK RANGEL FOR SERVING blah blah blah..." Sure, I get the realist view that Rangel does a lot of good for the city. I get it. But come on. That doesn't mean you get a free ride every time something like this pops up. And they keep popping up.

TK

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:25:19 -0500

$75k over 20 years is $1.5 million dollars. If received tax-free, that is equivalent to a $104k per year job (at a 28% tax rate). A lot of much harder working people dont make that much per year EVER! Many people living in his district dont make half that much money per year. You'd think fellow Democrats, the party of the poor and middle-class, would be appalled by this. Utterly unacceptable.

Huntz

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:14:06 -0500

"the congressman did not realize he had to declare the money as income" Seriously mind-boggling. He is the chairman of the Ways and Mean Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over all taxation. How is it possible that he does not know that investment or rental income is taxable? He cannot manage his own personal finances, but we are suppose to believe he is capable of managing the finances of the whole country.

ianmac47

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:12:23 -0500

Yes, Jen, Politicians do follow different rules. Rangel's replacement will be no different, except that he will probably not be from the state of New York. Even if Rangel's replacement is naive enough to stay honest, that doesn't help New York if the Ways and Means committee is channel money someplace else. Corrupt or not, Rangel's position is good for the city, the state and the region.

longacre

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:53:22 -0500

If this is the best dirt they can come up with on this guy, either he's done a good job hiding it or our local reporters aren't digging deep enough. $75,000 over 20 years is nothing.

TK

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:46:46 -0500

He's just another two-faced weasel. Rangel's another asshole that has made it up the ladder and instead of extending a hand down to help others has only pulled the ladder up behind him.

MFer

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:42:12 -0500

You're right. Oh, how silly we are. Welcome back, Governor Spitzer. Ted Stevens, you are free to go. Jack Abramoff? Good job.

Tgirl

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:41:53 -0500

"the congressman did not realize he had to declare the money as income" this guy has lost all credibility to serve. He claimed to be (conveniently) ignorent of the law as far as rent-regulated apartments go, and now he seems amazingly clueless with regards to U.S. tax code. What exactly qualifies him to represent his district?

Jen Chung

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:36:27 -0500

@ianmac47, you're funny! I didn't realize politicians were allowed to follow different rules.

schadenfreudian mensch

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:36:23 -0500

My question is how can you be a chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes the federal tax code and not realize he had to declare the money from the property as income.

ianmac47

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:33:38 -0500

Oh excellent, let's rip apart a powerful New York congressman before he has any chance to return some money to the region. If he has the power to get federal money for the Second Avenue Subway, or the Trans Hudson Tunnel, or city parks or city government, so what if he has taken advantage of the system?

MFer

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:26:30 -0500

"The purpose of that investment was not to create cash payments to Mr. Rangel, but rather, to have a place for occasional vacations for himself and his family similar to a time share." Rangel "will probably have no federal tax liability...because he considered the villa an investment rather than a vacation home, and was therefore ... So he can have his rum cake and eat it too.