Hypocrisy, unfairness…pick your own adjective for Republican and conservative attacks on Sen. John Kerry for saving himself some money by docking his $7 million yacht in Rhode Island, where he could avoid Massachusetts’ s $435,000 one-time tax and an additional $70,000 in excise taxes every year. Incredibly, talk show host Sean Hannity just called Kerry a “tax cheat,” although Kerry is breaking no laws, has no obligation to make sure his home of Massachusetts gets all of his tax money, and is doing what all wealthy Americans—usually championed by Hannity and others as those who create jobs and make the country prosperous—do: using available loopholes, safe harbors and tax minimization methods to hold on to as much money as he can.
Now Kerry has announced that he’ll pay the Massachusetts tax anyway, making me wonder what it must be like to be able to give away over a half-million dollars just to shut up unfair and obnoxious critics. Sen Kerry is certainly an inviting, and usually deserving, target for those who question of his integrity, but he is entitled to fairness as much as anyone else. It is especially stunning to see Republicans, who are prone to accuse Democrats for fomenting class warfare, doing it themselves. Apparently the only rich people they want to see keep their money from the tax man are Republican rich people.
Ethics Alarms 
The issue is not so much about paying as little tax as possible. It’s about voting in favor of making OHTERS pay as much tax as possible, which, as a general rule, is more like to be found on the Democrat side than the Republican side. Unfortunately, Obama’s staff, or “would-have-been” staff, those who would tax us further into economic depression, have a much higher proportion of tax cheats, than the Republicans do, whereas the Republican party seems to have more failed moralists. If you are going to be in the business of raising everyone else’s taxes, you ought to be a least not so shameless about avoiding taxes yourself.
I still don’t get it. Kerry isn’t taking advantage of any tax break anyone else with a yacht couldn’t. He might even be in favor of ending the R.I. break, but while it’s there, why can’t he use it? And why is it “shameless”? I think it’s just dumb to pay taxes you don’t have to, and Newport’s a great place to sail from.
The connection with Geithner et al. seems a real stretch to me.
There are some reasons I could see that people would be critical.
(1) He has been a leading politician of the ruling party in Massachusetts, the party that passes taxes like this. By avoiding taxes that other MA residents pay by keeping his boat in RI for use in MA, he looks hypocritical (he may not be, but it looks bad).
(2) According to the article by Alexander Mooney, Massachusetts requires that boaters who keep their boats out-of-state, in MA waters, must file a form and pay the excise tax. Kerry’s boat has been seen in use in MA waters. If he hasn’t filed the paperwork, he isn’t obeying the law. If he has used the yacht too much it MA waters, he owes excise tax that he didn’t pay, it does make him a tax cheat.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/28/kerry-volunteers-to-pay-500k-in-taxes-for-luxury-yacht/?fbid=0vnTwnLUfnT
Michael, there’s no evidence or allegation that Kerry wilfully failed to file the appropriate papers or intended to stiff Mass. on the excise tax. I was late paying my taxes one year, but had every intention of paying them, and did. You’re not a “tax cheat” unless you illicitly, illegally and intentionally avoid taxes you are obligated to pay. Kerry’s critics didn’t give him time to be a tax cheat, even if that was Kerry’s intent, which I doubt. Docking the boat in R.I. doesn’t make him a cheat in any way.
As I’ve heard it on local radio, the issue is about hypocrisy, not legality. (though some callers did attest to seeing the boat in local waters, making the tax mandatory.) it is about a man who has politically opposed tax loopholes to get elected, but has no shame taking advantage of them for himself.
1) My article wasn’t about legality either, it was about ethics. I mentioned the law because if Kerry had been breaking the law, he would have been unethical as well as a lawbreaker.
2) What most people, apparently you included, call “hypocrisy” is very seldom unethical. One can oppose something as policy for a nation and take advantage of it as a homeowner, taxpayer or head of household without a breach of honesty, integrity or any ethical principle. True hypocrisy occurs when someone surrepticiously and voluntarily engages in conduct while condemning others for exactly the same conduct. Not hypocrisy: being an alcoholic while condemning excessive drinking. Not hypocrisy: voting for war when one avoided the draft.
Hypocrisy: signing a bill strengthening the laws against sexual harassment while excepting the praise and support of women’s advocacy groups, then violating the exact provisions of the law with Monica Lewinsky. (Guess who!)
2) There is no “hypocrisy” whatsoever in Kerry’s case. If I oppose the repeal of a tax, should I continue to pay it even after it is repealed? If I don’t, is that “hypocrisy”? Are all tax loopholes identical? Did Kerry oppose THIS tax strategy? Kerry is a U.S, Senator, and has no say regarding state taxes at all. Unless he specifically condemned any Mass resident who would take a yacht to R.I. to avoid paying taxes, his actions were legal, ETHICAL, and completely non-hypocritical.
As you might discern, I am really, really tired of sloppy accusations of “hypocrisy.”
If Kerry pays the money, he’s doing the same thing he’s done as a senator, i.e., spending someone else’s money. It isn’t his, it’s his wife’s.
Are you suggesting that his wife never uses the boat, or that Kerry is using the couple’s money without her consent? It’s not a good analogy.
I can’t believe you guys have me defending John Kerry, one of my very least favorite public officials…
Actually, upon reflection, since he probably used his wife’s money to buy the boat, it really is her boat anyway.
Also, philosophically, when the governmnet spends taxpayers’ monies, they are supposed to be doing so with our consent, because, as the IRS so proudly states (I can’t believe they believe this), because it’s a voluntary system. And the governmnet theoretically operates with the consent of the governed. So I think my analogy is good.