6 ms·
Basically she and husband didn't report all income and used campaign money for personal expenses. Yes paying taxes is annoying, but these people earn solid mon
by bruceb 5y ago
Basically she and husband didn't report all income and used campaign money for personal expenses.
Yes paying taxes is annoying, but these people earn solid money, why throw it away for relatively small savings. Say they saved 36% on a mil, spread over 6 years, Was it worth the extra $60K a year between the two of them when they had good jobs, political power, clean records?
Especially when you are union, thus generally pro gov't spending so are pushing everyone else to pay taxes.
"Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office alleges the pair under-reported more than $1 million in income over the past six years, including $176,000 in 2016, $416,000 in 2017, and $666,000 in 2018.
The complaint also alleges Hernandez unlawfully took political campaign money for personal use in 2014 and 2015."
- ffggvv 5y agoin california that number is closer to 50% than 36%, but yeah i agree that its probably not worth it though maybe they thought they were untouchable due to their position
- lapsed_pacifist 5y agoIt looks pretty bad when the husband of a union boss was paying workers off the books, which denies worker protections to employees. And they may not have reported the income because it didn't come from legitimate sources.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- truffdog 5y agoThis is California, they were probably undocumented, which will make people less mad at him.
- da_big_ghey 5y agoI can not tell, is it better because he employ them or worse sense he probably pay them below market and so is "exploiting"? Sometimes it is hard to find how Californian thinks.
- truffdog 5y agoHe might not be paying them below market- the way this often works is that the people you employ from the old country are cousins, neighbors of your parents, etc. Not people you would feel comfortable being awful to.
- subpixel 5y agoPower corrupts.
- eikenberry 5y agoPower attracts the corrupt.
- cheschire 5y agoI wonder how much of this was their direct action, and how much of it was them thinking they had plausible deniability because they were going through an intermediary like a CPA or financial planner or something. In the end it doesn't matter, they sign the forms, they own the decision.
- spfzero 5y agoThose figures are well over a million just for 3 of the six years. For example, just in 2018 they evaded about 300K in taxes. Top marginal income tax rate in CA is about 48% IIRC.
- capableweb 5y ago> Especially when you are union, thus generally pro gov't spending so are pushing everyone else to pay taxes. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why would pro-union equal pro-government spending and also pro-higher taxes? They seem unrelated to each other.
- pvarangot 5y agoI don't know much about unions but that particular union in CA represents a lot of government employees. In San Francisco every union leader I talked to was also very pro-government spending, like usually the way they see problems getting solved is by the government spending more money on them, but my sample may be biased.
- 0xB31B1B 5y agoThe people in the unions, and the leaders, are not "pro government spending" they are pro "the government spends money on me" it is a small but important difference.
- mc32 5y agoThat runs close to a distinction without a difference.
- gizmo686 5y agoThe government is a massive organization. Ignoring the cynical interperatation, it is entirely reasonable to think that there are some legitamate areas for the government to spend on; as long as the worker is in one of those areas, there is no dissonance. Alternativly, someone could think 'I want to work in industry X. I think X should be privatised, but since it is government run, I'll work for the government'. Further the cynical answer of 'the government shouldn't be spending so much money. But as long as they are, I should get some' isn't that bad of an answer
- torben-friis 5y ago