Posted on 08/11/2015 5:02:35 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to President Obama, purportedly saved $200,000 on a Chicago real estate deal by taking advantage of a tax loophole she openly opposes and actively worked to eliminate, according to a watchdog investigation.
The investigation, conducted by the Chicago-based Better Government Association (BGA), focused on the 2013 sale of a $160 million luxury high-rise in which Jarrett pocketed more than $1 million in profits.
Jarrett served as an executive at a Chicago real estate development firm called the Habitat Company prior to joining the White House as a senior adviser to Obama in 2009. While there, Jarrett helped develop a 46-story apartment complex called Kingsbury Plaza that was owned under the name of Grand Kingsbury LLC.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
“she opposes” (for other people)
I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing this. If you don’t like the law, and oppose the law, and work against the law and the law is still not reformed, it is not unethical in the least to follow the law as it stands.
The usual liberal thing. For me its OK. For you, not so much.
same as it always is
She has a real bad case of zactly
It’s hypocritical. Why “take advantage” of something you’re opposed to? It’s like being politically anti-abortion (fighting to end same) and “taking advantage” of Planned Parenthood’s baby-organ trade.
So what “ethics” were followed here? Hmm?
It’s not hypocritical. That word is used completely wrong. Hypocritical is passing a law and exempting yourself, like with Congress and Obamacare.
Holding other people to a standard that you do not hold yourself to is hypocrisy.
If it’s the law, it isn’t taking advantage. It’s following the law.
If you were a farmer who voted for a candidate who wanted to end farm subsidies, but they were still available to you because the lawmakers did not change the law, it would not be unethical to follow the law and apply for them.
Can you imagine if one of the Republican candidates did the same thing”
Oh, the righteous indignation!
Yeah, “if it’s the law” just excuses everything. For the unprincipled, that is; Tacitus says otherwise and warned us so.
And yes, it would be utterly unethical and hypocritical to apply for farm subsidies if you oppose them.
How likely would it be for a GOP (even Establishment) politician to vocally oppose such a tax loophole, though?
Good list. Now I need Maalox : )
I’ll throw in a couple barf bags and paper towels too.
It only excuses things that are the law. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. If a law is immoral or unethical, then you run into a moral or ethical issue, but this law was simply a way to calculate taxation on real estate sold under certain conditions. There is nothing immoral or unethical about that.
When our biggest complaint about a situation is “they followed the law!” then perhaps we need to take a look at our motives.
On a 2009 episode of the British television show Top Gear, co-host James May rattled off the following list of confirmed 600 owners: Leonid Brezhnev, Fidel Castro, Nicolae Ceauşescu, Idi Amin Dada, Enver Hoxha, Hirohito, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse Tung, and Marshal Josip Broz Tito. Other owners reportedly included Irish leader Éamon de Valera, Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Korean dingbats Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, Ferdinand Marcos, Deng Xiaoping, and Cambodian king Norodom Sihanouk.The Wikipedia page also notes Papa Doc Duvalier, Mugabe and a few other Red Chinese leaders being owners.
I’ll take em!
You’ve just excused slave ownership because it was “the law” at one time.
If a law is immoral or unethical, then you run into a moral or ethical issue, but this law was simply a way to calculate taxation on real estate sold under certain conditions. There is nothing immoral or unethical about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.