By Matt Underwood When I read the news about the former IRS employee who purposefully acquired his job with the intention of leaking Trump’s tax returns, my reaction was mixed. This is a discussion that calls for nuance, and it left me teetering between admiration for his audacity and skepticism about his approach. The headline reads like an espionage thriller, with a maverick outsider exploiting the system to expose a billionaire’s tax records.
The man in question, who was charged for his actions, had breached federal regulations by intentionally leaking the tax return information. My initial instinct was to cringe, remembering that the individual committed a crime. Surely, irrespective of the taxpayers, privacy and confidentiality should be expected from the Internal Revenue Service; in fact, a violation of these principles is highly disturbing.
But then, I remembered the numbers. In his first year in office, Donald Trump reportedly only paid $750 in Federal Income Taxes. Rather pathetically, when I glanced back at the tax records of other presidents during their first year of office. From Ronald Reagan’s $165,202 in 1981 to Barack Obama’s mind-boggling $1,792,414 in 2009, the discrepancy is glaring. And the question arises, why are billionaires paying less in income tax than minimum wage earners?
It’s this stark disparity that fuels justification for the actions of the former IRS consultant. His “crime” has been applauded by many, with some even referring to him as a “national hero.” It’s also provided evidence for some people’s beliefs about the wealthy, their manipulative tactics and exploitation of the system at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Yet, fundamental problems remain. Admiring the individual’s intentions doesn’t negate the fact that their actions were illegal. As much as I agree with the sentiment that politicians should be transparent, shouldn’t the same apply to IRS employees? Yes, the release of Trump’s tax returns plays into a sense of poetic justice, but at what cost? Can we really celebrate an act that infringes upon the core principles of confidentiality, privacy, and abiding by the law?
Moreover, as reports suggest, Garland seems to be aggressively prosecuting the case. Undeniably, this employee broke the law. But isn’t it telling that some people are more outraged by the exposure of Trump’s tax records than Trump’s apparent manipulation of the tax system?
In a strange twist of irony, supporters of the defendant reminiscence the “promise” Trump made to release his tax returns once the audit concluded. They argue that this ex-IRS employee was simply helping Trump fulfill that unkept promise. Others suggest setting up a GoFundMe account for the legal defense while to others, he’s a perfect candidate for “POTUS.”
Here’s the thing, as I see it: the system is broken, and it’s been that way for a while. The wealthy and powerful have long manipulated it to serve their interests. For every ex-IRS employee who breaks confidentiality, there are undoubtedly others who are perpetuating and benefitting from the loopholes and weaknesses of our tax system. I don’t condone the crime, but I understand the anger and frustration that could motivate someone to take such extreme action.
Still, Civil disobedience is a powerful tool that must be applied sparingly and wisely. While I can appreciate the whistleblower’s intentions and the debate this action has stirred, I can’t fully condone breaking the law – the ends don’t always justify the means.
Nevertheless, the reverberations of this case go beyond just one man and one billionaire ex-president. They touch on larger matters of wealth distribution, systemic exploitation and the moral fabric of our society. Was this ex-IRS consultant simply the desperate manifestation of a frustrated society? Perhaps. Regardless, it’s clear we need to address the loopholes in our tax system that accentuate wealth inequality to ensure that everyone, regardless of their wealth or power, pay their fair share. What we call ‘chaotic good’ in the gaming universe clearly has substantial implications when it plays out in the real world. Disclosures like this make us take a hard look at the unfairness that is rampant in our society. Sure, the ex-IRS consultant may have stepped over the line of legality, but he also illuminated the dark underbelly of the tax system, where the super-wealthy play by different rules than the rest of the people.
By all appearances, garnished in the details of presidential tax history and critique of the tax system, this scandal poses bigger questions about our societal values, legal boundaries, and the nature of wealth and power in America. For me, it prompts a simple realization – we need more transparency, especially when it comes to who holds the reigns of power, and their dealings.
This ex-IRS employee might’ve broken the law, but ultimately, he drew our attention to the cracks in the system that need immediate mending. To not stray into the realm of romanticising this as an act of vigilantism, it is necessary to abide by the rule of law. Having said that, however, this incident serves as a sobering and stark reminder that our current tax system is systemically skewed to favor the few at the expense of the many.
While celebrating this man as a hero or villain is a matter of perspective, what remains undebatable is that this event was an articulate cry for a fairer system. As it stands, we have been pushed to confront the uncomfortable truth about our society’s inequalities. Whether or not you believe that this ex-IRS employee was right in his actions, it is clear that this incident has exposed blatant systemic biases. These are tough structural challenges that need urgent redress.
This episode also raises valuable questions about what level of transparency we want and need in our political and financial systems. The fact that this disclosure has triggered a largely sympathetic public response, underscored by cries of heroism, exemplifies a desperate yearning for truthfulness and exposes a collective frustration with the abhorrent lack of it.
While the legal narrative around this case unfolds, there is an important societal dialogue blossoming in its backdrop. It’s imperative we remain objectively critical of the ethical implications this breach poses. Yet it’s equally significant to register the desperate measures people are willing to resort to when they witness alarming disparities in a system meant to buoys fairness. This resonance, in my view, indicates an urgent call for comprehensive reform.
Ultimately, what we should take from this incident isn’t a commentary on one particular person – be it the leaker or the wealthy person whose records were leaked. Instead, we should harness the discontent it’s sparked as motivation to demand genuine systemic changes. The leaks themselves will eventually fade into the annals of political history, but the call for change they have amplified cannot – and should not – be so easily forgotten.