posted on May 12, 2004 09:51:03 PM new
TERESA PAID 11% IN TAX
May 12, 2004 --
WASHINGTON - Democrat John Kerry's wife, Teresa - one of America's richest women - had over $5 million in income last year, but paid a lower tax rate than an ordinary person earning $50,000, according to a campaign statement released yesterday.
The campaign said Mrs. Kerry, who files her returns separately from her husband, had $5.1 million in income and paid at least $587,000 in federal taxes - a rate of 11.5 percent.
But the campaign didn't release any actual tax returns and provided little details on her holdings, capital gains, dividends or any tax shelters that the ketchup heiress, worth an estimated $500 million, may use to reduce taxes.
"Based on the latest available IRS data, the average person earning about $50,000 is paying taxes at a higher effective rate - 13.8 percent - than [Heinz] does," said Bill Allison of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, a watchdog group.
One reason for the first-lady wannabe's low tax rate is that more than half her income - $2,777,000 - came from tax-exempt bonds, according to the campaign. Deborah Orin
Keep child tax credit, and new 10% tax bracket
Q: Which of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 would you change, if any?
A: I will roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. However, I don't believe that we should be raising taxes on the middle class. Specifically, I want to protect the increases in the child tax credit, the reduced marriage penalty, and the new 10 percent tax bracket that helps people save $350 on their first level of income.
Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, "Taxes" Jan 25, 2004
Kerry vs. Bush on taxes is a fight we deserve to have
Q: In your career, you voted to raise billions of dollars in taxes. What will you say when President Bush says, "Senator Kerry is going to raise your taxes and I am not"?
That's a fight I look forward to, because if George W. Bush wants to stand there beside me and defend raising taxes for people who earn more than $200,000 a year, which are the only people who might be argued will have a tax increase by rolling back the Bush tax cut that they rushed through, instead of giving all of America health care and education so we truly leave no child behind, that's a fight we deserve to have in this country. That's a fight we will win. I am going to protect the middle class.
And in the course of my career, I have voted for countless numbers of tax cuts. When I arrived in the US Senate, the highest marginal rate was 72%. We took it down to 28%. I voted for cutting the capital gains tax, I voted for tax incentives for businesses.
Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004
GOP tax policy comforts the comfortable
This administration has made its top wartime priority the easing of the tax burden on its wealthiest citizens-the citizens least likely to face sacrifices at home or abroad in a time of war. The president has all but endorsed the most invidious conservative policy of our time: that cutting taxes for the people who least need help, turning budget surpluses into deficits, and piling debts on our children are all useful strategies because they will effectively paralyze our own government- the instrument of our democracy-by denying it the revenues to pay for progress. Using tax dollars to comfort the comfortable while starving the commonwealth has become an item of orthodoxy for the Republican party.
10% bracket in Bush tax cuts was Democrats' idea
The 10% bracket [in the Bush tax plan] wasn't Bush's idea. It was our idea. It was in keeping with the spirit of the Democratic party to try to help the average American get ahead. Increasingly, average Americans are getting stomped on; there's an unfairness in the workplace; corporate executives are walking away with millions and sticking the average American with the bill. We can cut the deficit in half, we can be fiscally responsible, but we don't have to do it on the backs of the middle class.
Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan Sep 25, 2003
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." Jay Leno
posted on May 13, 2004 08:18:59 AM new
I love that article Bear. It's quite a wonderful distortion of facts as is your tite.
Since 2,777,000 of her income was derived from tax exempt municiple bonds her actual income 2,323,000 on which she paid 25% tax.
Do you often accuse people of doing something wrong for failing to pay taxes on tax exempt income?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 13, 2004 08:47:46 AM new
I honestly don't really care about Ms. Heinz fortune as I hope she has a prenuptual agreement so therefore it probably doesn't make a difference. The reason people are wealthy is because they invest and do things with their money so that they don't pay taxes. Now I know I will probably get a lot of flack but that is her money. It doesn't matter how she got it. I don't believe the rich should take care of the poor or middle class. They (poor and Middle Class) have to do their own which probably they never will. Ms. Heinz can't help that her family made all that money. If she wants to share that is up to her not the government to take because she is wealthy and this goes for all the wealthy in this country.
posted on May 13, 2004 08:57:30 AM new
Well, I agree Libra, but the point is the wealthy WEALTHY do pay about 30% tax, which is A LOT even to the wealthy.
Its her money, yes I agree. Just like other wealthy people, however they made their wealth. If she inherited it, so what? Is this bad? no.
What I wonder is this: When one becomes President, their assests and buisnesses are put in trust, until they have served their term(s) I am sure the same goes for the First Ladies? I can't remember a President who's wife had more money than him, so I don't know how they work that...
__________________________________ In cyberspace, you can't hear a liberal scream.
posted on May 13, 2004 10:46:56 AM new I love that article Bear. It's quite a wonderful distortion of facts as is your tite.
The facts speak for themselves as does the my lead in to the article
Kerry (both of them) vigorously opposed releasing her tax info. Logical conclusion, she had something to hide. And now the "something" is known.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." Jay Leno
posted on May 13, 2004 10:51:35 AM new
I take it then bear that you pay taxes on all income you earn and decline available deduduction and that you pay taxes on everything including that which is tax exempt. That would be the only way that you could try to call someone to the mat for not payingntaxes on tax exempt income without being a hypocrit.
You are right, I do know why she was hesitant to release her returns. Becuase of this type of irreresponsible jouralism tht realies on blatant distorions for the big splash.
Heinz-Kerry paid 25% income tax on taxable income not 11%.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 13, 2004 10:54 AM ]
posted on May 13, 2004 10:56:10 AM new
What I'd read the reason she gave was that her financial business and her son's were co-mingled....and she didn't want to make public HIS personal business dealings.
My biggest concern about her opening up her financial info is those far left-winged groups it's been reported she supports. That's what the public has a right to know, imo.
posted on May 13, 2004 11:27:06 AM new
Well that will be a sorted mess, IF Kerry wins, pre nups or not (that all comes down if there is divorce) right now, they (IRS) would consider the income 'combined' and so it would HAVE to be placed in a blind trust, ir he wins the election that is.
She better take her sons money out now, just in case
__________________________________ In cyberspace, you can't hear a liberal scream.
posted on May 13, 2004 11:27:45 AM newI don't believe the rich should take care of the poor or middle class.
No one is asking them to. But we do insist that they pay their fair share considerating the benefits they are reaping from the ifrastructure we all paid for.
fenix makes a good point about "income" and taxable "income".
Most of these super rich only report a fraction of their wealth generation as "income".
When all Federal taxes are taken into account, the top 1% of income in this country pays at or below the federal taxes that a $50,000 income pays.
It gets even worse when they are taking pay in stock. There are ways that these people can cash in millions of dollars in stock and not pay a dime in income taxes.
If you think that is fair, then there is nothing to really argue about.
posted on May 13, 2004 12:20:03 PM new
Near - she has never filed jointly with her husband so why would that suddenly change? Additionally, even if she were put under the same limitations, it is investments and not income that are put into a blind trust.
Also, I don't believe the IRS has any control over it.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 13, 2004 12:21 PM ]
posted on May 13, 2004 12:25:51 PM new
Reamond -Wha t stocks are you referring to?
The only investments I was aware of were dividens and such are tzx exempt are government, municiple, etc. The point is that you have given a loan to a government agency so why in the world should you be taxed when they pay it back?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 13, 2004 12:32:00 PM new
fenix, Oh I thought everything was put into a blind trust. I do understand why investments are put into it. Also controls over business(es) are put into the trust aren't they?
__________________________________ In cyberspace, you can't hear a liberal scream.
posted on May 13, 2004 12:42:16 PM new
There is a tax lawyer who name is Blattmachr that devised a trust scheme for Bill Gates and other people paid in stock. It is called an Accelerated Charitable Remainder Trust.
As example: Gates creates the ACRT. He then donates $200 million worth of his MS stock. The trust sells the stock and invests the money. Gates gets a $6 million tax deduction for the donation to his private ACRT. The taxes would have been $56 million had Gates sold the stock himself.
Under tax law, the person or couple donating the stock to the trust are permitted to get 6% income from the trust per year for life. But that isn't good enough.
Blattmachr found a way to take 80% of the trusts value out in 2 years and fold the trust donating the remainder to charity and getting the donor another $2 million in tax deductions.
posted on May 13, 2004 01:38:48 PM new
Near - yes, businesses would be as well but her "businesses" are non profit charitible organizations these days I don't think they would count. Basically anything that can potentially benefit from the type of inside knowledge that a president has is put into a trust in order to eliminate any appeara nces of improprety.
Other sources of income are not denied to them. The First Lady is not a salaried employee, if you put the entirety of her income into trust, is she expected to ask her husband for an allowance? Honey, the president of Brazil is coming for dinner and I have nothing to wear... can I have an advance? Somehow I just don't see that one happening.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 13, 2004 01:44 PM ]
