[Cody Dawg]

Something to make you go, "Hmmmm..."

The Kerry campaign finally released Teresa Heinz Kerry's 2003 tax return, or rather two pages of it, late last Friday, the WALL STREET JOURNAL details.

"We think she ought to release the rest of her return, since her wealth was crucial to salvaging her husband's struggling campaign during the Democratic primaries in 2003."

"But even this minimal disclosure deserves more attention in light of John Kerry's pledge to raise tax rates. In 2003, Mrs. Kerry -- or Teresa Heinz, as she declared herself on her IRS 1040 form -- earned $5.07 million, hardly a surprising income for someone estimated to be worth nearly $1 billion.

"The news is that $2.78 million of that income came in the form of tax- exempt interest from what the Kerry campaign's press release attributed to investments in 'state, municipal and public entity bonds.' What the campaign didn't say is that these are the kind of investments that rich people can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to steer their money into."

On her "remaining 'taxable' income of $2.29 million, Mrs. Kerry paid $627,150 in taxes, for an overall average federal tax rate of only 12.4% on her $5.07 million in total income." This "puts Mrs. Kerry's tax rate at well below that of other filers in her super-rich neighborhood. But it also means she is paying a lower average rate than nearly all middle- class taxpayers paid in 2001, the last year for which the IRS has published the data.

The top 50% of all federal filers contributed 96.1% of all federal income taxes in 2001, and they paid an average income-tax rate of 15.9%. That's 3.5-percentage points more than Mrs. Kerry paid in 2003." At the "very least, Mrs. Kerry's tax returns are a screaming illustration of the need for reform to make the tax code simpler and fairer. But they also show that Senator Kerry's proposed tax increases are much more about a revenue grab than they are about tax justice."

[BRussell]

I think it's disgraceful that someone with so much money can pay a lower rate in taxes than someone in the middle class. But I don't understand - I thought this was what Republicans wanted? Ownership society, tax reductions on dividends, and all that.

[Cody Dawg]

I think that it points out that they used loopholes to make SURE that THEY benefitted from paying lower taxes. I mean, why ask for them, anyway, if you truly care about how the government is running on deficit spending?

I guess the point is that they wanted to work out a way to keep the money in any way that they could -- but they like to chirp about how "disgraceful it is that the rich can get away with not paying taxes."

In other words, they are calling their own behavior disgraceful.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I think that it points out that they used loopholes to make SURE that THEY benefitted from paying lower taxes. I mean, why ask for them, anyway, if you truly care about how the government is running on deficit spending?

I guess the point is that they wanted to work out a way to keep the money in any way that they could -- but they like to chirp about how "disgraceful it is that the rich can get away with not paying taxes."

In other words, they are calling their own behavior disgraceful.

Bingo.

Maury

[Logic]

If you think that they themselves sit over their finances and try to find the loophole you are sadly deluded.

This just proves that the system is wrong since there are too many loopholes in it. There is nothing wrong with using the loopholes as long as they are there. What's wrong is to believe they handle their finances all by themselves.

[Cody Dawg]

It's still something that we "middle class" folks resent. It shows that Kerry is NOT middle class and that he shouldn"t align himself with the middle class.

It's also significant: The Wall Street Journal thinks it is newsworthy also.

[TETENAL]

It demonstrates Kerry's point that the rich aren't paying enough taxes.

Kerry is a billionaire. Nobody would think that's middle-class. When did he say he's middle-class?

[blythe]

The problem isn't that they paid less taxes. If they were able to pay less taxes by investing in tax-exempt investments, then good for them. There's no need to be jealous of those who have more money. The IRONY is the fact that some rich people who "intentionally avoid" paying more taxes are always complaining that their taxes are too low and that some "disadvantaged" group is being short-changed, like "the children". If they really cared about "the children", they should avoid tax shelters or donate. They resort to this hypocrisy in order to assuage their guilty feelings for being rich, wanting to stay rich, and only "helping" the disadvantaged by being forced to pay for some bloated, inefficient government welfare program without getting their own hands dirty.

1. Make check payable to the "Bureau of the Public Debt"
2. In the memo section of the check, make sure you write "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public"
3. Mail check to -
ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
PO BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm#opdfaq42

Since 10/2003, only $641,168.19 has been donated so far.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
It shows that Kerry is NOT middle class and that he shouldn"t align himself with the middle class.

Neither Kerry nor Bush is middle class. I don't see why you need to be Middle Class to align yourself with the Middle Class. Do you need to be black to align yourself with minority rights, or gay to align yourself with gay rights, or a woman to align yourself with women's rights? No!

[Cody Dawg]

blythe said
The IRONY is the fact that some rich people who "intentionally avoid" paying more taxes are always complaining that their taxes are too low and that some "disadvantaged" group is being short-changed, like "the children". If they really cared about "the children", they should avoid tax shelters or donate. They resort to this hypocrisy in order to assuage their guilty feelings for being rich and wanting to stay rich.

AWESOME POST!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
It demonstrates Kerry's point that the rich aren't paying enough taxes.

The top 50% of filers are contributong over 95% of all tax revenue, and you say that this still isn't enough? Although some degree of tax avoidance is common among the rich, it would seem that few are as successful at it as Kerry is.

Also, one should take a look at some of the things Kerry is using. For example, some $2.78 million of this came from interest on government bonds of various types. Assuming an interest rate of 5% -which is quite high; more likely the rates are lower than that- then these bonds were purchased with some $55 million, roughly 11 times what Kerry actually made this past year. The government still has that $55 million, or else Kerry wouldn't be getting that interest. Do you still say he's not contributing enough to society?

[Cody Dawg]

TERESA KERRY: YOU PAY TAXES, I DON'T

Instead, she channels funds into ANTI-ISRAEL groups (my relatives will love to read this) and pro-terrorist groups:

"When most people think of charities they imagine orphanages, school grants, medical foundations, etc. However, in the leftist world of the likes of Teresa Heinz Kerry leftwing political organisations also count as charities. For example, using the Heinz Family Philanthropies and the infamous Tides Foundation, she has been able to channel tax-free funds into anti-American, anti-Israel and even pro-terrorist groups. (One of the beneficiaries of her largess, the Ruckus Society, is planning to disrupt the GOP's New York convention)."

AND

"However, what we are dealing with here is her attitude toward paying taxes. I am not going to argue that by minimising her taxes she behaved immorally. What is immoral about her actions is her support for higher taxes for the little people while she drastically reduces her own tax liabilities."

How can you libs defend her? Seriously?

Read the entire article here.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by blythe:
The problem isn't that they paid less taxes. If they were able to pay less taxes by investing in tax-exempt investments, then good for them. There's no need to be jealous of those who have more money. The IRONY is the fact that some rich people who "intentionally avoid" paying more taxes are always complaining that their taxes are too low and that some "disadvantaged" group is being short-changed, like "the children". If they really cared about "the children", they should avoid tax shelters or donate. They resort to this hypocrisy in order to assuage their guilty feelings for being rich, wanting to stay rich, and only "helping" the disadvantaged by being forced to pay for some bloated, inefficient government welfare program without getting their own hands dirty.

1. Make check payable to the "Bureau of the Public Debt"
2. In the memo section of the check, make sure you write "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public"
3. Mail check to -
ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
PO BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm#opdfaq42

Since 10/2003, only $641,168.19 has been donated so far.

First, the Heinz Foundation which THK runs is one of the largest philanthropic organizations in the country.

Second, this business about giving more money as an individual is cute, but sidesteps the issue of reforming the system. You're basically saying "I'm not giving any more money, so why don't YOU." That's ineffective; no single individual is going to make a difference, even if they're very rich. We need to design a tax system that pays for what we spend (remember that?) and does so fairly. We can debate about what's fair, but to simply say "write a check yourself" whenever someone recommends reform simply avoids the issue of reform.

[zigzag]

This is misleading. Municipal bonds are tax-exempt, but pay a correspondingly lower rate of interest than corporate bonds. Similarly, as a matter of law, interest on state bonds is not taxable by the federal government. So Kerry is paying less tax, but receiving correspondingly less interest. This is not a "loophole" - it's a normal function of the bond market, over which the Kerrys have no control whatsoever.

Anyone who invests in bonds has to decide whether they prefer low interest/low tax government bonds or high interest/high tax corporate bonds. The bond market knows this and prices bonds accordingly. If people were required to pay taxes on municipal bond interest, the bonds would be less attractive, would be priced lower, and cities would have to pay higher rates of interest in order to attract investment and fund things like schools. Again, this is not a loophole - it is how the bond market has always worked.

The article is also misleading in saying that "these are the kind of investments that rich people can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to steer their money into." That's simply false. Any person can buy bonds either directly or through mutual funds. Go look at your mutual fund brochures and you'll see.

This isn't to say that the Kerry should or shouldn't pay more taxes overall - it's to say that this article is grossly misleading as to the reasons why she paid what she did.

Would you care to tell us where you got this article so we can see who would do such a poor job of reporting? It's usually considered appropriate to give attribution anyway, even on MacNN.

[Cody Dawg]

ON TOP OF WHICH...she won't release her FULL tax return...WHY?



(I'm sure we all know why...it is better to keep it hidden or else it will hurt her husband's campaign.)

[Cody Dawg]

zigzag:

The first article came from the Wall Street Journal. Get a subscription and read it. I read part of it that a friend sent me and then hopped over to Drudge and saw it there also.

Every time I post something it IS because it was legitimate and as you'll see, I DO provide valid links. Click on some.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The top 50% of filers are contributong over 95% of all tax revenue, and you say that this still isn't enough?

If the quote of the original poster is correct then Heinz-Kerry paid 12.4% of taxes on her total income. I would say that's not enough. With a total income of 5 million per year one can easily pay more taxes.

[Cody Dawg]

Here's another link...

Or how about this:

The Tribune-Review had not only run articles about the use of the Heinz-Kerry fortune, but it had questioned why some large tracts of land in Pennsylvania were designated as farmland and assessed at a lower tax rate._ This included questions about whether Heinz Kerry had enjoyed a reduced property tax bill because her 88-acre estate in Fox Chapel, valued at about $3.1 million, was assessed as farmland._ The Tribune-Review said the 10-building Fox Chapel compound includes a Colonial mansion assessed at $658,000 and a handful of steers and chickens.

Which you can read HERE.

(And while you're reading it, remember that Pennsylvania is where she told the reporter to "Shove it" when he questioned her.)

According to an article in Today's Wall Street Journal, The tax records of Teresa Heinz Kerry and John Kerry "...had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.... "Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one- tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%. ...

"Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000." The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. ... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"

Linkage...

And how about the Kerry's ties to Enron? YES, ENRON...the same company that has bankrupted MILLIONS of Americans, Americans on a fixed income (senior citizens) and Middle Class Americans.

"The Kerrys have had rather extensive financial and personal ties to Enron, the infamous Ken Lay's bankrupt energy firm, documents show. Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry reported more than $250,000 in Enron stock ownership before the firm's 2003 collapse."

More linkage...

Want more?

Maybe Teresa should lay off eating those gin-soaked raisins and start thinking about ways to help "the system" she supposedly cares so much about?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
zigzag:

The first article came from the Wall Street Journal. Get a subscription and read it. I read part of it that a friend sent me and then hopped over to Drudge and saw it there also.

Every time I post something it IS because it was legitimate and as you'll see, I DO provide valid links. Click on some.

a) You didn't provide a link, so I couldn't very well click on a link.

b) The attribution isn't clear - it's a quote of a third party supposedly quoting a WSJ piece. It's considered good form to identify the third party you are quoting, especially if it's Drudge, who isn't exactly known for responsible journalism.

c) I'm surprised that the WSJ, which is the world's leading business newspaper and which normally has excellent reporting, would be so misleading about rather fundamental principles of finance and taxation. If they think she should pay higher taxes overall, fine, but this is a dishonest way to say so. They're no better than Michael Moore in this respect.

[Spliffdaddy]

Not that I'm a Kerry supporter....

but the 'farm' thingy is the most widely abused tax shelter scam in existence. Every wealthy person seems to own a ranch (farm).

My father, while not wealthy, also had a 'farm' for many years.

You can easily tell if somebody owns a real farm. They won't have a full-time white-collar job. And they will be growing something on their farm.

Don't be fooled by folks like my dad. You know, Bell Laboratory employees that claim to have a 'farm'. Just check the hourmeter on their tractor. If it shows 32 hours and the tractor is 3 years old - the owner doesn't have a farm, he has a tax shelter and a bigass lawnmower.

[typoon]

Many of the same loopholes are available to the Middle class as it is for the rich. Many of the times We in the middle class don't know how to take advantage of them.

It's kind of interesting How Kerry talks about wanting to Raise Taxes on the Rich yet he and Teresa do everything they legally can to shelter money and pay less taxes than you or I in the middle class. If they were taxed on there entire fortune it would be MUCH greater percent than any of us are paying.

[Cody Dawg]

zigzag: Stop "zigzagging" and simply go to the links I gave. Why complain about my not providing links when I DID? I provided linkage -- use your mouse and click on them and read them. Afraid to or something?

It's kind of interesting How Kerry talks about wanting to Raise Taxes on the Rich yet he and Teresa do everything they legally can to shelter money and pay less taxes than you or I in the middle class.

You got that right, cowboy.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Something to make you go, "Hmmmm..."

Why do you care about THK's tax return? Why not discuss Kohn Kerry's tax return which shows that his taxes amounted to approximately 30% of his income - ater all, he is the presidential contender and they did file separately. (I'll try to get a link when I have time)

[itai195]

Interesting, but does anyone really trust Bush to get rid of these loopholes? He says the rich and wealthy are his electoral base, and that there is essentially nothing the federal government can do about this problem.

Besides this, there's nothing shady about earning income from municipal bonds. It's a perfectly legal, tax-free investment that any American can make. I don't see how THK's investment in these bonds is either news or representative of some loophole for wealthy Americans. The WSJ should be ashamed for reporting it as such.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by typoon:
Many of the same loopholes are available to the Middle class as it is for the rich. Many of the times We in the middle class don't know how to take advantage of them.

Again, it's not a friggin' loophole. Anyone can buy tax-free municipal bonds directly or through a mutual fund. They will pay less in taxes but they will also receive less interest! That's not a loophole - it's a perfectly normal feature of the open market in bonds.

Again, if this weren't the case, our governments would not be able to raise capital. I trust that this is not the result you want, since they would have to make up for it in assessments.

[OldManMac]

Sounds to me like someone is jealous, because she can find a way to avoid paying taxes, while doing it legally.

That article, http://www.newaus.com.au/theresa_heinz_kerry.html is so biased, it's pathetic. In the second sentence he mentions the "sexy" THK, which is obviously a slam; that's a great way to show one's objectivity, and most likely, knowledge of the subject at hand. He mentions having a conversation with a friend who had personal experience in the field. Is this "friend" a tax lawyer, a rich person who pays taxes, or someone who tells everybody he knows that he has personal experience in the field, which therefore makes him an "expert." There's absolutely nothing to indicate how credible this "friend" is; ergo, there's nothing to substantiate credibility. The article author, bless his soul, now "reckons" her wealth at anywhere from $1 billion to $3.2 billion. I would say that's a lot of reckoning, which clearly shows he doesn't know what he's talking about, yet, because he posted it on the internet, somebody will swallow it up, and use it to make a point in their favor, while completely disregarding whether there's any validity or accuracy to it. And this author is supposedly an economics editor? LOL.

Another point: before you go shooting arrows into nowhere, check into the activities of Richard Mellon Scaife, who funds numerous ultra-right "foundations." His real interests include, but are not limited to, subverting democracy, for the benefit of keeping society under control of the very wealthy.

Another point: $250,000 worth of Enron holdings is not a "substantial investment! That's chicken feed, compared to what even some Enron employees lost, while Ken Lay is still free.

[blythe]

Originally posted by BRussell:
First, the Heinz Foundation which THK runs is one of the largest philanthropic organizations in the country.

Second, this business about giving more money as an individual is cute, but sidesteps the issue of reforming the system. You're basically saying "I'm not giving any more money, so why don't YOU." That's ineffective; no single individual is going to make a difference, even if they're very rich. We need to design a tax system that pays for what we spend (remember that?) and does so fairly. We can debate about what's fair, but to simply say "write a check yourself" whenever someone recommends reform simply avoids the issue of reform.

Of course no single individual is going to fix anything. However, there are loads of rich Democrats who are complaining about this very issue. That would make a huge difference. And no, it will not fix anything, but will shut up their hypocrisy. Any money given to the feds will be spent on something half the country resents anyways. Is it fair to tax anyone at a higher rate than anyone else? I say no. Is it "fair" that one person is richer than another? Fairness has nothing to do with it (unless gains were illegally obtained). The USA is a land of opportunity, not a worker's paradise. Opportunity to profit or fail. Taxes should be based on use and not income. As an example, let's say that every year a certain percentage of alcohol is smuggled between states in order to avoid paying state taxes. The federal gov. has the authority and mandate to crack down on this. In order to do this, they need to set up a law enforcement agency to handle inter-state smuggling (ie. BATF). If this agency costs x amount of dollars to maintain, then alcohol should be taxed appropriately to pay for the agency. If you want to reform the system, cut all social welfare spending which happens to be unconstitutional anyways, pass an ammendment that requires balanced bugdets, and repeal the income tax ammendment and return to duties and use tax. Taxes should only be spent on the federal level that benefits every single person ie. defense, regulations that prevent states from going to war, stuff in that Constitution thingy.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by typoon:
Many of the same loopholes are available to the Middle class as it is for the rich. Many of the times We in the middle class don't know how to take advantage of them.

It's true, it's not like the law says "if you make under x amount of money you can't use this loophole. And we do use loopholes, and we use them a lot. Most of us use some type of retirement plan like a 401(k), for example. That's a "loophole." We deduct our dependents, our moving expenses, our charitable gifts, and on and on. But the difference seems to be capital vs. income. If you have capital, or wealth, you can do things with that money that people who get their money mostly from paychecks can't do. That opens up a lot of possibilities for fun and exciting loopholes and shelters. At least that's what it seems to me to be, but I'm no expert on billionaires.

It's kind of interesting How Kerry talks about wanting to Raise Taxes on the Rich yet he and Teresa do everything they legally can to shelter money and pay less taxes than you or I in the middle class. If they were taxed on there entire fortune it would be MUCH greater percent than any of us are paying.

But isn't there a difference between creating laws that favor, for example, dividend income rather than employment income, and simply following that law?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
zigzag: Stop "zigzagging" and simply go to the links I gave. Why complain about my not providing links when I DID? I provided linkage -- use your mouse and click on them and read them. Afraid to or something?

You did not provide a link to the article that I was addressing and that was the basis of this thread. That's all I ever asked for. Your statements to the contrary are dishonest and juvenile.

[smacintush]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
It's still something that we "middle class" folks resent.

Speak for yourself. I made $50,000 last year and paid about 3.2% in Federal taxes.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by smacintush:
Speak for yourself. I made $50,000 last year and paid about 3.2% in Federal taxes.

^farmer

[OldManMac]

So?

[blythe]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But isn't there a difference between creating laws that favor, for example, dividend income rather than employment income, and simply following that law? [/B]

Just make it simple. Instead of having special interest groups battling it out, or manipulating tax codes to engineer some kind of "social justice", just get rid of income taxes altogether and drastically reduce spending to maintain a balanced budget. It worked pretty well until 1913 when the 16th ammendment was passed.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by blythe:
Just make it simple. Instead of having special interest groups battling it out, or manipulating tax codes to engineer some kind of "social justice", just get rid of income taxes altogether and drastically reduce spending to maintain a balanced budget. It worked pretty well until 1913 when the 16th ammendment was passed.

I don't think it did work well, not at all. But that depends on your values. Your values are clear to me, and I think mine are clear as well. :shrugs:

[Spliffdaddy]

A quick glance thru googled links shows the nation was nearly insolvent at the time the 16th Amendment (giving Congress authority to tax citizens directly - not just states, simply put) was passed.

The previous Constitutional Amendment (15th) was forty years prior - quite a long stretch of time. Starting with the 16 Amendment, there was another Amendment added almost every year after that. Not literally, but damn...there were a lot more than normal in a short period of time.

I don't believe the 16th Amendment was passed for no compelling reason. Not after 40 years of zero new Amendments. I think the federal government was going broke. The reasons for that might be subject to debate, but the fact remains that revenue was needed at the time (1913).

[Capt Shane]

GO RICH PEOPLE!!

Hey There is this cool way to avoid taxes on any of your income... If you are in a combat zone (ie iraq or afganistan) you have to pay no Taxes on any earnings while there and you get combat pay!!! SO SIMPLE!!!

[blythe]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't think it did work well, not at all. But that depends on your values. Your values are clear to me, and I think mine are clear as well. :shrugs:

Do your values reflect your compassionate heart to help the poor and the oppressed by forcing others at gunpoint to pay for your programs? Or do your values reflect a compassionate heart that sacrificially donates your own time, money, blood, sweat, and tears to help individuals that are truly needy? I would hope for the latter.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by deedar:
Why do you care about THK's tax return? Why not discuss Kohn Kerry's tax return which shows that his taxes amounted to approximately 30% of his income - ater all, he is the presidential contender and they did file separately. (I'll try to get a link when I have time)

Because by using THK's taxes they have a talking point. Not much of one, but one none the less. And do you people honestly think that the Bush family, and any other family that makes millions a year doesn't do the same thing? Please. Rich people trying to reduce their taxes in a legal manner is nothing new. Move along, there is nothing to see here.

[blythe]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
A quick glance thru googled links shows the nation was nearly insolvent at the time the 16th Amendment (giving Congress authority to tax citizens directly - not just states, simply put) was passed.

The previous Constitutional Amendment (15th) was forty years prior - quite a long stretch of time. Starting with the 16 Amendment, there was another Amendment added almost every year after that. Not literally, but damn...there were a lot more than normal in a short period of time.

I don't believe the 16th Amendment was passed for no compelling reason. Not after 40 years of zero new Amendments. I think the federal government was going broke. The reasons for that might be subject to debate, but the fact remains that revenue was needed at the time (1913).

Well, reducing tarif rates and spending like a drunken sailor will bankrupt a country. Kind of what the Democrats are complaining about now. Instead of reducing spending and raising tarif or other tax rates, they concluded that they could pay for their excess by taxing the rich directly, as socialism was quite in vogue those days.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's worthy to note that the Supreme Court had ruled an income tax 'unconstitutional' only a few years before (1895) the 16th amendment passed (1909, ratified in 1913)- which permitted it.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
And do you people honestly think that the Bush family, and any other family that makes millions a year doesn't do the same thing? Please. Rich people trying to reduce their taxes in a legal manner is nothing new.

Being Republicans, and considering their views on taxes, you expect that from them. Liberals scrounging for loopholes in the tax system, OTOH, smacks of hypocrisy.

[OreoCookie]

More wealthy people have professionals do their taxes, doesn't matter which side of the aisle they're on. And also they profited from Bush's tax cuts as well, hardly surprising.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
If the quote of the original poster is correct then Heinz-Kerry paid 12.4% of taxes on her total income. I would say that's not enough. With a total income of 5 million per year one can easily pay more taxes.

And so she should be forced to pay more simply because she can? What's fair about that?

[Cody Dawg]

I'm really impressed with some of your talking points. Spliff, blythe, and of course, MacNStein.

But what I find INTERESTING is that there was MUCH more fodder having to do with Teresa's tax returns.

Like apparently questionable political parties being backed through charitable donations. It mentions that her funds benefitted anti-Israel and pro-terrorist groups. I'm going to have to dig a little deeper on that one.

And then there is their connection to Enron in some way.

Last of course, but let's not forget, there are her gin-soaked raisins that she keeps popping for her arthritis. This lady makes Nancy Reagan and her astrological leanings look positively sane.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I'm really impressed with some of your talking points. Spliff, blythe, and of course, MacNStein.

But what I find INTERESTING is that there was MUCH more fodder having to do with Teresa's tax returns.

Like apparently questionable political parties being backed through charitable donations. It mentions that her funds benefitted anti-Israel and pro-terrorist groups. I'm going to have to dig a little deeper on that one.

And then there is their connection to Enron in some way.

Last of course, but let's not forget, there are her gin-soaked raisins that she keeps popping for her arthritis. This lady makes Nancy Reagan and her astrological leanings look positively sane.

So THK is a tax-evading terrorist-supporting alcoholic. But dear God, just don't anybody mention that Mary Cheney is a lesbian!

[MindFad]

Did you say...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by blythe:
Do your values reflect your compassionate heart to help the poor and the oppressed by forcing others at gunpoint to pay for your programs? Or do your values reflect a compassionate heart that sacrificially donates your own time, money, blood, sweat, and tears to help individuals that are truly needy? I would hope for the latter.

First, that's a false dichotomy. One can believe in both government and private systems.

Second, I notice that some folks define freedom only in terms of economic freedom, i.e., low taxes. If they don't have to pay high taxes, that means they're free. That's not the only component of freedom, IMO. Is someone really free if they don't have access to affordable health care? If the educational opportunities available to them are poor? I consider things like health care and education to be basic components of liberty, and I believe that government can increase our liberties when they guarantee them. I also believe that when a government enacts laissez-faire policies, that can lead to a decrease in personal liberties of its citizens. It's the same principle as the gov't enforcement of criminal laws - by passing laws against murder, the gov't is reducing someone's liberty to kill, but they are protecting liberty overall.

Again, it's just a matter of values. You value lower taxes above those things, and I value the reverse. I wouldn't say you're wrong or somehow factually incorrect, just misguided.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
And so she should be forced to pay more simply because she can? What's fair about that?

Yes, if she is capable to do more for society, she ought to.

Look, being allowed to have property is a gift of society. It is granted for mutual benefit, which means those with property have to return something to society in the form of taxes, jobs etc.

If you want to know what happens if the benefit of property is shifted too much to the side of the rich, have a look at 18th century's French nobility ➠head off!

[tie]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Again, it's not a friggin' loophole. Anyone can buy tax-free municipal bonds directly or through a mutual fund. They will pay less in taxes but they will also receive less interest! That's not a loophole - it's a perfectly normal feature of the open market in bonds.

Again, if this weren't the case, our governments would not be able to raise capital. I trust that this is not the result you want, since they would have to make up for it in assessments.

Quoted for emphasis. I thought this was obvious.

Cody Dawg, where did your original quote come from? I calculate the tax rate on taxable income to be 27%. You think this is too low?

The ability of Republicans in these forums to hold opposite sides of the same position at the same time is astounding. But sure, vote for Bush if you think the wealthy should pay a higher tax rate. Tyranny of logic, etc etc.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Millennium:
And so she should be forced to pay more simply because she can? What's fair about that?

There is nothing fair about it. I fail to see why people think the rich should pay more than the poor. Guess what... the poor don't pay taxes! (not at you Millennium)