Teresa Heinz Kerry Releases 2003 Tax Info; Paid Over $798,000 in Federal, State Income Taxes

Druge Report ^ | November 15, 2004 | Druge

[rang1995]

12.3%

[TeleStraightShooter]

updated tagLine

[Hand em their arse]

who cares??

[The Great Yazoo]

See Post 31, above.

[dfwgator]

Personally I think the tax returns of anyone, including political opponents, shouldn't be anybody else's business. If there's a problem, it's between them and the IRS.

[Species8472]

Can anyone figure out how much she got back from the 2002 tax cuts?

[The Great Yazoo]

If one has a right to privacy as to one's sexual orientation, you would think one's right to privacy would extend to one's financial affairs. But nooooooooo!

[The Great Yazoo]

Maybe some CPA type will answer this.

[Quilla]

My husband and I had filed for an extension, filing and paying (at 34%) our 2003 taxes today. Will all the hubbub about the Kerry's paying only 12% on previous tax returns, I submit they they instructed their accountants to adjust this upwards for this year's return.

[Polybius]

I'd go for a sales tax if we had assurance it would replace federal estate and income tax and not, in Democratese, "supplement" them.

Although that would be the most "fair" tax system, it will never fly because too many Americans now get to skate with paying very little to no taxes.

The top 50% of earners pay 96% of all taxes and the top 5% pay over 50% of all taxes.

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

The Heinz-Kerry's, as I noted, only pay a tiny fraction of one percent of their total fortune in taxes every year.

Kerry and his followers will always vote to rob Peter to pay Uncle Sam.

[ragnarocker]

Mark Levin is talking about it now on WABC.

[dfwgator]

Yep, it's always bothered me that politicians were compelled to release their tax returns. I'd be the first to tell them, "My tax returns are none of your damn business."

[Razorism]

I believe most commentators are missing the big picture here! Consider this quote "Teresa Heinz Kerry, controls a vast fortune estimated by a Los Angeles Times study to fall somewhere between $900 million to $3.2 billion" June 27, 2004. Let us split the difference and call it $2,000,000,000, an income of $2,291,137 on 2 billion is minuscule. You could put in a checking account and do 10x better. Obviously the true income is much higher and is concealed by various loopholes and tax evasions. While undoubtedly legal, this is sheer hypocrisy coming from an extreme Liberal, this is mind staggering. Write some angry letters to the newspaper editors and blogs. If the Bush's where this rich, it would be Billionaire George Bush tag line mentioned every time in the MSM!

[kabar]

Yep, it's always bothered me that politicians were compelled to release their tax returns. I'd be the first to tell them, "My tax returns are none of your damn business."

Just as onerous are the annual Financial Disclosure forms that Congress and high ranking civil service employees (including career personnel) must file. I found them to be even more intrusive than tax forms.

[Southack]

"she has filed her final 2003 federal tax forms and as she said promised last spring, has released the top two pages of her 1040 tax filings."

My 2003 1040 was 46 pages long. If I showed you only the top two pages (which concentrate on salary income), you'd be missing mid six figures of my earnings.

I say this not to brag, as I'm certain that *many* FReepers make far more than me, but rather, I mention this to illustrate that *vast* amounts of money are excluded from those first two pages, including K-1 income, royalty income, foreign income, some dividend income, personal "corporate" income, mineral income, farm/ranch income, rental income, etc.

How can we tell if she is using her husband's dreaded "Benedict Arnold" companies to shield her from U.S. taxes if she doesn't show us all of her 1040 pages?

She is a citizen of Mozambique, yes?? Or does she maintain dual citizenship with the U.S.?? How will we know without seeing her entire tax return?

Mrs. Hienz-Kerry says that she wants to keep those other pages private to shield her children from the media, but that desire conflicts with the Kerry-Edwards Campaign spokeswoman Mary Beth Cahill saying (in response to Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both dragging Ms. Cheney's personal sex life into the public limelight) that the personal lives of the children of the candidates are "fair game."

Certainly the liberal news media insisted upon seeing *every* page of VP Nelson Rockefeller's tax returns in 1974. Rockefeller was not permitted to get away with merely releasing his top two pages of his 1040.

Is there a double standard in play here? One for rich Republicans versus another for rich Democrats?

[N. Beaujon]

From the sound of this article she either filed an extention or amended her tax return. In short, I do not get the impression that what she released was her original filing it was, instead, a tarted up version that took her accountants at least 6 months to concoct, correct or ammend.

I doubt she originally paid anywhere near this amount in taxes and I'd sure like to see what she paid last year before the became the great philantropist and all of a sudden lost the meaning of the word "tax deduction."

Sorry, I'm not buying it. All those smart accountants, I'd be very surprised if this rich bitch originally paid anything more that $98,000 in taxes after deductions.

By the way, did anyone catch her "cure for arthritis" today on the Drudge Report. Gin soaked raisins?? I'm sorry I dont think I risk any libel suit when I come out and say this woman is a drunk (a gin/vodka drunk by the way, the worst kind. The distented stomach is always a dead giveaway.) I bring this up because can you imagine this mess being first lady? I mean please God, you must intervene!

Further, there is one more thing I want to say. Anyone who is living off of $ 2 plus million dollars per year in interest on her trust fund is completely out of touch with what is going on with the average American family and in terms of Lurch, I dont know when that panty waste has ever, in terms of his grasp on reality, and I mean ever really touched ground.

These two are a freaking discgrace. And dont even get me started on Edwards.

[Polybius]

Yep, it's always bothered me that politicians were compelled to release their tax returns. I'd be the first to tell them, "My tax returns are none of your damn business."

I would agree with you except that John Kerry is making my tax cut his damn business.

[Cooltouch]

This just might help. When common folk see that she paid more in taxes than most of us will make in 15 years, the whole "tax cuts for the rich" argument is alot weaker.

Just to clarify, aren't you really suggesting that the 'whole "tax cuts for the rich" argument' is actually the 'let's tax the rich' argument? What I mean is, the dims are arguing for a 'let's soak the rich' approach to taxes, while the replublicans are arguing for reduced taxes for the upper bracket taxpayers, the reason being that these are the folks who create jobs by investing their capital in entrepreneurism. Still, I know what you mean. I think.

[dfwgator]

Still, I don't like it. I didn't like it when they did it to Nelson Rockefeller, and therefore, I don't agree with it, even for Democrats. We know Democrats are hypocrites with regards to tax cuts, I don't need to see their tax returns to know that.

[Quilla]

Southack, IIRC, K-1 income, capital gains, interest, dividend income, and others appear on the first page of the 2003 1040. My copies are at the office, but I was under the impression that the first two pages were a pretty good snapshot of all monies making up total income.

I'm not saying that I disagree with your premise. I believe the Kerry's spend good money to eliminate as much tax liability as possible.