Skip to comments.Vanity -Teresa Heinz-Kerry Taxes - Not As Important As Where The Assets Are
Posted on 10/16/2004 3:41:54 AM PDT by LRoggy
After releasing a partial return of the family taxes, we were told that Teresa Heinz-Kerry's tax return indicated a paid rate of about 12% of income.
How much of the family's houses, plane, boats, etc. have been transferred to family partnerships and other trusts, including endowed trust funds that support a lifestyle not paid for by the candidate's family?
For example, do they get to live in the D.C. area house without paying anything? The income is only one side of the story. The use of family assets at no cost, that is the missing piece of how extravagant their life style is.
Until this family releases their entire balance sheet, including all trusts and family partnerships Teresa has effective control of, we will never know the true extent of their income. If there are any Estate Planning experts out there, please add to this thread.
Experts on lifestyles of the rich and famous say that $5 million in income wouldn't come close to covering the Kerrys' golden lifestyle with five estates, multiple cars, a $3.5 million Gulfstream V jet complete with plasma TV, gold fixtures and two bathrooms, a yacht worth $750,000 to $1 million and servants in every location.
I seem to recall that the Nantucket house belongs to a family trust. It came up on Howie Carr when he was trying to track down an SUV registration.
They plan to release all her tax returns the same day John signs the form 180 to release his military records, that is the same day hell freezes over.
This is America. The goal is to get rich. Enough with the strawman arguments. Unless they are cheating on their taxes, and I'm sure the IRS goes over them with a fine toothed comb, it's really none of our business. The money THK has was Republican money before it was Democrat money.
Her reported taxable income represents less than one half of one percent of her net worth. Even if you add in her non-taxable income it's less than one percent.
I would fire my financial advisor.
Her federal taxes represent about one tenth of one percent of her net worth. She is hardly paying her fair share.
Tell the truth Mr. Kerry: The so-called income tax is merely a tax on SALARY. The rich are able to shelter, hide, arrange... so that they don't have to pay.
Raising taxes on the rich is a red herring.
We... working people and small business owners... pay the taxes that the Populist Patrician (Socialist) wants to raise.
She completed her taxes and she paid them. She is rich. They do lots of things with their money to avoid paying oppressive taxes. She is no different.
I think its funny that her net tax rate is less than mine....but that is another point.
If she isnt getting audited, then let it go.
Furthermore, isn't it a little interesting that she released her 03 taxes in mid October after asking for a delay? I wonder if she paid that much in 02 or 01, or did she go ahead and pay a lot more this year just to make them look good?
This is America....Correct.
Enough with the strawman arguments.....I'm not influenced by strawman jealousy of her wealth, class envy or whatever! I want to know answers to how she skirts the "fair tax burden" paying only 12% while her husband seeks to impose more than triple that onto others in their income bracket.
The goal is to get rich......No, the American goal is to prosper and be successful. The goal, "to get rich" is not the same.
Unless the are cheating, it is none of our business....Wrong. The potential for Theresa's fortune influencing public policy is very real and we have a right to ask for full disclosure so that we know if John Kerry is being influenced by her holdings.
Do you think there is a conspiracy at the IRS to undertax her?
The potential for Theresa's fortune influencing public policy is very real and we have a right to ask for full disclosure so that we know if John Kerry is being influenced by her holdings.
Really? Where is that written in the law? Where are we awarded that right?
"To get rich" is shorthand, by the way.
We are left to guess, aren't we?
The IRS only enforces the laws. I'd assume that her tax strategy is a legal one but what I'd like to know is how can Kerry advise us to sock it to the top 2% when they are guilty of evading the intent of their own policy?
Kerry talks of the top income earners doing more for America, doing their fair share, but then he evades his own opportunity to pay more?
Typical liberal jive.
Well said. We do not tax the rich. We tax the profitable. If we want to have "the rich" pay their "fair share" we should tax wealth, not earnings.
I do not favor that either, BTW, but it would be more logical for liberals to support wealth taxes rather than income taxes, given their stated goal.
It's called it divestiture. It's also being ethical. In this case it is his spouse's wealth, not his. This case is a probably first, where the spouse brings obscene amounts of money into the marriage.
So, is this pile of money, which admittedly belongs to the spouse, a valid reason for Kerry to skirt the requirement of divestiture?
Legally? yes it is, but ethically? no. It's going to leave a cloud over his head if he gets elected.
It's just the same with the form 180 that he refuses to sign. The issue is "trust me" when we all know that this is not a sound basis for a politician's relationship wehn it comes to money.
"Trust but Verify" seems more appropriate here.
Are you going to vote for Kerry if you can "verify"?
Yes we do.
Their vast amounts of wealth are hidden and secured safely away from the taxman's reach, while we small business owners struggle and labor to meet payroll and pay health benefits. That's how it looks from here at least.
I can't believe.....12%!!!............12%!!!....12%!!!
Kinda puts the liberal's class rhetoric into perspective.
I wish Kerry was challenged to explain the gap between his talk and his deeds, you know, as told in the book of James.
When Kerry said "We can do more," his "we" was himself and Theresa.
So physician, is it heal thyself? or lead by example? or both?
We are talking about a principle of trust that has nothing to do with who I am voting for. All candidates must divest of holdings that could impugn their credibility when decisions must be made, verify.
Maybe you can understand this. When this butthead stands before me and says we are going to tax the richest 1% and that man and his wife are in the richest 1% and using every tax dodge money can buy and paying less of a percentage than I do in taxes: That man is a lying sack of Doo doo.
The dirty little secret of the tax code is that it is not designed to "soak the rich". It is designed to prevent the upper-middle-class from BECOMING rich, while allowing the wealthy to shield their assets in various ways so that the wealthy stay rich
One of a magician's tricks is to get you to look somewhere else, away from his point of deception. When he says, "Keep your eye on the ball" that means watch my other hand if you want to see how I do this, right?
Kerry is telling us to look at the way to bankroll all of his projects by letting the top wage earners take us to utopia.
But what he demonstrates by his own example, is that the very same people who are supposed to lead us to utopia are finding plenty of ways to avoid paying for it! And then guess what? the burden falls to the next folks in line, and that always ends up being you and me!!!
Absolutely! see my post above
Over the years I have had to explain to high-income workers ( doctors, lawyers, etc. ) that WORKING to earn $ 200K is qualitatively different from having enough RETURN ON CAPITAL to earn $ 200K.
You show me a family that has that kind of assets and any decent accountant can deploy those assets so as to minimize taxes. However, if you work and earn the money, you better get ready to pay the tax man.
That's one reason why jfk's proposal to tax people earning over $ 200K is so asinine - it won't apply to him or that nut he's married to.
On a Friday afternoon!
I suggest you go to ActivistCash.com and look up Tides Foundation, Ruckus Society and others to get the answer as to why we need to be worried about how much $$ Tah-ray-zah has.
Excellent reply, especially the last sentence. Kerry is pandering to the lower income voters who maybe clear 25k a year. They think earning 200k+ makes you rich. Of course we know it's asinine, but poor people might not.
I disagree. It is perfectly legitimate to point out the hypocrisy of behaviors, even if they are legal. Raising taxes on people who work for $200,000, while doing everything to avoid paying taxes yourself on a much higher income, is hypocritical. Arranging your finances to avoid paying Medicare taxes, as Edwards did, is hypocritical. They can choose to use every legal loophole they want to avoid taxes, but when they then talk about others not paying their fair share, they are hypocrites.
at 4% interest, they would be earning $40 million a year.
For example, I know a couple of wealthy people. They are doctors, and they own a farm. They live in the farmhouse and theoreticly are farmers, but in a very limited way (they had a calf for a while, and they grow hay on one of the fields). But they get all the tax writeoffs associated with being farmers and business owners, while living nicely in their "place of business".
One business owner I know has gotten around estate taxes by buying some unimproved land in his grandkids name, then building his company's offices on the land (leased to the company on a 99-year lease). At whatever point he sells the business, the most likely part of the deal is the new owners buy the land the business sits on as part of the deal, with most of the value of the business passing to the grandkids via the real estate. Other examples abound.
The people with earned incomes in the $200K to $1M / year are the main targets of the wealthy "tax the rich" faction in the Democrat Party. Once you get in that range, you start being able to compete with the wealthy for investment opportunities, and they don't like the competition (for the purpose of this discussion I'm defining "wealthy" as somebody who gets at least $200K/year in investment income, excluding all forms of earned income).
The very wealthy are also big fans of big city deficits, since it raises the interest rate paid on Municipal bonds (which are exempt from federal income taxes)
The biggest way to avoid taxes is to own your own business and be able to write off things as business expenses
"They think earning 200k+ makes you rich. Of course we know it's asinine, but poor people might not."
Rich is relative, 200K certainly won't buy yachts and jets but it allows a lifestyle that is, in some ways, rich beyond the means of the most wealthy of a few generations ago. At the same time certain things which were easily available a hundred years ago are almost unattainable to anyone of today. I don't have time or space to elaborate but a little reflection will show you what I mean.
Adjusting for inflation, can you imagine how much 200k could have bought several generations ago?
Of course this is kind of off topic, but back then people could afford to buy a modest home and raise children on one paycheck. These days, every time you turn around, you have to cough up money for some damn government scheme. I think what we've lost is personal freedom and peace of mind.
Kerry's attitude (and Kennedy, etc)is "I've got mine, the hell with you".
Btw, I qualify for food stamps at the moment. I do understand that when the government penalizes people who earn over 200k, it cuts back opportunities for the rest of us to advance. The tax system is nuts, because the harder you work, the more they screw you. I want to be able to someday earn that kind of money, but I know that most of it will be eaten up in taxes thanks to the Democrats.
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.