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.
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.