Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity -Teresa Heinz-Kerry Taxes - Not As Important As Where The Assets Are
Vanity | 10/16/04 | Lee Roggenburg

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: johnkerry; kerry; kerrysecrets; nottooswiftboat; taxevasion; taxreturn; teresaheinz; trusts; yacht
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. What was missing was the non-taxable assets and a description of the spouse's balance sheet.

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.

1 posted on 10/16/2004 3:41:56 AM PDT by LRoggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LRoggy
Heinz Kerry made $5.1m (Combined annual income $20 million)
2 posted on 10/16/2004 3:44:23 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy
"It's clear that Mrs. Kerry has found every nook and cranny in the federal tax code to shelter her income," said Stephen Moore of the conservative Club for Growth.

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.

SCOURING TERESA'S TAXES

3 posted on 10/16/2004 3:54:13 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy
How much of the family's houses, plane, boats, etc. have been transferred to family partnerships and other trusts,

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.

4 posted on 10/16/2004 3:57:20 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy

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.


5 posted on 10/16/2004 4:05:30 AM PDT by stockpirate (Kerry; supported by, financed by, trained by, guided by, revered by, in favor of, Communists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy
we will never know the true extent of their income.

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.

6 posted on 10/16/2004 4:10:03 AM PDT by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz

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.


7 posted on 10/16/2004 4:14:01 AM PDT by joeystoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy
Is Thereeeeeeeeesa going to put all her money in a blind trust should CadaverBoy squeak through?
8 posted on 10/16/2004 4:20:49 AM PDT by atomicpossum (If there are two Americas, John Edwards isn't qualified to lead either of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.


9 posted on 10/16/2004 4:22:41 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy

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?


10 posted on 10/16/2004 4:26:11 AM PDT by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
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.

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.

11 posted on 10/16/2004 4:29:43 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
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.

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.

12 posted on 10/16/2004 4:39:41 AM PDT by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
Do you think there is a conspiracy at the IRS to undertax her?

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.

13 posted on 10/16/2004 4:52:08 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: joeystoy

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.


14 posted on 10/16/2004 5:00:54 AM PDT by TN4Liberty (John Kerry has more positions than the Kama Sutra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
TM: 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.
Glenn: Really? Where is that written in the law? Where are we awarded that right?

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.

15 posted on 10/16/2004 5:08:23 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
"Trust but Verify" seems more appropriate here.

Are you going to vote for Kerry if you can "verify"?

16 posted on 10/16/2004 5:12:10 AM PDT by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: joeystoy
We... working people and small business owners... pay the taxes that the Populist Patrician (Socialist) wants to raise.

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?

17 posted on 10/16/2004 5:24:28 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
This is pretty simple Glenn

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.

18 posted on 10/16/2004 5:28:55 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

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.


19 posted on 10/16/2004 5:39:23 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (I aint wrong, I aint sorry , and I am probably going to do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy

LOL


20 posted on 10/16/2004 5:40:30 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy (Save Terri Schiavo!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan

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


21 posted on 10/16/2004 5:50:01 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
That man is a lying sack of Doo doo.

Eloquently stated.

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!!!

22 posted on 10/16/2004 6:00:13 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

Absolutely! see my post above


23 posted on 10/16/2004 6:01:36 AM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy

Right!!!!
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.


24 posted on 10/16/2004 6:05:15 AM PDT by GadareneDemoniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maryz
After releasing a partial return of the family taxes

On a Friday afternoon!

25 posted on 10/16/2004 6:16:03 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Glenn

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.


26 posted on 10/16/2004 6:24:35 AM PDT by sauropod (Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LRoggy
Kerry and Theresa (since they are married) are clearly using Tax Loopholes such as trusts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet at the same time, Kerry wants to raise taxes on people that earn more than $200,000. That is hypocritical.

Assuming Theresa and Kerry (since they are married) has $1 Billion (which is a fairly conservative estimate because Theresa inherited $750 million when her first husband died) at 4% interest, they would be earning $40 million a year.

35% of $40 million = $14 million

So each year, they are short changing the IRS $13 million by using tax loopholes ... and since they have been married, you could say that they have short changed everyone else who pays their fair share of taxes at least $100 million dollars.
27 posted on 10/16/2004 6:31:27 AM PDT by igoramus987
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GadareneDemoniac
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.

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.

28 posted on 10/16/2004 7:19:27 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl ("In the Kingdom of the Deluded, the Most Outrageous Liar is King".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
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.

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.

29 posted on 10/16/2004 7:32:34 AM PDT by knuthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: joeystoy
Her federal taxes represent about one tenth of one percent of her net worth. She is hardly paying her fair share.


If I had a billion dollars, I'd have it mostly in non-income-producing assets like real estate and securities.

Only a fool would have it all generating unneeded income, when value growth would be much greater, and untaxed.
30 posted on 10/16/2004 9:49:31 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: igoramus987

at 4% interest, they would be earning $40 million a year.



But real estate and securities DON'T GENERATE INTEREST!


31 posted on 10/16/2004 9:51:08 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
at 4% interest, they would be earning $40 million a year.

... profit which is taxed at 35%.

$40,000,000 * 0.35 = $14,000,000 Tax
32 posted on 10/16/2004 9:57:07 AM PDT by igoramus987
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GadareneDemoniac
You show me a family that has that kind of assets and any decent accountant can deploy those assets so as to minimize taxes.

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.

33 posted on 10/16/2004 2:07:52 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: igoramus987
Yet at the same time, Kerry wants to raise taxes on people that earn more than $200,000. That is hypocritical.

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

34 posted on 10/16/2004 2:22:23 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TheSpottedOwl

"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.


35 posted on 10/16/2004 2:39:51 PM PDT by RipSawyer ("Embed" Michael Moore with the 82nd airborne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer

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.


36 posted on 10/16/2004 4:01:17 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl ("In the Kingdom of the Deluded, the Most Outrageous Liar is King".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson