Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on October 23, 2004, 05:43:09 AM
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6308302/site/newsweek/
Some Republicans were aghast by the low taxes paid by Teresa Heinz Kerry in 2003. But the reason she paid so little? President Bush’s controversial tax cut
:lol
-
Nah, that's good old stupidity at work. ;)
-
Heh quite embarrassing :rofl
-
Absent Bush’s dividend-tax cut, Heinz Kerry’s overall tax rate would have been around 18 percent—less embarrassing than 12, but still way below what your typical middle-income-salary type pays if you include Social Security and Medicare, which total 15.3 percent of the first $87,900 of salary this year, 2.9 percent of everything above that.
MSNBC likes Kerry. Newsweak likes Kerry. And this article is the best they could do for his wife. That is sad.
-
I don't see how any of this ever said anything bad about her or Kerry himself.
it does blow some big holes in Bush's thought that the wealthy are over taxed and needed the tax cuts he delivered to save them from starvation.
assuming that she was legally entitled to all her deductions of course.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I don't see how any of this ever said anything bad about her or Kerry himself.
it does blow some big holes in Bush's thought that the wealthy are over taxed and needed the tax cuts he delivered to save them from starvation.
assuming that she was legally entitled to all her deductions of course.
It doesnt say anything bad. But the right has tried to smear her about the taxes. It is IRONIC:)
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
it does blow some big holes in Bush's thought that the wealthy are over taxed and needed the tax cuts he delivered to save them from starvation.
I don't believe that's the point Bush makes/made.
I think the point is we all pay taxes and a tax cut should apply to all taxpayers.
There are those people, I guess, who were never good at math and can't figure out why a percentage tax cut will return the most tax money to people who paid the most to begin with.
Just one of those baffling mysteries of math for some, I guess.
-
Which form do use to pay 12% taxes?
-
Which form do use to pay 12% taxes?
With the current tax cuts, a good accountant and the right tax-free investments it's quite easy to do legally. I think most major corporations only pay about 17 percent or so.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't believe that's the point Bush makes/made.
I think the point is we all pay taxes and a tax cut should apply to all taxpayers.
There are those people, I guess, who were never good at math and can't figure out why a percentage tax cut will return the most tax money to people who paid the most to begin with.
Just one of those baffling mysteries of math for some, I guess.
that may be the point Bush was trying to sell, but it simply doesn't add up.
obviously if someone makes more, and therefore pays a higher tax, then with an even and equal tax cut for everyone, those who pay more money would also save more. but that isn't what is really happening here.
it's not like someone is complaining that she saved a couple of dozen million while I only saved $100. it's saying that pre tax cut she paid 18% and after Bush's cuts she payed 12%. thats a 33% reduction in total tax paid.
did they knock a 3rd off your tax bill? not mine.
in 2000 the average tax rate was just over 16%. so before the Bush cuts she was paying a higher rate than that of the average American, but thanks to Bush's cuts she is now taxed at a rate 25% lower than the average American.
I can't believe the republicans are even talking about this since (assuming the return was legal) it was their tax cuts that saved the wealthiest Americans from the heavy burden of an additional 2% over the average.
-
Hold on there, amigo.
The 2001 Bush tax cut didn't cut a third off any rich dude's taxes. There are minimal reductions in percentage tax rates of the 2-3 higher brackets.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098619719_tax.jpg)
Further, the bracket adjustment clearly favors the lowest income taxpayers.
Before the 2001 "Bush tax cut"
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098619974_tax1.jpg)
2004, after the 2001 "Bush tax cut"
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098620002_tax2.jpg)
Now, if you want to argue that extremely rich people can afford to pay the very best tax advisors, attorneys and investment people to decrease their tax burden, I'd agree. I'd also agree that that very, very rich have tax shelters available that are not available to lower bracket taxpayers. But you can't hang either one of those situations on Bush. It's been that way forever, under Presidents from both parties.
-
So why are AH's Rebs b1tching about Heinz-Kerry's taxes? Did she broke the law or what ?
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133068&highlight=Heinz
-
It's a bit odd that the article quoted here makes it seem as if her taxes were so low strictly from tax cuts. It makes little to no mention of loopholes in regards to Kerry.
Last year she paid $627,150 in taxes. Prior to the Tax cut it would have been closer to $700,000. That moves from 12.4% to 14% of her total income.
Yes. It's all about the Bush tax cut. Oh... the irony of not having a clue what you're reporting on, reading or posting about.
-
So Dejavu; What is the problems with Heinz Kerry's taxes?
Has she violated laws ?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hold on there, amigo.
The 2001 Bush tax cut didn't cut a third off any rich dude's taxes. There are minimal reductions in percentage tax rates of the 2-3 higher brackets.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098619719_tax.jpg)
Further, the bracket adjustment clearly favors the lowest income taxpayers.
Before the 2001 "Bush tax cut"
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098619974_tax1.jpg)
2004, after the 2001 "Bush tax cut"
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098620002_tax2.jpg)
Now, if you want to argue that extremely rich people can afford to pay the very best tax advisor's, attorneys and investment people to decrease their tax burden, I'd agree. I'd also agree that that very, very rich have tax shelters available that are not available to lower bracket taxpayers. But you can't hang either one of those situations on Bush. It's been that way forever, under Presidents from both parties.
if ti was strictly what percentage bracket she fell into you would be absolutely correct.
but as anyone who does their won taxes knows it's never that simple. in an average year, if I just take standard deductions I would get about $600 back on my federal taxes, while if I take advantage of all of the deduction I am legally entitled to I get anywhere from $2,700-$3,400 back.
the Bush tax cuts were not just about changing percentage points on the tax table.
much of it was about re classifying what types or how much of what types of income is taxable. this has a much bigger impact than just changing the percentage.
for example one of the cuts reduced the taxable amount on income from dividends on privately owned stock.
the majority of working people I know own stock through their pension plans, these aren't privately owned so no tax cut for us.
while very wealthy people who are living off inherited money (or more accurately the income that money generates) get the amount of their income drastically cut while the guy who has to sweat for his income doesn't see the cuts.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Some Republicans were aghast by the low taxes paid by Teresa Heinz Kerry in 2003. But the reason she paid so little? President Bush’s controversial tax cut :lol
I think the irony many people see is that while John Kerry laments on how the rich got a tax cut at the expense of the working class, his wife took full advantage of the law to step on those very same people he champions.
-
Just found this while surfing the Onion...
Kerry Vows To Raise Wife's Taxes
BOSTON—15 September 2004
Campaigning in his home state, John Kerry vowed Monday to raise taxes on his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, whose worth is estimated to be in the range of $900 million to $3.2 billion. "My spouse has benefited long enough from tax cuts," Kerry said. "If Congress increased her taxes by 15 percent, this country would have millions of dollars to use to create new jobs and explore alternative energy sources." Kerry added that it's high time that billionaires like the one with whom he shares his life start paying their fair share.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
much of it was about re classifying what types or how much of what types of income is taxable. for example one of the cuts reduced the taxable amount on income from dividends on privately owned stock.
Source? More than this one example please. Lots and lots of Americans privately hold stock.
Further, please link any support you may have for your
"this has a much bigger impact than just changing the percentage"
statement.
How much bigger an impact? Data, please.
-
Originally posted by Staga
So Dejavu; What is the problems with Heinz Kerry's taxes?
Has she violated laws ?
It has nothing to do with legality. The irony isn't about the tax bracket, it's about the willingness of someone that is advocating higher taxes for the rich seizing upon loopholes.
I'm personally not that up in arms about what people pay in taxes. I'm a bit more concerned with what I have to pay. If someone wants to exploit a loophole, then fine... it's just a bit odd to see some people do it that seem to profess something a bit contrary as far as beliefs go.
And apathy... the options "loophole" is not newly created... and it's not something Bush drove through. It began to build in late 1999 when some companies began to experience stock drops that were very significant. One person exercised Cisco options at $60 to find them worth $10 come tax time. But you don't pay the taxes on the $10 their worth, you pay the taxes on the $60 you bought them for. It's a very odd system to say the least. It was long overdue.
As a matter of fact, the stock option system is going away for most companies. Once again, this is something that began in the late 1990s and is continuing on. It seems they created a slight imbalance on the corporate books. They didn't have to be declared as an expense, but now they do. That basically moves the tax burden back to the corporation... and they really hate that.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Oh... the irony of not having a clue what you're reporting on, reading or posting about.
Well hell. Something as silly as that has never stopped me before.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if ti was strictly what percentage bracket she fell into you would be absolutely correct.
but as anyone who does their won taxes knows it's never that simple. in an average year, if I just take standard deductions I would get about $600 back on my federal taxes, while if I take advantage of all of the deduction I am legally entitled to I get anywhere from $2,700-$3,400 back.
the Bush tax cuts were not just about changing percentage points on the tax table.
much of it was about re classifying what types or how much of what types of income is taxable. this has a much bigger impact than just changing the percentage.
for example one of the cuts reduced the taxable amount on income from dividends on privately owned stock.
the majority of working people I know own stock through their pension plans, these aren't privately owned so no tax cut for us.
while very wealthy people who are living off inherited money (or more accurately the income that money generates) get the amount of their income drastically cut while the guy who has to sweat for his income doesn't see the cuts.
wow doom and gloom woa is me. Did you forget about the increas in child tax credit?
My return nearly doubled....yet I'm considered a very POOR/low income American. Most of those tax breaks on stocks were not intended to help out working stiffs, they were to help stimulate the sluggish economy that you guys allways seem to want to blame Bush for.
Lets not forget alot of the tax breaks that Small Business got as well. Plenty of money there to allow expansion and purchasing of new equipment.
In addition I am no tax/numbers genious at all but WTF does this mean?
pre tax cut she paid 18% and after Bush's cuts she payed 12%. thats a 33% reduction in total tax paid.
How does a decrease from 18-12% come out to be a 33% reduction? You telling me that 6% decrease in taxes totaled 33% overall?
Don't get me wrong....I'm not complaining about her taxes at all. I just don't get off on all this tax cut for the rich crap....I'm not rich and I got tax relief. My brother isnt rich yet his business did well this year and he definatly took advantage of new deduction rules expanding his business and probably helping to employ a few other people accross the US in the process.
-
What like Bush doesn't use 'loopholes'
did he use loopholes to get out of going to war?
Ironic? Whatever ... repiblucans are grapsing at tufts off grass about to tumble over the cliff.....
and one more point
Money makes money ..... If you don't know that you'll always be poor :D
so tax the rich .....
Imho singles shouldn't be taxed till they make about 30,000$ a year ... households no taxed until about 50,000 ... and give em a 10,000 break for every dependant.
then just tax the richer in greater increments as thier gross wealth increases.... the 'people' already pay pleanty at tho's level .. sales tax everytime you buy someting... taxes for car's, roads etc...
tax the folks with money ...but end all taxes (includeing propety taxes) for incomeless persons over 65 :D
hey but that's me.....
-
Originally posted by Manedew
What like Bush doesn't use 'loopholes'
did he use loopholes to get out of going to war?
Ironic? Whatever ... repiblucans are grapsing at tufts off grass about to tumble over the cliff.....
Funny....I really havnt heard too much outrage directly from republicans over this.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think the irony many people see is that while John Kerry laments on how the rich got a tax cut at the expense of the working class, his wife took full advantage of the law to step on those very same people he champions.
Nope.. just you from my pov.. Plain silliness to think that anyone would not take advantage of the present situation.. Kinda like this from the article:
Thus, Bush’s 20-point cut in dividend tax rates is saving Lewis a ton of money—call it $19.4 million. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Lewis has given $18.9 million to anti-Bush organizations. In other words, what Bush has saved Lewis on this one transaction covers Lewis’ cost of battling Bush, with half a million bucks of walking-around money left over.
-
Liberals:
WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
THE ECONOMY IS FAULTER
Enter Bush Tax cuts to stimulate said economy
WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
HE GAVE TAX CUTS TO THE PEOPLE THAT DO THE MAJOR INVESTING IN THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!
Cry me a river
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Nope.. just you from my pov.. Plain silliness to think that anyone would not take advantage of the present situation.. Kinda like this from the article:
Plain hypocrisy to take advantage of the present situation the complain about it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Plain hypocrisy to take advantage of the present situation the complain about it.
I've not seen compliants.. I've seen things that need a fixin. 8) You'll see what you need too though..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
I've not seen compliants.. I've seen things that need a fixin. 8) You'll see what you need too though..
If an ATM machine is broken, do you take all the money then sue the bank for losing your savings?
Oh wait. You're a NeoCom. Of course you would.
You wouldn't see the hypocrisy, though.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If an ATM machine is broken, do you take all the money then sue the bank for losing your savings?
Oh wait. You're a NeoCom. Of course you would.
You wouldn't see the hypocrisy, though.
I DO see a moron though..
Are they suppose to pay more than their tax burden? Martlet go away you dumb****..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
I DO see a moron though..
Are they suppose to pay more than their tax burden? Martlet go away you dumb****..
Ahhh, when shown to be the fool, you reduce the argument to ***** and ******.
Liberals are funny.
-
Shown to be a fool?? lmao martlet.. your handsomehunk isn't capable of such things.. You called me a theif and in noway challenged any of my statements... Now get off my leg..
I'll call you the winner in the fool claiming box.. You always exclaim it first..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Shown to be a fool?? lmao martlet.. your handsomehunk isn't capable of such things.. You called me a theif and in noway challenged any of my statements... Now get off my leg..
I'll call you the winner in the fool claiming box.. You always exclaim it first..
I called you a thief?
HAHAHAHA. I didn't show you to be a fool, you just did it yourself........again.
You can't address the point I made because it's dead on. You can just stomp your feet and cry about it.
-
So, you are saying you didnt call me a thief? martlet, you dont even know what you yourself wrote?? What is this saying:
If an ATM machine is broken, do you take all the money then sue the bank for losing your savings? Oh wait. You're a NeoCom. Of course you would.
Is the above directed at some entity not in our conversation??
Then you say you've shown me to be a fool by saying this??
Ahhh, when shown to be the fool, you reduce the argument to ***** and ******.
I dont even know what the ****s' are cause I didnt write those or anything close..
Then you say this??
I didn't show you to be a fool, you just did it yourself.
my gawd man.. make up your mind..
You can't address the point I made because it's dead on. You can just stomp your feet and cry about it.
Hey moron, I did address it.. Too bad your too stupid to realize..
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Hey moron, I did address it.. Too bad your too stupid to realize..
You did? I must have missed it amongst all the whining.
Are you stating it ISN'T hypocritical to take advantage of a system you say hurts America and is grounds for dismissal?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Nope.. just you from my pov.. Plain silliness to think that anyone would not take advantage of the present situation..
So Kerry needs a law in order to do what he thinks is right?
If he truly believed that the rich should pay more then he should have paid more and he had the opportunity to do so. Motive and opportunity are supposedly there. One must ask why he did not take advantage of the situation. Perhaps the motive was not that strong.
True Irony: Gifts to the government are tax deductable.
Trivia question for today... of Bush, Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards, who has the least net worth?
-
Answer: Bush
Only because he has lost everything in the past that has been given to him.. Hopefully, present circumstances as well..
So Kerry needs a law in order to do what he thinks is right?
I dont follow.. Are you stating that Kerry needs to change the tax laws? Isn't that what has been done already??
edit: aww, i c your point now. I dont know.. Perhaps he felt his charity would be better in other places??
If he truly believed that the rich should pay more then he should have paid more and he had the opportunity to do so. Motive and opportunity are supposedly there. One must ask why he did not take advantage of the situation. Perhaps the motive was not that strong.
He paid his tax debt just like most all other americans.. That in itself gives him the right to dispute it.. Are we attempting to judge Kerry by a different standard than Bush?? He fulfilled his obligations to the government, does this mean he cannot have an opinion of his obligations??
True Irony: Gifts to the government are tax deductable.
haha! Yes, very good!
Note: Sorry Sealot for the rant/hijack my friend.. 8)
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Are we attempting to judge Kerry by a different standard than Bush??
No, we are judging Kerry by his own statements.
Bush believes the tax breaks are the right move. Kerry says that his own income bracket should pay higher taxes, yet he doesn't do so.
HYPOCRITE.
-
BTW... in the debate... I don't recall Kerry mentioning stock options or dividends. He was going to roll back the taxes. I can't help but see irony in virtually every "statement" being made by kerry supporters in this thread. "The tax break wasn't that big of a deal... it's the dividends and options... so let's roll back the tax break."
-
I think the point of rolling back the tax break was to reduce the tax burden on the shrinking middle class..
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Liberals:
WAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
THE ECONOMY IS FAULTER
Enter Bush Tax cuts to stimulate said economy
WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
HE GAVE TAX CUTS TO THE PEOPLE THAT DO THE MAJOR INVESTING IN THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!
Cry me a river
major flaw in your thinking.
say you have some rich guy who makes $20,000,000 a year, he spends a bit of it and saves the rest, with interest rates so low he might even invest it over seas or just buy gold and let the money sit until the economy is doing better, who knows.
the point is you give a guy who has money more money it's not going to change much. hell, you could accomplish the same result for the economy by keeping the money and letting the gov't invest it, that way the gov't still has it, and can use the profit and the principle to pay down our debt. instead we give it to a rich guy to invest so he can get richer.
if however you gave that tax break to the working class it would get spent. they would buy luxuries like dental care, electricity, food, and the like. these sort of things have to be produced and is you have customers with cash in hand to spend you will have no problem getting people willing to invest.
here's a bit of info that I would have thought would have been obvious, but from as many times as I've heard Republicans say "we need to cut the taxes of the wealthy to stimulate the economy", it isn't.
OK here it is - the rich already have money. thats why they call them that.
the funny thing is the republicans who run the show around here know it too, they just won't say it out loud. why do you think we got that early tax refund a few years back? the one that capped out at $600?
even though the wealthy were entitled to it, it had no real effect on their finances. working people spent that money, and spending fuels an economy, not investing.
-
Actually... that would increase the tax burden on everyone. Note.. he never said he wasn't going to roll back taxes for everyone... he said he'd not "increase taxes" and cited increasing the child deduction and so forth. I wonder why he was having to say he was going to increase deductions as a means to not increase taxes?
The problem with Terresa's tax statement isn't the $70,000 she saved in taxes because of the tax break. It's the $800,000 she saved because of loopholes and tax shelters.
Think about it a bit. Why this is about increasing taxes and not about imposing a flat tax is beyond me. "Tax the wealthy" has become a handwaiving statement for the DNC. "Pretend to tax the wealthy" is much more applicable. The roll-back would be hitting everyone... but we'll pretend it's just hitting the wealthy.
-
Apathy... nobody puts 20,000,000 in savings. That's one major flaw in your thinking. The next is using that last ",000". I believe you have no idea who the "rich" are by today's standards. You've become so accostomed to spewing rhetoric that you're simply not understanding what you're talking about.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... that would increase the tax burden on everyone. Note.. he never said he wasn't going to roll back taxes for everyone... he said he'd not "increase taxes" and cited increasing the child deduction and so forth. I wonder why he was having to say he was going to increase deductions as a means to not increase taxes?
The problem with Terresa's tax statement isn't the $70,000 she saved in taxes because of the tax break. It's the $800,000 she saved because of loopholes and tax shelters.
Think about it a bit. Why this is about increasing taxes and not about imposing a flat tax is beyond me. "Tax the wealthy" has become a handwaiving statement for the DNC. "Pretend to tax the wealthy" is much more applicable. The roll-back would be hitting everyone... but we'll pretend it's just hitting the wealthy.
I believe he did say he would raise taxes on the nations most wealthy..
-
Did you listen to him when he said exactly how he could raise tax revenue without raising the lower class's taxes? I'm thinking you didn't. He's going to roll back the taxes for everyone. He's going to increase deductions (that have already been increased) as a means for countering it in certain situations... and only to a degree. That's lawyer speak for "taxes are going back up."
Maybe you should pay more attention to what your savior is saying.
-
He said in the 2nd debate he would raise taxes on the Nation's most wealthy..