That's my point, though. He (or his advisors) fill out the same forms, but his advisors are armed with much more knowledge about the subtleties of tax law than everyone else. Which makes a huge difference and potentially preserves "low" taxes for the really rich.
I agree. There are some pretty sketchy and abusive (though possibly entirely legal) schemes out there. I just don't see that the article has pinned any of those on Kerry -- other than by suggestion. It's entirely possible his tax rate is legit -- and just. We don't know. Sure seems low -- but we just can't say whether he's a hypocrit here or not. Not until we know why the rate was low. So we're kinda jumping the gun here. And possibly giving too much credit to those dastardly lawyers and accountants.
There are ways to get tax free money, but in most cases you have to have money to make it. I know a couple of my clients are involved with insurance deals where they put money in now, and at age 55 or so they can start taking money out tax free. That may not seem like that big of deal but if a person has cash to start with at a young age it can add up. What usually happens in most plans (401K, Roth IRA, IRA, etc) is their is contribution limits on what you can put in on a yearly basis but these plans work in some other factors like age, so instead of being capped at $12k it allows someone to put in tons more than that (I've seen plans for my clients at $60k/year). But these plans have costs. Obviously a person has to be able to save tremendous amounts of money for retirement (a 401K allows $12k, a defined plan like profit sharing can take that upto $40k/year/person). So even someone making $200k it is odd that they could save $40k/year, but for those people having tons of cash it's a way for them to save for retirment, and in the end they get the money out without paying taxes on it's growth. I'm a CPA and don't try to understand all the aspects to financial planning since I work primarily with small businesses and their owners, but I do understand their are legal ways for people to shelter money and I usually leave that upto the financial planners I work with. So I have no idea on what Kerry did, but my guess is was probably alot of planning years ago that has allowed him to be in this situation. Also probaly mix in a lot of money on capital gains (selling property) and dividends which have lower tax rates than regular income.
two separate proposals... there are those pushing for a consumption tax. the biggest organization behind this is called FairTax. the other just wants a flat tax rate on income.
I imagine most of the Kerry's income come from dividends from their heinz stock and capital gains so I imagine Kerry is benefitting from Bush's tax cut which is what Kerry has been saying all along. Kerry and Warren Buffet don't need the tax cut.
okay thanks... i could see the flat income tax easily passing during Bush's second term... but imo, they would never seriously consider a flat consumption tax b/c it would strain the retail sector of the economy, which basically accounts for 2/3 of GNP...
i read this yesterday and thought abot posting it, but then, why bother? you'll all just go into auto-debunk mode, with some long-winded rationale for why this doesn't mean anything. is there any criticism of kerry you'd find valid, particularly one that somehow reflected better on president bush?
Okay, hold it right there... I find it VERY hard to believe that George and Laura only had a combined income of $550,000 last year. And, to me, that completely shatters the credibility of the whole article and its numbers. -- droxford
I believe that once you become president you have to put money in blind trusts and other such things to avoid conflicts so your actual year to year realized income isn't going to be that high. He might not have reported that much income but I imagine his net worth isn't too shabby.
Actually just over $700k but paid 31% to federal taxes: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-4.html
Irony. Kerry constantly speaks about how the rich are not paying 'their fair share' and then has the gaul to use methods to decrease his tax burden? If he feels so strongly why is he paying so little? And then he has the nerve to blame corporations for doing the same thing he is doing? Not only that but Edwards paid 97% of his income 27 million (if I recall) out in the form of dividends to not have to pay medicare taxes yet we are lambased because we don't pay enough?? Cheney ripped the hell out of him during the debate and Edwards came back with some lame Haliburton claim. Its preposterous that these two can actually get away with such comments being for the middle class when their policies will undoubtedly create higher taxes and eventually a lower standard of living for that middle class. Hypocrites.
Edwards and Kerry have been up front about the fact that 1. they are rich, and 2. therefore, the rich, including themselves, should pay higher taxes. Now, since they don't renounce their wordly goods and voluntarily fork over all their money, they are banned from ever supporting the idea that the Bush administration's tax giveaways, which accounted for something on the order of 50-75% of the deficit, and had little to no economic stimulus effect, and occur during a time of "sacrifice" while we are "at war", as the president likes to say, were a lousy idea? Ouch, tough to live up to those standards. I guess I'm a hypocrite too. I can't imagine what that makes really rich guys like Warren Buffet or George Soros.
There is a HUGH difference between having a good income and being Ultra rich. Raising tax rate by 5% hurts the guy makes 200k a lot more than the guy makes 2M. Calling for more tax on harding working people who make 200k a year is plain ridiculous. You are punishing the Doctors, Engineers, Bankers and other high skill/knowledge workers. And these people don't have the 300M dollars sitting in the bank like Kerry.
The tax increase only effects the marginal amount made above 200K. So if you make $250,000, only $50,000 is affected by the tax cut. I think the cut was around 4 percent, so that person would have to pay $2K more in taxes which isn't much. The biggest winners from the tax cuts were the rich people who made all their money from dividends and capital gains which I assume includes John Kerry which dropped from 38 percent to 15 percent. So Bill Gates will only pay 15 percent on the $100 million dollar dividend he gave himself this year.
A question I have for the Kerry supporters: -Is it $200k/person (meaning a married couple can have upto $400k) or -$100k/person (meaning a married couple can have $200k) -If it's $200k per person it's one thing (it would likley only hit succesful professionals and succesful business owners). If it's $100k person (or $200k/couple) then it hits alot of people. Just unclear on what makes up the $200k figure and the top 2%.
If they are up front about the fact that they should why don't they? Edwards could have recieved his almost 30 million in salary but instead did it in the form of a dividend to not pay a significant amount more taxes and medicare payroll tax. If he wants to ask people to 'sacrifice' then why won't he? Give me a break with Kerry. The guy refinanced a house his wife gave him to pay for part of his campaign. He's married two very wealthy women and is living the good life as an elite. He paid next to nothing in taxes and then lauds at others for not doing so. He has still yet to disclose his personal finances (errrr I mean his wife's ...his annual salary is less than the interest she makes weekly) I disagree with much of what Bush does, but he's much, much better than the alternative.
I believe it is $200K jointly after deductions. So you write all the kids, interests, daycare, business equipment including the hummer, and then you pay the tax on everything above $200K. So if you make $202,000 after all your deductions, you will pay a whopping 80 bucks more a year in taxes.
