Rather than the headline "Heinz Kerry Says Husband Would Be Cautious" which is attached to the story, the AP should have written: "Heinz Kerry Disses 140,000 troops in Iraq by calling them 'boys and girls.'"

Bring it on, Teresa! Keep talking!

Of course, it's fair, they're just using the law as written. It's only unfair, even outrageous, if Republicans use the law as written to reduce their taxes. Duh, I mean, don't you guys know anything?

Regarding Kerry's African American wife, my favorite recent quote of hers had the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan. She should follow John Edwards' advice and watch a little more tv (besides those infomercials for bad makeup and hair care products).

Let's be clear: the rich know they can shield income from taxation. Kerry in his wontanly duplicitous manner takes full advantage of this fact.

It's time to repeal the income tax and move to a "Fair Tax" which taxes consumption, not investment or wealth.

The Kerry's are the king and queen of hypocrisy.

And as noted above, John Kerry knows full well the rich will be able to avoid any income tax increases he might throw their way...which is why he'll have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his bloated social programs...

Kerry is both a national security and economic disaster waiting to happen...vote for Kerry if you want to lose your life and your wallet at the same time...

I really hope in the next debate, when Bush is rebutting Kerry's argument about increasing taxes on only the rich, that Bush fires back with something like:
Well, you know John, that sounds well and fine, but you know full well that the rich have all these accountants and just find ways to avoid taxes...you know that well, John, because you have done that yourself...why your own tax return data shows you paid only 12.8% of your income of 6.8 million dollars last year...

Hmm.....lets see if that is under what they'd pay with the Alternative Minimum Tax.......

Bush could also stress the point to John Kerry: How is it Fiscally responsible to curb your main force job creators (small business owners) by raising taxes on them and their businesses?

Two things:

I'm trying to look for Kerry and Heinz's tax returns, if anyone can find them in like PDF format, email me.

Second: I located the Club For Growth release that drudge quotes the Wall Street Journal as reporting....and the numbers don't match up.

Drudge has the WSJ as saying "$6.8 million in income" and "$725,000 in income taxes", but the Club For Growth actually has "$5.5 million in income" and "$704,227 in income taxes." But the rate remains 12.8%.....I wonder what the reason is for the difference?

Actually, I was thinking today about how often John Kerry says the personal prounoun "I."

And I wonder if we might collectively go over the first two debates for a irrefutable count of how many times Kerry said "I" versus how many times Bush said "I."

As in Kerry's assertions that "I was in Cambodia, I was at Safwan, I was at Kyoto."

John Kerry is the "I" man. Me, my first and I. And what a sad commentary on our nation that this man is the Democratic nominee of a once great party that glorified in real patriots like Mike Mansfield.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M000113

Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%. Don't complain too loudly, as Kerry likely wants to raise that.

Um, why is Teresa campaigning in Texas?

I doubt Bush bothers campaigning in Massachusetts.

Think of McAllen as far-north Mexico, and you'll have an idea why she's there.

I have John Kerry's tax returns, I need Teresa's now...I must find out if they paid the Alternative Minimum Tax

The tax issue is case in point of why our income tax system is need of reforming (or abolishing).

Give me a flat tax, or get rid of it alltogether as far as I am concerned.

As for her comments on the war, she is a loose cannon, but I honestly think she is at times more truthful about what her husband would do than her husband is.

With a top dividend rate of 15%, if most of Ms. Kerry's income is from dividends, and some from interest on tax-free municipal bonds, it doesn't really take much accountant finagling to achieve an overall federal tax rate of 12.8%.

Seems fair to me.

Man, I live in Houston even! I wish I had known TeRAYza was in McAllen (Northern Mexico), I would rather have intentionally NOT gone. She must have been there to see for herself what an open border looks like -- and to get those new Americans flooding in some voter registration cards!

Quite right, David. If you haven't invested in tax free munis, you probably don't realize that the yield you receive is roughly the same as you would receive if you invested in T-Bills and paid the 39.6% fed tax. By investing in tax free munis you are effectively paying your tax dollars to a local municipality (by receiving low yields) rather than to the federal government. Frankly, the Wall Street Journal is being WAY DISHONEST by trumpeting Kerry's low effective federal tax rate. They really do know better.

Here's a recap of Senator Edwards' tax bill for your viewing pleasure.

Bill,

I'm flattered that you put my comment on the front page like that. Thanks!

But now I feel like I hafta respond. ;-)

Why would I go heavy on T-bills? Over time, inflation will eat me alive. T-bills only offer short-term, not long-term preservation of capital.

I can buy a diverse portfolio of stocks, and pick a portfolio that goes heavy on dividends. There are stocks that pay decent dividends and have a history of steady appreciation. I might get 2% - 3% current income, and see the value of the underlying stock portfolio appreciate by 4% - 8% annually.

I only pay 15% federal income tax on the dividend, and nothing on the capital appreciation until I sell.

On the T-bill, I gotta pay my marginal tax rate on ordinary income. Kind of ugly.

As for President Bush, I think the single largest component of his income nowadays is the $400K per year he pulls down as president. That's all earned income (and boy does he earn it!), taxed at the top rate for ordinary income.

Help the grassroots movement seeking to:

-repeal the 16th amendment!

-abolish the IRS!

-end all tax returns!

-end all income taxes!

-end all FICA payroll taxes!

-end all death taxes!

-refund tax on basic necessities!

-stop Congressional meddling!

All of this and more can be achieved with one simple 23% federal sales tax, offset by 23% lower prices resulting from removal of business taxes and tax compliance costs embedded into all commodities.

It's all in HR25, the Fair Tax Bill.

Go to FairTax.org now and learn more!

The worst thing I can fault them for is hypocracy. I fully expect, heck I want, people to act in their best economic interests. It's what makes capitalism work. The problem is the incentives and disincentives the government creates. Incentives to move toward muni-bonds instead of private-sector bonds, incentives for an international merger to result in the foreign company owning the American one, etc, are the problem. A non-distorting system would be much better. I really wouldn't mind if that's a flat tax, a consumption tax, a value added tax, or whatever. (Well, I'd have my preference, but any would beat the current system of multiple rates, exclusions, deductions, etc.)

Clyde
Approximately 45% of American are willing to have their taxes Raised (i.e. they support Kerry) Having a fair tax code means education of the Kool-aid drinkers and emasculating the power of Congress. I would love a fair tax, as a small business owner I spend one day of ten on regulations and about 20% of the cost of any playhouse is due to State and Federal meddling. I am the only builder/designer in the country who works with the National Program for Playground Safety, so what do they (the paper pushers) do with it. There have been no regulations of any sort on Playhouse Safety, yet thousands of trips to the emergency room are due to poor playhouse design and construction.

Anyway, I am ranting. Sorry. I'd love a fair tax, I just don't see it happening, very sad. Both Senators Harkin and Grassley know MY feeling about the tax code, but …..An’t seen much from those birddogs.

Ed R-
Ex-Physics Professor, Creator/builder of Kidsafe Playhouses
Edward1960@hotmail.com

Unless there is a HUGE change in large parts of the population about what role governments should play, a simple tax system isn't in the cards. The reason the tax code is so complicated is that it is the easiest way for politicians to implement potentially well meaning public policies to help their friends, I mean constituents, er voters. Why do we have huge farm subsidies? Because it is good public policy, if you believe the farmers. A progressive tax code (instead of a flat tax) disportionally helps poor families, and helping the poor is usually good public policy, isn't it?

Look, the world, financial markets, society, everything is getting more and more complicated and intertwined everyday. Pining for a simple flat tax is like howling at the moon - it might make you feel better, but don't expect much to happen. The best we can hope for in our lifetime is tweaks here and there to get rid of the more egretious distortions.

Ummm... I thought sales taxes were generally considered to be *regressive*, i.e., they disproportionately hammer the poor and lower middle class.

- Eric.

Re: Regressive sales taxes. I think it depends on how you define "regressive". The left would call it regressive, but since sales taxes are essentially a flat tax, I would call it a neutral tax. Not progressive nor regressive. Now government run lotteries are often called a regressive tax with some justification. If you look at the income demographics of lottery buyers, you find that poorer people are disporportionally represented. But then, lotteries are an elective purchase, unlike other taxes which are mandantory, so even that is a bit of a stretch.

This explains why Kerry is willing to raise taxes while Bush wants to cut them. I'd be happy to pay 12% or 13% or 14% myself! Now, since I currently pay >30%, I'm strongly in favor of being taxed at the same rate as Kerry.

Phil T,

Yeah, but the net effect of sales taxes may be regressive.

Poor and middle class people spend most of their income. And a lot of it on taxable stuff.

Rich folks can live well without spending most of their income. On the portion they don't spend on taxable items, they then pay no taxes at all.

The real scandal is that their taxable income is only $6.8 million. If they make 5% on Teresa's $1-3 billion, then their actual income is closer to $60 million than $6.8 million. I believe I read somewhere that much of their money is in tax-exampt municipal bonds, so their income doesn't get reported as taxable income.

If their annual income is about $60 million, then their tax rate is more like 1.2% than 12.8%.

It sure makes me feel good seeing there are other "flat taxers" out there besides myself. I always look at it (the current tax system) as a "disinsentive" on reasons to try to better ones self. Why should I work harder to earn more when the government is going to take proportionally more? Seems similar to the factory workers in the old USSR, the more tanks you make, the more they want you to make.

"A progressive tax code (instead of a flat tax) disportionally helps poor families, and helping the poor is usually good public policy, isn't it? "

I disagree with this assessment, and the Kerry's are a perfect example.

People who earn in the lower brackets rarely have enough deductions to reduce their tax burden by much at all.

Also, I personally think everyone in all income brackets should be paying some amount of money in taxes, I think our progressive tax code, that not only exempts the poorest families from paying anything, but actually returns more to them, than they paid in, helps encourage the whole "entitlment" attitude. People need to realize that all those nice things the government does is not free, and that there is a tax payer writing a check to pay for those "free" things.

I sometimes think there would be a huge tax revolt, if instead of taxes being withheld at payroll for so many workers, everyone had to write a check to the government for what they owed.

I would love to see the income tax abolished (I am one of those freaks that doesn't think an income tax is constutitional, although the supremes disagreed with me long ago), and some type of sales or VAT tax-although there is no way I would approve of both an income tax and a VAT or sales tax, because the tax spenders would be more than happy to raise either or both, the next time they decide to come up with another entitlement.

Didn't I read somewhere today that Kerry also has an offshore account? I think he's had that since 1983. This guy is totally unbelievable.

a very nice Marin couple I worked for a decade ago clued me in on how the rich stay rich: they hold on to every penny. I don't think that's a bad thing; I think paying a disproportionate percent of taxes is. Just is right about the sense of entitlement that can be bred through income tax "credits" given to people in a lesser tax bracket. would we not breed a sense of ownership if everyone paid a reasonable share? and could you imagine what would happen if we instituted a flat tax rate applicable to everyone earning $35k+, and a consumables tax on all non-grocery items? I'd love to see the figure on that as tax revenue in comparison to current tax revenues.

Speaking of crazy, am I nuts to suggest that $53 oil (an all-time record high) less than one month before the U.S. Presidential election has something to do with the fact that OPEC countries are trying to influence the outcome?

Venezuela's fraudulently elected (that's according to MIT mathematicians) leader is certainly not Bush-friendly. The rest aren't much better. And I think all this talk of "democracy in the Mideast" may even have made the Saudis nervous enough to secretly stab him in the back.

pj,

My understanding is that Ms. Kerry reported total income, not taxable income, of $6.8 million or so. That would include any tax-free bond income.

I've read that her fortune is about $700 million - $1 billion. But who's counting, huh? I don't know what she's invested in, but if she still owns a large amount of Heinz stock, that's yielding about a 1.14% dividend right now.

I don't know what tax-free munis are yielding, but I don't think it's 5%. For a Maryland state bond fund with an average maturity of around 7 years, the yield is currently about 3.5%.

Then, finally, what she "owns" I believe is actually in trust ultimately for John Heinz's children. I don't know what part of the overall income she has counted as her own, and what she's counted as belonging to his children.

That's really the scandal of it, that the lamestream media have not demanded to see her taxes, her financial arrangements.

Talldave I think you are right that the middle east, including the Saudi's do not want to see a successful democracy in Iraq. Many of the countries are fascist or so close they might as well be, the last thing they want is to be answerable to an electorate. And that desire I think is the reason the oil prices are going up.

From what I understand Mass. has a place on your tax form where you can "donate" more taxes if you wish. Why is it so important for EVERYONE else with alot of money to pay more taxes, but Kerry is not willing to pay but the barest miniumum of his?

I also read that during that short period of time when Kerry was not married to a wealthy woman, he gave less than 0.8% of his income to charity.
So just we pay more taxes to pay for programs and Kerry can sit in his private jet and pay 12.8%. The hypocrisy makes me sick.

Not quite on topic except with regard to the tax codes, but....

Something I read the other day gave me a great insight to Bush's economic policies. The Conservatives are busy complaining about how Bush is growing the government, not reducing it like any good conservative would. And Bush is growing the government, but here is where the insight comes in...

Think of our society/country as a building. It has a foundation of programs on which other things are built. Part of the foundation of our country contains social security, medicare, welfare, taxes/codes, Dept of Ed, among other things. However, in todays time, all of the parts I mentioned are damaged, crumbling, decaying. Now as anyone who has ever built a house with cards knows, you remove any of the foundation and it comes down. But if you shore up the foundation with other cards, you can remove damaged/bad cards.

In other words, we can't get rid of Social Security, medicare, welfare and the convoluted tax code until we have something to put in its place. I think Bush wants to create other, better, more efficient programs in place of what we have, ones that encourage people to get out and take care of themselves, not take from the government. We can't get rid of the crumbling programs until we get better programs inplace. These are the jobs programs he talks about, the financial help with education, the No Child Left Behind Act, etc.

Learn from the old outdated programs, create programs that don't turn in to a lifelong dependance on the government, that fit with today's world. Then people will be more willing to move off of the old programs.

Remember, Bush believes in Jesus' saying, "Give a man a fish and you feed him once, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."

Just my insight.

I'm sick of "Flat Taxes", they still don't target the rich as most of our fevered imaginations dream they will. GIVE UP TRYING TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE RICH and GIVE UP TRYING TO MAKE THEM PAY THEIR "FAIR SHARE", consumption tax, NOW. TAX EVERYTHING SOLD RETAIL.

As and avid Fair Tax supporter, I must comment that a consumption tax is the most progressive taxation of all times.

First, it is totally voluntary. If you don't want to pay tax, don't buy anything.

Second. Those who can afford to buy more things pay more taxes. Those who can't pay less.

Third. There is a provision in HR25 that allows every US citizen to receive a rebate check each month that would cover the taxation paid by those at the poverty level. This would mean both John Kerry and the bum who lives in a shack would both receive the same amount each month, efectively removing a large burden off of the bum.

Fourth. Items like food would not be taxed.

Fifth. The bum in the previous example would take home 100% of his paycheck, not 80%. Add the fact that when said bum purchases booze, he's paying tax yet again and you can see how consumption based taxation benefits the poor.

Sixth. Illegal aliens, drug dealers, whores, panhandlers, even paid-under-the-table construction workers would pay tax. No avoiding it.

Seventh. Cessation of taxation on corporations would provide and incentive for businesses to move their overseas operations back into the states, creating more jobs, benefiting the poor.

The only way this isn't really going to happen is if you vote for congresscritters and other 'crats that don't support Fair Tax. If you make it a big deal to your representatives, it will become a big deal.

End Rant

Sharp - is there a good web site where a good consumption tax proposal is outlined? I like your argument with one proviso. The current income tax system is very progressive in that richer people pay a higher percentage of their income than poorer people - the different income tax brackets. A consumption tax doesn't have this feature, except, as you pointed out, very poor people would have a rebate system, which may be good enough for the class warriors out there.

I have no problems with the idea of a consumption tax provided it came with an abolishment of the income tax, although I live in a no sales tax and no income tax state, and I like it that way. I know how much my property tax bill is, and how much I pay is determined by the property I choose or don't choose to purchase. The state does do an excellent job though of milking the tourists.

I am frankly amazed to see anyone advocating a consumption tax in this day and age. Our whole economy is based on consumption. Disincentivizing consumption by instituting a national sales or consumption tax on top of local and state taxes will not just stifle but nearly asphyxiate demand and in turn wreak unprecedented havoc on the economy.

Remeber, taxes have been paid once on those dividends. Assuming the top corporate rate, the tax rate on dividends is north of 40%. You won't find me complaing about the Kerrys (Kerries?) 12.8% rate. With the double taxation it is much higher (would have been higher if W hadn't cut taxes).

I'm no Kerry shill, I'd much rather dividends be deductible from the corporate world and have the individulas or corporations that recieve them pay taxes on them as regular income. Then we can make make a flat tax viable and effective.

The real issue here is that John Kerry and his wife are playing the system while calling for higher taxes of the rich as if they would welcome them. They don't pay a 'fair share' (I base fair on a flat percentage of income. Any income.)


I take every deduction I can and I still pay a higher percentage of my income. Is that fair? Of course not. There are some reasonable deductions; such as real charity contributions, actual business expenses (no free 4 star dinners), etc.


I however, would like to see a lower tax rate and no exemptions except (you saw it coming) for a minimum income for federal taxes - everyone pays some local taxes.

A few points:
All that money Theresa has, most of it is in trusts. It's not hers, so doesn't appear on her tax forms.
A consumption tax is not the same as a sales tax.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/080304G.html
Why is Bush mostly in Treasuries (as above, a pitifully awful investment strategy). This is a guess but don't Presidents put their assets into a blind trust? Make sure that they don't hold stock (in mainstream businesses, not that little timber thing) so that they cannot be accused of favouritism?