Kerrys paid just 12% on combined Income tax in 2003
 

It may have been posted before, but just because it was brought up in the debates.



"Last year, John Kerry and his wife paid just 12% of their combined income in income taxes, despite their assertion that the rich should contribute increased amounts to government coffers. In contrast, President and Mrs. Bush, who had a substantially lower income than the Kerry's, paid over 28% in taxes."


http://www.atr.org/pressreleases/200...xes-9-7-04.htm




:crazy:

WSJ stated on Monday that by their calculations if a flat 17% tax rate was introduced John Kerry would pay $500,000 more in taxes per year ( combined with his/his wives income).

Meanwhile hes bitching at Bush for using "tax loopholes "


From 2nd debate


Kerry: And you know why he gets that count? The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

BUSH: I own a timber company?


I also like how he says his tax increase will only effect " 3 people in this room, me, the President, and you (moderator)"
:lol:


:cool:

HAHA. He wasn't bashing bush for using tax loopholes. He was saying that the Bush campaign comes up with numbers for small business owners filing their business revenue on their personal income taxex, by including people like Bush and Cheney who claim $1-$100 and don't employ any people. One of their arguments against the tax on the rich is hurting these "small businesses". It hurts some, but not nearly as many as the campaign says.

To your main point, Kerry readily says that he gets tax breaks and doesn't think it's right. Do you honestly think that if the goverment is GIVING HIM MONEY he would, or is EVEN ABLE TO say no? Of course not! He's just getting what the current tax system says he deserves. He says he's going to change it. Bush says the current system works. Who's right?

Bush probably used the same financial adviser that he used when coming up with the initial costs of his prescription drug plan. In other words, kerry used a better accountant.

Or, since kerry is worth more, he pays less taxes. That's the bush plan.

Yeah.. I was gonna say... shouldn't the amount of taxes Kerry pays be a reflection of the President's policies and not Kerry himself? Seems sorta funky to be trying to trap a guy on the amount of taxes he pays when it's a federally regulated thing and not his own decision.

Silly pundits.

I recall in I believe the second debate Kerry saying he used tax loopholes because he could and they were there. He also said it wasn't right. Big deal.

What that 12% shows me is how truly little of their income the rich pay. Yet, to hear the GOP talking heads, the rich pay 50%. I have friends who make $50,000 and less and they paid more than 12% (which for them is eating at their needs far far more than the 12% eats at the rich's needs).

Doesn't tell me Kerry's dishonest, tells me that there is something seriously wrong with the system under Bush. Kind of proves the point the rich are the ones benefitting most from the tax breaks, that Bush claims is helping everyone. How you can argue against that is beyond me.

I say flat tax on income. 10% on $35,000 - $50,000, 12% on $50,001 - $100,000 15% on $100,001 - $999,999 and 25% on $1,000,000 and up. NO LOOPHOLES, deductions for self and dependants and maybe a retirement fund for those under $100,000. Then hold people's feet to the flames and make sure they pay what they owe.

Hell, even turn it into an Amendment that says gov't can only raise tax rates in a national crisis and that the raise is temporary and is reviewed every 2 years.

I'm sure there are some grredy fucks that would argue that still isn't fair, but I have a feeling the vast majority of the people would find that more than equitable and fair.

Uh, I disagree. I paid higher than 12% last year, not because of the president. Because I don't have a good enough accountant to find all the loopholes. It still makes me furious that he wants to raise taxes on those that make over 200,000, which should include him. And his taxes won't go up. He needs to own up to his plan, and pay in like everyone else. If he would do that, I might be able to find some respect for the guy.

Why wouldn't Kerry's taxes go up on his plan? He has even stated under his plan he would pay more.

Because the president's tax cut has NOTHING To do with John Kerry using loopholes to only get 14% tax rate. He uses tax shelters, and loopholes to have a lower rate. The same loopholes that he critizes the rich( and president Bush) for using ....

The same loopholes he is promising to fix when he raises taxes on himself.

Sounds like a jerk move to me :rolleyes:

Proves that "Reaganomics" works, but not for the reasons commonly stated. Raise income tax rates and the rich will shift or defer income. Lower income taxes to a reasonable rate, it becomes "cheaper" to just pay the taxes rather than shift or defer them - and total tax dollars collected goes up. This is true up to hitting the magic equilibrium tax rate on income.

The already rich pay what they want to pay. The people who are trying to get rich are the ones getting screwed.

Ever wonder why most ultra-rich people, the ones who did not earn their own money (trust-fund babies, entertainers, etc.) are Democrat? Because Democratic economic policy benefits them and poor people.

hmm.... that is funny because usually, people say the exact opposite.

I think they are dems because they have all the money they will ever need. It's the difference between "fuck you" money (what you say to your boss when you get the money) and "fuck you republicans" money. Their taxes may go up with a dem but it isn't going to make any difference in their lives because they already have more money than they will ever need. They believe that having that extra money taken from them will help out. Since they won't miss it, they really don't care.

At least Kerry is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

And what if his plan is to cut loopholes? Which is one of the things he has said he would do.

I don't see a problem. Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett say they should pay higher taxes than they do. But like 99% of the population they are going to use any loophole they can. Doesn't mean they are hypocrits it means the system needs a serious overhaul and needs to find a way to get rid of the loopholes.

The reason we were successful and had industry and the highest standard of living with very little debt in the late 40's- early 70's was because there weren't loopholes and most people felt they paid their fair shareand tax rates reached the 80 and higher % iles.

Then in the '70's we were hit with the first oil crisis an unpopular very, very expensive war, a national debt that was rising, that caused interest rates to climb and inflation to soar.

We are headed back to those 70's again, only this time we don't have any industry to help us pull out and people as a whole have become greedier and more "what's in it for me" attitude than "what can we do to help the nation become #1 again."

We either fix the problem and figure out taxes and how to keep industry or we're going to end up back in the depression days.

Here's a link to a graph showing the tax rates since the income tax's inception notice when they dropped taxes drastically and compare them to where the country was economically. Then compare when they were higher and where we were, economically and as a world leader.

LINK: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tax...s/bg1086c2.gif

I don't see a problem either, other than my unclear attempt at sarcasm.

Sorry man.... just so use to others saying the same as you did and meaning it.

Just boggles my mind when you look at the graph I linked to and see that when we were great people paid far more in taxes. Never heard Henry Ford or any of the masters of industry back in the 50's complaining they paid too much in taxes.... maybe because there was a true middle class, far less debt, gov't was able to afford great schools and R&D help for companies.

Yeah, it's sad when absurdity is so commonplace.

For those GOP'ers that look at the graph who was president when the tax rates were at a sustained highest rate (highest rate was during WW2 and dropped back down a bit). It was Eisenhower and he is revered by what party? His years are looked upon as the greatest in US history (educationally, financially, in almost every aspect except civil rights).... and what was the tax rate? And you pay half of what was paid then and it is too high?

Amazing that so many in this thread excuse this activity while in the same breath blaming Bush for it.

It's wrong but I do it because I can. Yep, that's the man I want running the country. That's the man that I can trust to do the right thing.

hmm... so you're saying it's wrong for someone to do something that is completely legal? any one will do anything they can, in general, to pay the lowest taxes possible. he's saying that he'll raise the taxes on the income bracket he's in, so he'll be forced to pay more. and if he closes loopholes? he'll pay even more. at least he's willing to change things so that he and people like him won't be able to legally pay less.

As opposed to the current man running the country's mantra, "Nothing i do is ever wrong"? I don't care either way. You're in a dream world if you think a kerry white house would have less integrity than a bush white house.

Look at the graph Onetime.... the man that allows these loopholes and cuts social programs and allows companies to outsource and laughs that he doesn't know where Osama is, and sends our men to a war for no true reason, that holds behind the door secret mneetings with the big companies to make policy for that favors those companies,that uses religion and fear tactics to achieve his agenda and allows our country to disintegrate into 2 classes that are so far apart there is no hope.

Yeah that's the man I want as my president.

And the aggregate number of dollars going into the treasury is how much higher? The federal deficit (and national debt) are where?

Unless there is significant change in the freespending ways of both parties, the government will continue to spend more than they bring in. Raise tax rates to 98% and guess what? You will still have a deficit because politicians pay no price for exceeding spending limits. In fact the opposite is true. If you can bring more money back to the state you represent than it sends to Washington you are treated as a God and tend to have a long and lucrative career in politics.

If arch-Republican strategist Grover Norquist says it's true, it must be, right? Never mind that Kerry and his wife file seperately, and she's the wealthy one. Combining their incomes may make for good out-of-context character assassinations but it has little to do with the reality of their tax filings. But who cares about accuracy when you can have propaganda?

The man that...

allows companies to outsource...

allows these loopholes...

Last I checked those laws are not created by one man. The economic forces driving outsourcing have been around longer than you or I or the President have lived and will be around longer than any of our lineage.

I seem to remember a budget surplus not all that many years ago.

And that mantra is no different than Kerry's. You are equally in a dream world if you think a Kerry White House will have more. He is blatantly lying in every speech because there is no way to do all the things he says he will do let alone do them without raising taxes. But let's not talk about that since it's far more popular (and easier too since the catch phrases are written out for everyone to recite) to discuss Bush's "lies".

It certainly wasn't due to consistent fiscal restraint, rather it was due to perhaps the most extreme case of economic growth in the history of the world. The treasury was gaining money more than the Congress could spend it. The $5.6 trillion figure was based around unrealistic estimates which counted on the economy's continued growth at staggering rates.

Ummm no Harry. Those are Kerry's own words (at least according to Pan) not mine. He said it wasn't right but he does it anyway.

I have no problem with paying as little taxes as possible. Of course my consistent stance has always been that taxes should be cut for everyone because the government does not spend our money efficiently. It is Mr Kerry who is saying that the rich (which he is whether you count his wife's money or not) should pay more and yet he does not.

How much do you want to bet that Mr Kerry will never pay near the same rate as you or I? Even if he closes all the loopholes he speaks of and raises the rates he will never approach paying the top rate of 32% (or whatever it is at this time) because he will never close ALL the loopholes and he (and those others who can afford them) will continue to pay their lawyers and tax accountants (and create corporations like John Edwards) to pay as little as possible.

Far more popular to bash Bush? Are you serious? The country is split down the middle on these candidates and spiteful catch phrases are going around on all sides. Lets not be blinded by our own beliefs here.

Let's ignore the fact that lumping his and his wife's seperate filings together is completely misleading, right? Do you even know what tax rate Kerry is paying? Does it matter?

I created another thread a little while back that allowed everyone to offer all the lies and distortions put out about both Kerry and Bush. The list of ones against Bush was easily two to three times as long. I agree, let's not be blinded by our own beliefs.

In that case ... I have a brilliant idea! Let's lower their tax rate.

Yes I do. Do you?

So long as you lower everyone elses then I agree. Oh wait, Bush did that.

So what is it? It isn't the 12% that is claimed in the linked press release.

so I can assume that the "Bush martyr" meme won't be raised again?

Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed this. I take anything that purveyor of the politics of personal destruction says with a VERY large grain of salt.

You're absolutely right it isn't the 12% and I never claimed that it was. In 2003 John Kerry paid a rate of 22.9% in Federal taxes. According to the 2003 tax tables a person who is married filing separately with an income of greater than $155,975 should pay $42,194 as a base and then 35% of the amount over $155975. That would have put Kerry at a 31.9% rate. I know I would love to be able to get almost a 10% reduction in what I pay in taxes but I do not have the knowledge or the resources that Mr Kerry (or Mr Bush or any number of our other elected leaders) has.

I do not fault them for paying as little as they can. I do fault them for claiming that the "rich" should be paying more and claiming that they would be glad to contribute more and yet they use every possible method of avoiding them.

I'll make you a deal, I'll only bring it up when Kerry supporters whine about how unfair their candidate is being treated and how the mean old Republicans are twisting his words. :lol:

Although I don't doubt your numbers, a source would be nice.

You may not have claimed that the 12% number was right, but you sure didn't claim that it was wrong until that fact was brought up by others.

"Every possible method of avoiding them?" You should start qualifying that statement. As far as we know, Kerry could have had massive deductions based on charitable contributions. I doubt that this is the case, but you also can't assume too much in the opposite direction.

It may be a little disingenuous for Kerry to say that he should pay more in taxes if he is avoiding the collection process, but not more so then Bush's statements that his tax cuts were targeted to the middle class. Those numbers don't add up, either.

Two words..."Bush haters."

Are you really trying to convince me that the tax cuts didn't heavily target the rich?

If the rich aren't paying their share because they are able to take advantage of loopholes out of reach of the middle class, it's inherently imbalanced even with the progressive nature of our tax system.

And I won't even get into the reality that due to the nature of a capitalist society, it is a requirement that the upper class gets taxed more than the middle and lower.

I did the research a while back by looking up Kerry's 2003 publicly disclosed tax return and using the IRS's tax tables since I was curious. I don't have the links anymore but the information is relatively easy to track down.

I didn't dispute the 12% figure because it states that it is the Kerry's combined rate. I don't know what their combined rate is because I have never bothered to look into Teresa's filings. I figured she didn't pay the 32% rate because most of the super rich don't. It is simply a fact of life that having money generally means you have a greater ability to manipulate the system. Higher taxes will not change that fact.

Bush has said his tax cuts were for everyone and they were. It was not only a cut for the wealthy as Kerry has spouted. I got my $300 checks and I'm not wealthy. My fiancee got $600 and she is not wealthy.

If you file seperately then the combined rate is not very meaningful, no? Particularly when marrying late with seperate fortunes.

My $300 dollar check is nothing compared to the millions that others saved, particularly when considering the capital gains decrease and other non-income tax decreases. Just because everyone got something doesn't mean that the money was evenly distributed.

Well obviously higher taxes does nothing to eliminate the ability to manipulate the system - but it most certainly would lessen the impact of those manipulations.

As I asked - are you really trying to convince me that his tax cuts were not heavily targetted to the rich?

If I were President and I gave a 50% tax cut to the rich and a .05% tax cut to everyone else, I could say I cut taxes for everyone - but only a fool wouldn't roll their eyes.

The rich got more back because they pay more. I have no problem with that. As I've said, the government does not need more money.

It's not a matter of the rich "paying their share" since they are. They are paying at least their share since they pay more in dollar terms (since it's very difficult to avoid paying all taxes). A 23% rate for someone earning $1MM certainly means more money to the government than a 23% or even 30% rate on someone earning $100k.

You may not have a problem with it, but that doesn't mean there is not a problem with it. I agree to a degree that the government does not need more money - but where they cut their income is the issue we are discussing. Cutting taxes almost exclusively for the rich is not justified.

No, they're not. They have a tax rate which is their share - and they do not pay their tax rate.

As for the rest, you're describing the progressive nature of our tax system - this is not news to me, nor does it bolster your argument. So the rich pay more, dollar for dollar of their income directly proportional to the degree that their income exceeds those who are not rich. Yes indeed. So what? Are you half-heartedly arguing for a flat tax?

The combined rate is meaningful if you want to look at how that "household" deals with paying taxes. To some people the fact that Kerry and his wife both minimize their tax contributions while claiming that they would have no problem paying more is bothersome. I care a little more about what Kerry does than what his wife does since she is not running for President.

Just as the $300 you got back wasn't all you paid, neither were the millions that others saved.

Onetime did you even look at the tax chart? Because the whole argument on lower taxes dissolves when you do.

Onetime, you got how much back and how much did your local and state and property taxes go up? Because every single state and a vast majority of local governments are raising their taxes, have initiatives to or are in the process of doing it. Sooooo with Bush's tax cuts you save how much???????

Kerry said taxes wouldn't be raised for those under $200,000 do you make more than that?

If you truly believe taxes are not going to go up for anyone in the next 4 years no matter who is elected... you live in a fantasy world. Someone is going to have to pay for the war. OOO yeah Bush can just keep dipping into Social Security.

Kerry at least has a plan to keep those under $200,000 free from increase for awhile and a plan to save SS. Bush has no plan, will allow jobs to keep going overseas (which when they do and then people get hired for less money.... who makes up for that tax burden, especially when the companies and people sending jobs overseas not only make more but pay less of a % in taxes than you do probably.)

But vote for Bush.... just like his daddy he's going to have to raise taxes or have such a deficit and fucked up system that the next president is going to be screwed.... if we don't have WW3 or a civil war first.

They are not cutting taxes exclusively for the rich that's the point. Everyone has received a tax cut.

They are paying their share because they are not avoiding these taxes illegally. They are making use of the loopholes present in the system. Close the current loopholes and there will be more found. There is no foolproof way to insure that the rich can't legally avoid paying the maximum tax. In fact the Supreme Court has said that there is nothing wrong with doing everything legally possible to avoid paying taxes.

I am not arguing for a flat tax. Nor am I arguing against it. I am saying the government does not need more money and I am saying that the wealthy who shout that the rich should pay more in taxes should be questioned about why it is that they choose not to despite their supposed commitment to giving more back to the country that has given them so much.

I know he's a liar, i just don't get all bent out of shape every time a politician lies. He said he won't raise taxes on the middle class. He will raise taxes on the wealthy.

When you marry someone worth $500 million you can expect to have seperate finances then them. We aren't talking a standard, middle class household. Pretending otherwise is just obfuscation. Kerry's tax strategy is probably completely seperate from his wife's. As you say, let's focus on what he does, not on his wife.

Hehe, you might not see a difference between a $300 check for the middle class and millions to those at the top, but I'm happy to say that at least 50% of this country would disagree with you.

The argument for lower taxes does not come close to falling apart when looking at the chart.

My local taxes remained the same. I'm not sure about my state taxes because they aren't that significant in comparison but they have gone up in virtually every year that I've been paying taxes. They are not solely related to the level of federal taxes.

Kerry can not pay for his programs while only taxing those who make more than $200k. If he keeps the promise of not raising taxes on those making less than $200k he will have to break a dozen other promises of new programs or spending.

Where did I EVER say that taxes will not go up in the next four years?

The whole argument of jobs going overseas has been discussed over and over again. The numbers are virtually inconsequential in terms of tax revenue and in comparison with the number of jobs in the economy. It sure sucks if your job went overseas but there are industries that are hiring. That's the nature of the economy. I was writing about declining industries a decade ago and the need for employees (and companies that support the migrating industries) to focus on the industries which are growing in the US. There is nothing different about the current situation versus ten years ago when industries like clothing manufacturers were moving overseas.

Umm yeah. And George Bush doesn't smirk like an idiot during debates.

Yes. And I'll hold on tightly to my .05% savings. In the mean time, I'll continue to complain that the upper class got the vast majority of the tax cut unjustifiably.

Why are you confusing the concept of breaking the law with paying ones' share? Using the system to pay as little as you can possibly pay, with an advantage over ~90% of the country in determining methods of using the system, is not paying ones' share. Ones' share is not the amount which results from priviledged manipulation of the system. If there was a loophole which brought the tax rate for almost everyone making over $200k down to 1%, it would be, by definition, legal - but it would not be ones' share.

Sure. Which is exactly why we should not be lowering their taxes. As I said - increasing their taxes will offset their ability to maximize advantage of loopholes which are essentially unattainable to ~90% of the country. There is no foolproof way of doing anything - that doesn't mean we remove all safeguards. It doesn't mean we go in the opposite direction of attempting to mitigate the problem.

Never said there wasn't a difference. I simply pointed out there is a very real similarity that you are not addressing. You did not get all your taxes back and neither did those you are comparing yourself to. They pay more taxes than you and a tax cut will give them more money back than you.

I am not confusing the fair share argument with the legality of doing so in the least. They are doing everything legally to avoid taxes. Apparently Kerry agrees that if it's legal, then it's his fair share since he makes the most of the loopholes. I think everyone should pay less taxes. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, the government takes more than it needs and still spends more than it has. Having a different definition of "fair share" than you does not change my point.

So you can take the years off that chart that taxes were lowered and prove the economy strengthened, and yet when taxes increased by the years on those charts the economy went downhill?

State and local taxes may be comparatively low now, but they will have to increase or programs you enjoy will be gone as will state colleges and local public schools.

You didn't say Bush wouldn't raise taxes but you keep bragging about the tax cut that when he does raise your taxes you're going to be paying dearly for.

And YES, when a people lose jobs their tax money is lost (not just NATIONALLY, BUT LOCALLY, AND STATELY). If those people find a job but make less, then they are paying less in taxes and the base goes down again nationally, locally and stately. When factories get outsourced, businesses that counted on those workers to buy things lose business and end up closing down. So Nationally, locally and stately you lost the income from the factory, the workers and the businesses and workers they employed.

Yes, nationally, we may not notice the mass exodus at first, but IT WILL catch up to us and those who are rich will be paying a Hell of a lot more or emigrating the fuck out of here because the middle class won't exist and the poor won't be able to afford the taxes.

So what of proportion? As I said many posts ago, just because most got some sort of refund doesn't mean the money was fairly divided.

Sure, we can all work in the service industry! That'll adequately replace that well paid factory job.

So it would be a "fair share" if they could manipulate the system legally and pay no taxes? I disagree with that definition of fair share.

I am unconcerned with the apparent hypocrisy of John Kerry on this issue. Politicians are invariably hypocrites, I've know this for many years. I am concerned with the conservative push towards disproportionate tax cuts. And I would be concerned if John Kerry, when elected, decides to lower taxes for the upper class or fails to rescind their recent tax cut.

Whether the gov't takes more than it needs does nothing to justify the disproportionate lowering of taxes across financial classes.

By the way Onetime, IF you believe Bush is going to raise taxes but he keeps claiming he's going to cut taxes again..... doesn't that make him a BOLD FACED liar.

Whereas, at least Kerry, says that the middle class taxes and those under $200,000 won't go up but those who make more theirs will.

Kerry has a plan, it may not work and he may have to raise taxes on everyone, HOWEVER, Bush is flat out lying his ass offsaying he won't raise taxes. Then again maybe he won't ..... maybe he'll just wait and the next president will have a mess and have no choice but to raise taxes.

In another 4 years, the Boomers will be retiring so there goes more base, the industry is gone and so is that base, jobs are paying less so there goes that base. Small businesses (the backbone of our country) will be gone to places like WalMart because they couldn't afford to compete and their base doesn't have any money. Of Course WalMart will be going under as Dollar General (one of the fastest growing retail businesses today) will be the only place the majority will be able to shop. A major car company (GM or Ford) will go bankrupt or sell out to a foreign company. The biggest industry we'll have is the military it will also be a far bigger employer, than it is today so there goes massive tax dollars and government spending. Crime and drug use will be sky high. Interest rates, foreclosures and inflation will be out of control. Healthcare will only be for the rich. Bankruptcies will far exceed increases in wealth.

Yep, we can afford another 4 more years of Bush.

Why do you think Billionaires like Gates, Buffett, Soros, Allen, Wexner, Turner, and so on (people who weren't born poor, well maybe Soros) are so anti-Bush? Because they see where he is taking us and know in 4 years or even less they'll be paying far more in taxes than Kerry would ever tax them.

That maybe pessimistic but I would be willing to bet my betting sobriety (and I take my bet sobriety EXTREMELY seriously) on it being far closer to reality than what Bush or you want me to believe.

And like I said in numerous posts I hope to God I am wrong if Bush is elected and if I am I will be the first to appologize to the man and all on here who supported him. But if my reality is closer, then you best be ready, and save that $300 check Bush gives you.

The rich dont all have taxloopholes.

Thats the truth..

Only the VERY Rich do-I know lots of people that make over 200k and I know a hella lot of them dont use loopholes ( i talked to them)


Taking money from the most productive members of society to give it to the least...


If we just went to a FLAT tax rate- say 17% LIFe would be so much easier :thumbsup:

i'm mainly subscribing to this post, but i want to say, does that $300 return for a full YEAR of work really make you feel all warm and comfy that YOUR tax savings was substantial? 300 over te course of a year...that makes it ok for the government to give back MILLIONS to the richest americans and drive this economy into debt.
the likes of which have never been seen...that's not even a dollar a day, you know....

but hey, if it brings all the middle class people on board for a tax cut to your biggest backers....well..

That's what he said. I don't care if he does raise taxes on the middle class. I would be more than happy to pay more taxes if it meant increasing the quality of life of the average american. The quality of life of the average american, incidentally, being something bush could care less about.


But i know that you're not posturing here, because i have seen your concern about bush's spending habits and how you have often questioned how he plans to pay for the current military festivities. ;)

Well, when the "most productive" couldn't function without the labor of the "least productive" it seems kinda fair to me. I think you're confused if you associate personal assets with productivity.

Well, how about instead of Kerry bashers bitching and moaning about what some "non-partisan" group says Kerry paid, why don't we look at what he actually paid? Here is a pdf of Kerry's 2003 tax return:

Income:
Wages - 147818
Taxable Interest - 1250
Dividends - 11141
Refunds - 104
Capital Gain - 145805
Real Estate, S-Corps, etc - 89220
Total income (also equal to his adj gross) - 395338
Taxable income - 346664
Total Tax - 90575
26%

He also has an amended 2003 return where he pays an additional 11577, but his taxable income didn't change. Therefore his personal tax rate was 29.5%.

Here is a link to Kerry's website about Teressa's taxes:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...004_0511b.html

I haven't been able to find Teressa's 1040, but she already has paid 867000 towards her 2003 and 2004 taxes. Her advisors said her taxable income would be around 2.3M and she had an additional 2.8M in public entity bonds. She also donated around 4.6M to charity.

nevermind.

Of course Bush's tax cuts weren't targeted to the middle class, they were targeted to everyone. Everyone needed more money--the lower and middle classes to pay their bills, and the upper class to make investments, hire people, and buy expensive crap. It's what we needed to get the economy going, and it worked: shortest recession in American history.

Now, as for Kerry's tax choices, as much as he hates paying them, he should be a Republican. In Mass., the liberals have made it optional to actually pay a higher percentage of your taxes if you choose to. John Kerry does not. And I don't blame him a bit. But it makes me wonder, if the Democrats' poster boy isn't paying the higher tax rate, who would?

A breakdown of Kerry's taxes:

Taxable income: $395,338
Tax for the first $155,975: $42194
Tax for the difference between his income and the $155,975 (35% of $239,363): $83,777
Total tax liability before loopholes: $125,971

And the reason that you can't find Teresa's is because she does not make them public. She earned more than $2 million in non-taxable income (only the super rich are able to do that by putting loads of money into government bonds that shield her from taxes) and I think another $3 million or so in taxable income.

All the details are not available because she doesn't release them (and I don't blame her one bit since she is not running and it only offeres fodder for Kerry's opposition).

As I pointed out in another thread with you, there is more money available for people going to school than ever before and a lot is sitting there unused/unclaimed. Your arguments about the cost of education hold no water.

I have not bragged about the Bush tax cuts in the least, I have simply pointed out that the inaccurate portrayals of it as a "tax cut for the wealthy" are a whole lot of bullshit. Do I think Bush will raise taxes? No. I do not because I do not think he will make the same mistake as his father. Do I think it's possible? Absolutely.

Do I think Kerry will raise taxes? If he makes good on even a quarter of his promises, he has to. That leaves either not fulfilling the promises or raising taxes. Either option is a negative to me. If he doesn't fulfill the outrageous promises he is making then it proves he was just saying anything at all to get elected. You may be ok with that but I'm not.

If I had to pick a sure bet when it comes to the two candidates and taxes, I would put all my money on Kerry raising them. The next to sure bet is Bush not raising them IMO.

Again, the number of jobs going overseas is ridiculously small compared with the rest of the economy. Feel free to site some numbers to prove me wrong. I have shown numbers in many other posts about this and countless other things, and I would love for someone else to start showing the numbers that prove their points. As some may have noticed, I decided to stop putting so much work into my posts since it only ends up as "well here's what article x has to say about it" when the article doesn't even touch on the details being discussed. There are certain industries losing jobs to overseas. There are thousands of others who are not. Kerry can run screaming around the country about how terrible it is but he will NEVER stop them and will NEVER stem the flow for more than a year or two. The argument about this situation is pointless. If your jobs are moving overseas, get another fucking job. Get training or develop skills that are necessary for you to earn a living. It's not up to the President to take care of you.

If you truly believe "the middle class will not exist" then there is little I can do to change your mind. That assertion is beyond ridiculous and completely buys into the shit being shoveled by the liberals who are so anti-rich/anti-corporate that they wouldn't see reality if that's all that was on tv.

Now here're some questions for those who believe the "Bush tax cuts" only went to the rich:

Who is more likely to spend their tax cuts, the rich or the middle class?

Do you think the "rich" grabbed the millions you think they got and went out and bought food, cars, homes, refrigerators, etc?

If the tax cut was supposed to help jump start the economy, why would any President who believed this was the way to get us out of recession and cement his chances to win re-election, give the money only to the rich who aren't going to up their spending in any appreciable way?

The middle class. There are far more people in the middle class and the rich are more likely to invest their money, which, as I understand the question, is not the same as spending.

Some of them. But most of them were not waiting for tax cuts to make purchases, as they already have money to make those purchases.

Because such a President has a view of economics which is questionable. If he believed that cutting taxes for the rich would jump start the economy, he would cut taxes for the rich. Whether cutting taxes for the rich jump starts an economy is highly debateable.

Tax cuts targetted for the upper class, as these tax cuts were, are intended to promote investment, not purchasing. This is trickle down economics. It is not a guarantee and we can look back over the past 3 years and see that there was no jump start to the economy. The idea is to promote investment in companies so those companies have more resources to hire, which grows the middle class. What we have clearly seen is that companies are making great strides in profits - but these increased profits are not translating into great strides in job growth. Analysis of the little job growth we have had in the past year has shown that payrolls are not increasing respectively. Tax cuts for the upper class did not result in the intended benefits to the economy because they did not trickle down.

Cutting taxes for the middle class would have been just as likely, if not more so, to promote the economy by affording the middle class the ability to make purchases that they had been putting off due to a tightening of their finances and general economic uncertainty. These purchases would then benefit the economy by placing a large flush of cash into the economy. Benefitting large companies, small companies and investors - meanwhile, the consumer confidence increases. Tax cuts targetted to the rich is a backwards method of affecting change in the economy.

Congratulations, you just discoverd the logical fallacy of supply side economics. It's too bad that the American people seem to be under the impression that it's the only legitimate economic idea, but that explains why the President can get away with his tax policies.

You are confusing tax cuts for businesses (predominantly supply side) and tax cuts for individuals. As you have correctly pointed out, the wealthy will not spend more when given a tax cut.

The tax cuts put into place by Bush went to everyone and everyone that I know that got refund checks promptly spent them. That was Bush's plan and that is precisely what happened.

We can certainly argue about its impact on the economy (I agree that it was not responsible for a significant boost to the economy but it most certainly was a tiny bump).

As stated above, tax cuts for businesses are not the same as tax cuts for individuals (there is some overlap in the highest tiers, as has been discussed, with regard to small businesses in the campaign) but that is not what supply side deals with alone.

The Bush tax cut that sent refund checks and child tax credits to individuals and families was not directed at businesses and was not a "supply side" tax cut.

I wasn't confusing anything. Tax cuts for the upper class are designed to promote investment, with the result being higher financial stability for businesses, with the result being pay increases and new hiring, with the result being increased consumer demand, with the result being profits for the upper class, with the result a promotion of investment. Repeat.

The goal is to increase consumer demand - if all goes according to plan. But it doesn't all go according to plan. On the other hand, giving the bulk of the tax cuts to the middle class would have directly increased consumer demand - side-stepping the pre-requisites as noted above.

Bush could have targetted the tax cuts to the middle class instead of the upper class and there would likely have been a larger bump in the economy - and if there was not, that's ok too because atleast the majority of the people benefitted from the cuts as opposed to almost exclusively the upper class.

Are you saying that supply side only applies to businesses? That doesn't jibe with my understanding of it. Supply siders generally want lower income tax rates across the board but feel that tax cuts for the wealthy will encourage investment more so then tax cuts for the lower economic classes. You feed the supply, not demand, side.

So, who do we expect will be more likely to close tax loopholes for the richest Americans, Bush or Kerry? What have we asked the wealthiest to sacrifice while our country is at war besides the sacrifice of paying their fair share of taxes?

Individual investors do not create supply. They do invest and there can be a massive discussion around the money multiplier effect of savings, businesses' need for investors, etc. but the basic concept of supply side economics is that businesses having more cash will mean more investment in factories, upgrades, expansion, etc. These increases mean jobs and income for the rest. Individual investors do not just send their money into the stock market. They invest in bonds, futures, precious metals, etc. The overwhelming impetus of a "supply side" strategy is creating incentives for businesses to invest (lower taxes, fewer costly controls, etc). The individual investor is but a small piece of the supposed puzzle.

This may be your or some textbook definition of "supply-side economics" but it flies in the face of the standard definition of it. The modern, venacular understanding, as sold by Reagan, is that reducing income taxes for everyone, including individuals, will increase supply. I could post links to examples but I know that you prefer not to get into the "my article says..." contest.