Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Fact Check Anyone?Follow

#1 Oct 18 2004 at 10:36 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
A Wild and Crazy Guy
By Stephen Moore
October 11, 2004; Page A18
The Wall Street Journal

Remember the classic 1970s comic routine from Steve Martin? You can make a million dollars and pay no taxes. First, find a million dollars. Then when the IRS comes knocking on your door demanding to know why you didn’t pay your taxes, you just simply tell them you forgot. And then you say: “Well excuse me.”

Well, John Kerry has his own version. It goes like this. You can make a billion dollars and pay almost no taxes. First, marry a billionaire. Second, hire a gaggle of tax accountants and lawyers to bring your tax rate down to about half what many middle-income families pay. Except for John Kerry, this is no gag; it’s reality. According to the Kerrys’ own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $5.5 million in income last year and paid $704,227 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%. And it was all (presumably) done legally.

Now don’t get me wrong: I’m not against people paying a 12.8% tax rate. Far from it. I just believe that all Americans — even those who can’t afford to hire tax attorneys to set up complicated trusts and find legal ways to stash income in other tax-sheltered investments like municipal bonds — should have a shot at that kind of non-confiscatory tax rate.

Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate — combined payroll and income tax — for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one-tenth of the Kerrys’, paid a tax rate of 30%.

Of course, there is delicious irony in the Kerry family tax-return data. Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000.

The Kerrys have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. **** Armey and Steve Forbes have persuasively argued over the years that America should have a flat tax with a rate of 17% to 19%. John Kerry has consistently opposed a flat tax, because he says it would be a tax break for the rich. But the truth is with a 19% flat tax, some rich people with lavish tax shelters, like John Kerry, would pay more taxes. I calculate that the Kerrys would pay another $500,000 of taxes if we had a flat tax.

So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn’t he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?



Has anyone heard if this is the real deal? Has it been debunked as a smoke and mirror show?
#2 Oct 18 2004 at 11:29 PM Rating: Decent
**
874 posts
So, the Bush tax cuts hit a non-republican and they bit[b][/b]ch about it?

Pot.
Kettle.
Black.

The middle/lower class has been taking the brunt of Reganomics since the 80's. The only reprive they had was when Clinton was in office.

The flat tax is an interesting idea.... What say ye Smash? I haven't researched that one.....
#3 Oct 19 2004 at 2:55 AM Rating: Decent
It pisses me off. My boss hands me this article and I can't find a way to dispute it's credibility.
#4 Oct 19 2004 at 4:12 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,730 posts
Quote:
My boss hands me this article and I can't find a way to dispute it's credibility.


You say "thank you very much but I don't participate in patrician politics. I find Bush a reprehensible person despite the merits or lack there of, of the article you handed to me." And then you find yourself a new job if your boss is an ***, but with a clear conscience.
#5 Oct 19 2004 at 7:46 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

It pisses me off. My boss hands me this article and I can't find a way to dispute it's credibility.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/01/19/no_jobs/index_np.html

There you go.

AS to the oppinion peice itself:


Remember the classic 1970s comic routine from Steve Martin? You can make a million dollars and pay no taxes. First, find a million dollars. Then when the IRS comes knocking on your door demanding to know why you didn’t pay your taxes, you just simply tell them you forgot. And then you say: “Well excuse me.”

Well, John Kerry has his own version. It goes like this. You can make a billion dollars and pay almost no taxes. First, marry a billionaire. Second, hire a gaggle of tax accountants and lawyers to bring your tax rate down to about half what many middle-income families pay. Except for John Kerry, this is no gag; it’s reality. According to the Kerrys’ own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $5.5 million in income last year and paid $704,227 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%. And it was all (presumably) done legally.


This is irrelevant. Kerry legally paid the correct amount of taxes? So? It's more an indicment of how corrupt the tax system is than anything regarding Kerry.


Now don’t get me wrong: I’m not against people paying a 12.8% tax rate. Far from it. I just believe that all Americans — even those who can’t afford to hire tax attorneys to set up complicated trusts and find legal ways to stash income in other tax-sheltered investments like municipal bonds — should have a shot at that kind of non-confiscatory tax rate.


Kerry would agree. However, he'd work to change the labrinthyne tax code which allows not only the most wealthy to pay the least taxes, but gives corperations like GE multi million dollar rebates in specefic language by being written into new law. Like happened last week.


Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate — combined payroll and income tax — for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one-tenth of the Kerrys’, paid a tax rate of 30%.


Kerry would agree. The rich need to be legally made to pay their fair amount of the burden. Bush would do the opposite, and has done so.


Of course, there is delicious irony in the Kerry family tax-return data. Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000.


He voted against the Bush tax cut that gave me an extra $20k+ that I donated to the DNC.


The Kerrys have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. @#%^ Armey and Steve Forbes have persuasively argued over the years that America should have a flat tax with a rate of 17% to 19%. John Kerry has consistently opposed a flat tax, because he says it would be a tax break for the rich.


Simply untrue.



But the truth is with a 19% flat tax, some rich people with lavish tax shelters, like John Kerry, would pay more taxes. I calculate that the Kerrys would pay another $500,000 of taxes if we had a flat tax.


Irrelevant in the extreme.



So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn’t he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?


They do. Their fare share has been made so small by Bush's policies that are currently crippling the long term economic intrests of the United States.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Oct 19 2004 at 8:21 AM Rating: Default
If Kerry would work to do all these things how come he didnt do it while he was in the Senate for 20 years? Was he saving up all these great ideas for when he ran for President? That's the biggest problem I have with Kerry. Im going to do this, or this needs to be changed and I will do it. Well Senator what took you so long. It is the Legislature which passes the laws,and ultimately does the budget after all. Seems to me you would have more power to get laws passed while you were in the Senate than as President, since you would have at least one vote going your way all the time. Has Kerry even worked to move the country in the direction he is talking about now in his 20 Senate years? Has he worked to simplify the Tax code or just to take advantage of it?

Well, John Kerry has his own version. It goes like this. You can make a billion dollars and pay almost no taxes. First, marry a billionaire. Second, hire a gaggle of tax accountants and lawyers to bring your tax rate down to about half what many middle-income families pay. Except for John Kerry, this is no gag; it’s reality. According to the Kerrys’ own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $5.5 million in income last year and paid $704,227 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%. And it was all (presumably) done legally.


This is irrelevant. Kerry legally paid the correct amount of taxes? So? It's more an indicment of how corrupt the tax system is than anything regarding Kerry.

Isnt Kerry at least partially responsible for the current corrupt tax code? He has been a Senator for he past 20 years.

Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate — combined payroll and income tax — for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one-tenth of the Kerrys’, paid a tax rate of 30%.


Kerry would agree. The rich need to be legally made to pay their fair amount of the burden. Bush would do the opposite, and has done so.

If he would agree why didnt he just not use the loop holes? I mean if he truely believes it to be wrong then why did he do it? I am pretty sure the law doesnt require you to use the loopholes.
#7 Oct 19 2004 at 8:29 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

If Kerry would work to do all these things how come he didnt do it while he was in the Senate for 20 years?


Gee, I don't know, because perhaps the Junior Senator from Massahcussets has less sway than the President of the United States??


Was he saving up all these great ideas for when he ran for President? That's the biggest problem I have with Kerry. Im going to do this, or this needs to be changed and I will do it. Well Senator what took you so long. It is the Legislature which passes the laws,and ultimately does the budget after all. Seems to me you would have more power to get laws passed while you were in the Senate than as President, since you would have at least one vote going your way all the time.


Yes, you're right. I guess that you as an individual have more say in who becomes President this year than either campaign does, right? I mean you have at least one vote going your way. It is the electorate that elects the President, right?


Has Kerry even worked to move the country in the direction he is talking about now in his 20 Senate years? Has he worked to simplify the Tax code or just to take advantage of it?


He's voted consistently against tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate welfare time and time again.


Isnt Kerry at least partially responsible for the current corrupt tax code? He has been a Senator for he past 20 years.


Um no, you idiot. He's responsible for things he voted AGAINST? Do me a favor. Don't vote ever. I don't care if you were going to vote for Kerry or would vote for every Democrat from now till eternity, just do the nation a favor and opt out forever.

Please.


If he would agree why didnt he just not use the loop holes? I mean if he truely believes it to be wrong then why did he do it? I am pretty sure the law doesnt require you to use the loopholes.


Voulantarily just pay more taxes for no reason? Good thinking. Maybe if everyone just did that we wouldn't have a multi-trillion dollar national debt.

Or, maybe, just maybe, it's not wrong for people to do whats in their best self intrest according to the law and changing the law is a better idea.

What do you think?

Hahah, what am I saying, think. Wrong word. What do you reckon there, sparky?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#8 Oct 19 2004 at 10:37 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Isnt Kerry at least partially responsible for the current corrupt tax code? He has been a Senator for he past 20 years.


If you consider having a 1/535 vote as 'partially' responsible, then yes.
#9 Oct 19 2004 at 10:42 AM Rating: Default
Yep, they really get tough on taxes in the Foreign Relations Committee.

#10 Oct 19 2004 at 11:04 AM Rating: Default
***
3,112 posts
Flat taxes, no deductibles. Thats it.
#11 Oct 19 2004 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Sir laviont wrote:
Flat taxes, no deductibles. Thats retarded.
#12 Oct 19 2004 at 11:15 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Flat taxes, no deductibles. Thats it.


Fine with me, assuming you include corperations. The GOP would never let it pass, however.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#13 Oct 19 2004 at 11:17 AM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I just realized that ope ed peice was written by the Club for Growth guy.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/


Our members help elect candidates who support the Reagan vision of economic growth through limited government and lower taxes.


Unbiased!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#14 Oct 19 2004 at 12:59 PM Rating: Decent
Given that Kerry hasn't released his wife's tax records... how the hell they came up wtih those figures is beyond me.
#15 Oct 19 2004 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
Smasharoo wrote:

It pisses me off. My boss hands me this article and I can't find a way to dispute it's credibility.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/01/19/no_jobs/index_np.html

There you go.

AS to the oppinion peice itself:


Remember the classic 1970s comic routine from Steve Martin? You can make a million dollars and pay no taxes. First, find a million dollars. Then when the IRS comes knocking on your door demanding to know why you didn’t pay your taxes, you just simply tell them you forgot. And then you say: “Well excuse me.”

Well, John Kerry has his own version. It goes like this. You can make a billion dollars and pay almost no taxes. First, marry a billionaire. Second, hire a gaggle of tax accountants and lawyers to bring your tax rate down to about half what many middle-income families pay. Except for John Kerry, this is no gag; it’s reality. According to the Kerrys’ own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $5.5 million in income last year and paid $704,227 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%. And it was all (presumably) done legally.


This is irrelevant. Kerry legally paid the correct amount of taxes? So? It's more an indicment of how corrupt the tax system is than anything regarding Kerry.


I heard the record player do that whole shi[/u]tting itself noise when I read that. Kerry's willingness to raise taxes on people yet avoid his own shows a fundamental problem with his belief structure. Sure, what he did was perfectly legal, there is no arguing that. However, for a man who snakes his way through the tax code to spout of class warfare rhetoric such as he should be beyond reproach if he wants me to go along with it. When it comes to the wealthy in America there are the small fish (you know, people who actually make between 250k to 1mil a year) and then there are the big fish like Kerry. The big fish can take a hit to their taxes and run off to buy a bently to drive it off a cliff into the ocean for laughs. However the small business owners not only need to make their own ends meet but also provide for their employees. I find his "stick it to 'em" rhetoric maddeningly hypocritical in the light that he himself will exploit the tax code for his benefit. Think of all those prescription drugs Kerry stole from those poor ol elderly people snaking around the tax code like an uncaring capitalist pig!
#16 Oct 19 2004 at 4:11 PM Rating: Default
Warlord Lefein wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

It pisses me off. My boss hands me this article and I can't find a way to dispute it's credibility.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/01/19/no_jobs/index_np.html

There you go.

AS to the oppinion peice itself:


Remember the classic 1970s comic routine from Steve Martin? You can make a million dollars and pay no taxes. First, find a million dollars. Then when the IRS comes knocking on your door demanding to know why you didn’t pay your taxes, you just simply tell them you forgot. And then you say: “Well excuse me.”

Well, John Kerry has his own version. It goes like this. You can make a billion dollars and pay almost no taxes. First, marry a billionaire. Second, hire a gaggle of tax accountants and lawyers to bring your tax rate down to about half what many middle-income families pay. Except for John Kerry, this is no gag; it’s reality. According to the Kerrys’ own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $5.5 million in income last year and paid $704,227 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%. And it was all (presumably) done legally.


This is irrelevant. Kerry legally paid the correct amount of taxes? So? It's more an indicment of how corrupt the tax system is than anything regarding Kerry.


I heard the record player do that whole shi[/u]tting itself noise when I read that. Kerry's willingness to raise taxes on people yet avoid his own shows a fundamental problem with his belief structure. Sure, what he did was perfectly legal, there is no arguing that. However, for a man who snakes his way through the tax code to spout of class warfare rhetoric such as he should be beyond reproach if he wants me to go along with it. When it comes to the wealthy in America there are the small fish (you know, people who actually make between 250k to 1mil a year) and then there are the big fish like Kerry. The big fish can take a hit to their taxes and run off to buy a bently to drive it off a cliff into the ocean for laughs. However the small business owners not only need to make their own ends meet but also provide for their employees. I find his "stick it to 'em" rhetoric maddeningly hypocritical in the light that he himself will exploit the tax code for his benefit. Think of all those prescription drugs Kerry stole from those poor ol elderly people snaking around the tax code like an uncaring capitalist pig!


Yep, kinda like when Bush said he wouldn't name any judges for fear of "not getting the votes" of the ones he didn't call.

Now there's the type of honesty and moral character we need in a President.
#17 Oct 19 2004 at 5:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Lefein: It's not really inconsistent. Right now, the tax laws allow Kerry to pay 12.8% Why should he pay more? It's not like everyone else with the exact type of income he and his wife have is going to willingly pay more as well.


Um. Guess what? Kerry is not the dreamer idealist that maybe you might want. He's not going to cost himself hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just to make a point. He's maybe going to try to get laws changed. I don't have any problems with that. But if you do, then by all means consider Kerry a traitor to his "cause" if you want to.


I happen to also believe that a flat tax is a pretty bad idea. There are some good aspects to it, especially in that it would clear up some of the loopholes in the law. The problem is that it provides no tax incentive at the top level to use money in one way rather then another.


Most of the "tax shelters" that people talk about are really investments of one kind or another. The whole point is that we'd like someone with a billion dollars to spend it a particular way (presumably in a way helpful to the economy as a whole). Without a tax incentive, we have no way to do that. While I agree that some of those tax incentives are a bit off the mark, the general concept is sound and shouldn't be thrown out because sometimes it doesn't have the desired effect. Lots of corporations and wealthy people *do* spend use their money in legitimately "useful" ways to earn those tax breaks. Tossing the whole system out is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


A straight flat tax system would increase the tax burden on the poor, and remove incentives on wealth use on the rich (which could potentially have disasterous effects to the economy!). While it would certainly help out the middle class, one has to wonder if the middle class as a group might not shrink in size as a result given a likely reduction in higher salary jobs the incrase in taxes at the top end will cause. It's hard to say for sure. The odd thing is that even though such a tax plan would affect me specifically for the positive, I still think it would be worse in the long run.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Oct 19 2004 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Mistress of Gardening
Avatar
*****
14,661 posts
Someone in my linkshell told me his dad reported 1.4M in income last year while his sister reported 40,000. They both paid the same amount of taxes. He said his dad loves it because he's paying 12% less taxes under Bush than when Clinton was in office.
____________________________
Yum-Yum Bento Box | Pikko Pots | Adventures in Bentomaking

Twitter


[ffxivsig]277809[/ffxivsig]
#19 Oct 19 2004 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
Flat Tax refers to federal taxation. There will always be taxes on the stock market and such because the government takes on a cost itself to monitor investment activity to improve legitimacy in the markets. There would be no more haves versus the havenots come voting season. This would in turn legitimize politics greatly. As the tax code sits now, politiicians have you by the balls and the wallet. As long as they have that power they will continue to do so.
#20 Oct 19 2004 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
Kerry's willingness to raise taxes on people yet avoid his own shows a fundamental problem with his belief structure. Sure, what he did was perfectly legal, there is no arguing that. However, for a man who snakes his way through the tax code to spout of class warfare rhetoric such as he should be beyond reproach

My guess is that he probably pays an accountant to do it all for him, and has very little idea of what is actually going on.

And I'm still not totally buying it because Teresa Kerry's tax records haven't been released, and furthermore they signed a prenup wherein all there pre-marriage assets would be untouched by the other.


If it is true, it's a tad disingenuous, but not more so than any other action by a politician.

#21 Oct 19 2004 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Warlord Lefein wrote:
Flat Tax refers to federal taxation. There will always be taxes on the stock market and such because the government takes on a cost itself to monitor investment activity to improve legitimacy in the markets.


Ok. You lost me. We were already talking about federal taxes. A "flat tax" says that instead of the reams of income and capital gains tax systems in place, we just charge everyone X% on any gain they make regardless of source.

Are you suggesting that in addition to charging a flat rate on "income", that market gains should be taxed by some additional amount? Or separating the two entirely (meaning capital gains isn't counted as part of the flat tax scheme). If the former, then you're freaking nuts. If the later, then what's the point? As I stated earlier, most of the reason that "the rich" get really low tax rates is because they make their money via returns on investments of one kind or another (not necesarily "the market"). If you don't include those types of incomes in your flat tax scheme, then there was no point in doing it (other then to ***** poor people). If you do include it, then you create a disinsentive to invest. If you include it in flat taxes and the apply some additional taxes on top of that (making capital gains taxed *higher* then income), you will totally ***** the entire US economy in the most monumental way.



Quote:
There would be no more haves versus the havenots come voting season. This would in turn legitimize politics greatly. As the tax code sits now, politiicians have you by the balls and the wallet. As long as they have that power they will continue to do so.


You don't really believe this do you? How we tax people isn't going to change the fact that some people have more then others. A flat tax even less so. Right now, if you're making only 15k a year and are struggling, you're paying close to 0% (that's zero) in taxes. A flat tax means that you get to pay 17% (or whatever the flat tax rate is) just like everyone else. I'm reasonably sure that the guy making 5M a year, paying 17% will have a lot more "stuff" then someone making 20k a year and also paying 17%.

The flat tax is something that sounds really good when you don't actually bother to think about it...

Edited, Tue Oct 19 19:42:37 2004 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Oct 20 2004 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
And I'm still not totally buying it because Teresa Kerry's tax records haven't been released,

Yeah, when Rush covers the same story, he mentions that it is based upon incomplete information. Of course, he presents it in a way that makes you want to think the rate would be down to 4% if you had all of the info.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 316 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (316)