Taxes are for the little people!
Posted on 10/16/2004 7:55:27 AM PDT by libs_kma
And that from the New York Times, no less!
The average middle class American family pays 20 percent of their income in taxes, a rate 16 times higher than the would-be first family.
People gots ta know.
Bump.
BTTT
The confiscatory taxes apply only to those who disagree with liberals!
Think Moody Blues.
I'm sure she pays more to her CPA's to tell her that than she does to the federal government. A big problem is that it costs much more than 0.1% of her assets ever year for our military to protect her wealth. She'd rather pay more to accountants to tell her how to avoid taxes than to pay her fair share.
Democrats are an envy driven crowd. If the Kerrys can be demonized on their extreme wealth without paying much in taxes, Democrats will be too angry to vote for Kerry. This wouldn't work well in Republican circles, but it is effective in getting Democrats to sit this election out.
1. It's unlikely she's getting a total yield of 5%. I understand that a large portion of her wealth is in Heinz stock. That's currently yielding about 1% dividend.
Tax-free bonds are yielding a bit better, but a mix of maturities still is only yielding about 3.5%.
2. The 1040s only show income generated from assets that she directly owns. And taxes paid on those assets. I'd bet my bottom dollar that she is the beneficiary of other assets, providing support in the millions of dollars per year, but we have no information on those, and have no idea of how much taxes are paid on those sources of income.
3. Most of her taxable income likely comes from dividends, and thus, the highest rate is 15% for federal taxes. That's what President Bush did with the dividend rate.
4. Although about half her income reported on her 1040 was "tax-exempt," nonetheless, she paid over $300K on that income, because of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which lifts the tax exemption on certain types of "tax exempt" bonds when income is high and total taxes due is low.
5. Newsmax is really full of it on this one.
sitetest
bttt
The real story is how she ended up with the entire Heinz fortune after her John died in the plane crash, within a year and a half of John Heinz's death she married Hanoi Kerry. I put nothing past this woman she is crazier than Hillary Clinton and has used John Heinz's fortune to fund outrageous left-wing groups.
Neither statement is true. Teresa no longer has much wealth in Heinz stock. The super wealthy can expect to see 10% or better return on their investments over the long term. It's to their advantage to take on higher risk investments because unlike small investors they can ride out any storm. They never get forced out of their investments at the low point, and have highly paid advisors to tell them when to sell at the high.
The rich tend to get richer. This has always been true. If you can break into the club, it gets easier to make money the longer you're there.
Which part of this did the Times report? Does anyone have a link to the Times story. I'm a little leery of taking Newsmax too literally.
"'It's unlikely she's getting a total yield of 5%. I understand that a large portion of her wealth is in Heinz stock.'
"Neither statement is true."
I don't know how much Heinz stock she owns. I do know that there are a lot of companies paying dividends in the same range. 1% isn't an unusual dividend rate. There are also plenty of companies not paying dividends. I also know she reports a lot of income from tax-exempt bonds. Yields there are not in the 5% range.
"The super wealthy can expect to see 10% or better return on their investments over the long term."
Absolutely. So can the not-so-wealthy. I didn't say otherwise.
"Yield" isn't "return." "Yield" usually refers to income generated, through interest or dividends. "Return" refers to yield and any appreciation you get.
But capital appreciation isn't pertinent to the discussion, here. You don't pay tax on the capital appreciation of your investments until you sell them. That is the point of several posters here, that rich people prefer long-term capital appreciation to a high income yield.
If you have a billion dollars, you might well invest it in a way to produce only a (relatively) tiny stream of current, taxable income, but in a way to produce long-term capital gains that aren't taxed until you sell and realize the gain.
This is even more true if you're the beneficiary of trusts that just don't show up on your 1040 anyway.
sitetest
It is an INCOME tax, not an ASSET tax, igoramus.
Teresa's had several years now of tiny incomes on her investments. She must be building up one humongous capital gains tax bill! Does that make sense though as we're at the precipice of Socialism in America? Tax rates will be really going up, if her socialist husband has his way. It seems like risk management would lead her to realize some of her capital gains taxes now and be done with it.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Taxes are for the little people!
Bravissimo!
Dear Reeses,
I don't really have a clue. I doubt she makes any of the decisions regarding her investments.
I can think of several reasons why she shows little by way of capital gains for the past few years, but it would be pure speculation.
Nonetheless, it's pretty apparent that the taxable income generated on her 1040 is dividend income, as it's taxed at 15%, and it's also true that yields right now aren't very high. 1% - 2% isn't unusual. Neither is 0%.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
