More to the point, pots..................FRegards
Posted on 07/14/2004 5:53:22 PM PDT by wagglebee
Tax legislation proposed in the Senate by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry last year was designed to crackdown on companies doing business overseas - but the proposal had one giant loophole: an exemption for the H.J. Heinz Foods Co., the source of his wife's vast fortune.
The stunning Kerry-Heinz conflict of interest came to light on Wednesday in a report by Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, published in National Review Online.
"Already Kerry's economic proposals seem tuned to serve his wife's economic interests," Luskin contended. "His proposal last March to end tax breaks for U.S. corporations that do business overseas was designed with a loophole that would let the H. J. Heinz Company — the centerpiece of Mrs. Kerry's family fortune — keep its overseas tax breaks, and get a lower domestic tax rate at the same time."
Luskin cited Kerry's Heinz Foods tax loophole as just one example of why it was absolutely imperative that his wife unseal her tax returns before the election.
So far the prospective first lady has agreed to make just two pages of her tax forms public - and then not until October. Meanwhile, there are indications that she may have significantly understated her income.
Limited tax information released by Mrs. Kerry in March put her annual 2003 income at $5 million. While the Heinz Kerrys refuse to reveal the full extent of their wealth, the Los Angeles Times valued her net worth last month at between $900 million and $3.2 billion.
Even if Heinz kerry picked extremely conservative investments, Luskin said her reported income was suspiciously low.
"Let's put this in terms that people of less extreme wealth can relate to," he wrote. "If you had $100,000 invested last year and your investment income was only $500 -- the same percentage as Mrs. Kerry's income -- then something would be very much out of whack."
Luskin said that Heinz Kerry's financial figures, such as they're known to date, suggest that she is either "the world's worst investor" or "Mrs. Kerry may be the world's greatest cheat."
"We can't know exactly what is out of whack with Mrs. Kerry's income, if anything, because . . . [her] separate [tax] returns have never been made part of the public record," Luskin said.
Where is this "W Ketchup" being sold? I want some.
His proposal was posted on the official John Kerry website linked in the NRO article.
This began with the proposal. First mention of the loophole was in http://www.techcentralstation.com/041504C.html
Then....I am not sure what happened in between, but then it just hit National Review Online, at which point Newsmax picked it up.
It has legitimacy, as it is not a Newsmax-only piece.
"how specific to H.J. Heinz Foods the exemption was."
I can think of two pieces of pension legislation that appear to have affected one company apiece. The PENSION FUNDING EQUITY ACT OF 2004 refers to 501(c)(5) organizations which established a plan on June 30, 1955, a sneaky way to specify something without actually naming them.
Why was Hon banned again?
If Hildebeast gives the order, Kerry IS history!
Please tell me more, I don't have enough info to work with.
I don't know poster, Hon, and have not read or seen any of Hon's posts.
I'll do a search.
D2
Oh.....that person did some great research on Kerry...the first link in your thread.
a clip from the article linked above:
Why the heck else would she marry him, if not for his Senate influence? She obviously doesn't like him very much - they can't even coordinate on him trying to kiss her in public without her pushing him away.
I just did a search, and Hon's posts look perfectly normal.
Hon's last listed post was, 03/26/2004.
Judging by Hon's post, indeed, Hon does know a lot about the infamous kerry.
I don't think Hon has been banned. I hope Hon is alright and in one piece. Looking at his posts, it seems Hon has a lot of knowlege.
Best FReegards, D2
FMCDH(BITS)
Oh Oh...here we go again,with samned Dems making "special" laws/loopholes for themselves alone.
Is this something for which he could be impeached from the Senate, or is it just Senate business as usual?
That is my thought as well.
I was hoping for a smoking gun, but it is not enough for me to write a story about it for the newspaper. It may not necessarily be an attempt to get a loophole for Heinz, but instead just try to make his entire proposal more palatable because of how awful it really is.
What do we bet the IRS won't touch it with a long pole. Espcially while they are pulling records out of ministries and churches for no good reason.
So how do U.S. multinational firms stay competitive despite these disadvantages? Under current law, they can locate production and profits abroad and avoid paying the very high U.S. taxes by letting profits sit in bank accounts overseas. This strategy does not avoid foreign taxes, but since those are much lower than ours, the playing field is leveled somewhat. A U.S. manufacturer can produce a good in Ireland for sale in Europe and be competitive despite our high tax rates.
Senator Kerry plans to end this. If a multinational makes money abroad, it must pay U.S. taxes immediately. This will make the negative impact of high U.S. taxes impossible to avoid and force U.S. firms to significantly increase prices. That should lead to sharp reductions in market share and employment both at home and abroad, and a likely wave of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies. The plan's second measure, a 1.75 percent reduction in the corporate tax rate on all worldwide profits, would not begin to offset the lost benefit of tax deferral.
The Kerry team clearly recognized the possibility that they were causing significant harm, because they added a loophole. If a U.S. multinational produces a product in a foreign country for consumption in that country, then they will continue to allow the firm to avoid U.S. tax until the money is mailed back home.
Think of all of the needless and duplicative activity this will generate. Multinationals will be forced, in pursuit of tax savings, to introduce newer and smaller production facilities in every country they serve. Transportation costs are low enough, and scale economies large enough, that most multinationals operate a few production facilities located in attractive hubs around the world.
So why would anyone propose such a thing? Some industries, like food production, already operate that way. Because of local food regulations, and concerns about spoilage, it is often the case that food companies locate a separate plant in each country that they serve. Chief among these is Heinz, which owns 57 plants outside of North America that, as the company states, "provide products to consumers in those markets."
More to the point, pots..................FRegards
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.