Posted on 10/11/2004 11:22:26 AM PDT by jmstein7
By George Neumayr
Published 8/4/2004 12:09:41 AM
"Like many well-to-do Americans from that period" -- the 1980s -- "Kerry went looking for a tax shelter." This comes from John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best. According to the book, Kerry "invested between $25,000 and $30,000" in a "scheme known as a 'straddle' that involved forward contracts to buy and sell certain commodities through companies in the Cayman Islands." (Uh, it was slightly more than $30,000)
The book reports that Kerry's Cayman Islands tax shelter scheme didn't pan out. An embarrassed Kerry had to abandon it with apologies. "I thought it was a way to try to minimize tax consequences," he said. "It wasn't, and I learned a hard lesson." (Did Kerry lie about the amount he invested?)
Kerry told the Globe that he didn't realize the tax shelter was offshore in the Cayman Islands.HA! But the "Globe reporters who know him best" aren't buying it: "However, the pledge agreement, bearing Kerry's signature, states in the first line that Sytel Traders was organized 'under the laws of the Cayman Islands'?In the spring of 1984, weeks after he quietly pulled the plug on his own tax shelter, candidate Kerry inveighed against an unfair system. 'You need a major overhaul of the tax structure,' Kerry told a panel of reporters on a Boston television station on May 6. 'You need to close those crazy loopholes that are nonproductive.'"
Though he is no longer outsourcing his investments to the Cayman Islands, Kerry maintains a lively interest in the island. "There are enough brass-plate companies down in the Cayman Islands to make anybody sick when they look at their own tax bill," Kerry said during the Democratic primaries. "Offshore tax havens and shelters enable corporations and executives to evade an estimated $70 billion in taxes each year. How can anyone in this country suggest we have a fair system when companies can take $70 billion off the table?...It's a system only companies like Enron could love. Enron held over 800 subsidiaries in countries with no taxes on income, profits, or capital gains -- 692 in the Cayman Islands alone."
Kerry speaks often of "Benedict Arnold firms," American companies which prefer to work with foreigners than Americans. In other words, companies practicing in the economic sphere exactly what Kerry wants "multilateralist" American diplomats to pursue in the political one. If collaborating abroad is good for our domestic defense, as Kerry argues, why is it not also good for our domestic economy?
Meanwhile, Kerry's unveiling a new "pledge to restore fiscal responsibility," which means irresponsible politicians get to fleece those actually responsible for sustaining the economy. For Kerry to balance the budget and finance his prodigal programs, including his Hillary-style universal health care, he will have to raise taxes not on the rich but on his new favorite class, middle-class businessmen, many of whom run small businesses subject to the very individual income rates that Kerry seeks to hike. Kerry's pledge not to rescind tax cuts on the middle class would be a little bit more persuasive if he had voted for them in the first place. Kerry's class-warfare tax won't hurt the rich, but it will hurt the members of the middle class who depend on jobs and purchases from the rich.
Abraham Lincoln's critique of socialist tax policy -- you don't create jobs by sabotaging those who provide them -- remains valid. The authenticity of the quote attributed to Lincoln, "you don't help the poor by destroying the rich," is challenged but that Lincoln subscribed to the concept isn't. Except by the Mario Cuomos. There Cuomo was on "Larry King Live" last week, hawking his book, Why Lincoln Matters, which transforms Lincoln into a Mario Cuomo Democrat.
"Would Lincoln have been a Republican?" King asked.
"Well, you know, he was called a Republican. He was also called a Whig. So, what's a Whig? What's a Republican? What is it today?" said Cuomo. "On the economy, he invented the progressive income tax. It might have been unconstitutional at the time, but he invented it. Three percent up to a certain amount, and then five percent over that? So, he certainly wouldn't have been a Republican conservative today."
Three percent up to a certain amount, and then five percent over that? Sounds pretty good. Sounds like the sort of tax rate reduction John Kerry sought to find in the Cayman Islands.
Plus if you ever had dealing in capital gain taxes and the JOY that brings...you will understand his MONEY is too GOOD to be taxed like yours and mine...
Nearly a quarter of a million? What are you, a senator?
Let's reunite him with his investments - send Kerry to the cayman's
Too many wrinkles.
Nice eyes, though.
Very much so.
His wife is fighting tooth and nail to keep her tax returns and her husband's foundation under lock and key - this is only one of the suspected reasons folks believe they should be open.
Kerry is making outsourcing a big campaign issue, and he has made statements that he will close "the loophole" and called corporations "traitor companies" for doing this.
Well, it appears he's a hypocrite yet again.
This would have been the period just after Kerry left his first (wealthy) wife and more than a decade before he married his second. I believe he and Julia Thorne separated in 1982, but didn't divorce intil 1986, maybe 1988. He didn't have a lot of money during this period, if I recall.
Coal company????? Not good for EnviroKerry!! Shame on him! (snicker snicker!)
I question the timing of this document surfacing...
What do Gin Vest and Peabody Commodities do? I wonder what riders were attached to Bills by Kerry during this time?
THIS IS KERRY'S DOMESTIC ISSUE!
Nothing to see here. At least Kerry didn't make $84 in a timber company.
So --what commodities was Kerry investing in?
My money is on Hillary too. She is probably doing the same thing knowing her fondness for not following the law.
and that is back when $238,527.40 was a lot of money!!
hey...I wouldnt sneeze at that kind of cash right now...
Oh, yes he has:
|
From the Office of Senator Kerry
Tax Haven and Abusive Tax Shelter Reform Act of 2002
Friday, April 26, 2002
Mr. President, the recent demise of Enron Corporation has generated national attention and shed light on an alarming trend. A growing number of corporations and individuals are exploiting tax havens in the Caribbean and elsewhere to evade and avoid paying taxes. Often cloaked in a web of bank secrecy and taxpayer privacy, businesses and individuals operating in offshore financial centers create sham corporations and partnerships. By sheltering tax-dodgers and tax cheats, these overseas tax havens undermine confidence and trust in our federal government. The spread of illegal tax haven activity punishes those who play by the rules. The end result is higher taxes on the little guy--those who comply with the law. They are stuck paying the tab, forced to make up for the lost revenue through unnecessarily high taxes. The exact details of Enron's tax avoidance practices are still under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee. What we do know is the energy conglomerate held over 800 subsidiaries in tax haven jurisdictions. Enron created 692 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands alone. Through the use of sophisticated financial instruments, at least one analyst estimates Enron was able to avoid income taxes in four of the last five years. Enron is not alone. The use of offshore tax havens by corporations and wealthy individuals is widespread. Through accounting tricks and tax loopholes, large companies not only avoid corporate income taxes, they claim sizable tax refunds. In a typical example, a corporation establishes a foreign subsidiary not subject to American taxes, shifts profits to the subsidiary which then sends them back to the parent corporation in a form that is considered not taxable under U.S. law. While some corporations use loopholes to skirt the edges of the law, other individuals use tax havens outright illegally. The Internet has simplified the process of launching a corporation or opening an account offshore. While Americans are taxed on their worldwide earnings, individuals operating in offshore financial centers gamble that the IRS will never uncover their overseas income. Taxpayers select tax havens because they offer little or no taxation on income in their jurisdiction and have privacy rules that help taxpayers hide what they are doing. Once the transfers are established, income is often repatriated back to the U.S. owners through loans, credit cards, or debit cards. By using complex transactions and multiple entities, the individuals using these schemes hide their income and avoid potential tax liabilities. The scope of the problem is daunting. Assets in offshore entities have climbed from an estimated $200 billion in 1983, to an estimated $5 trillion today. One private sector estimate suggests the use of tax havens to illegally shelter income results in the loss of $70 billion annually. The IRS estimates that in tax year 2000, about 740,000 taxpayers used abusive schemes (both domestic and offshore). Clearly, Congress must act to restore public confidence in our federal tax system. We can start by ensuring that honest, middle-class Americans are not the only ones left holding the bill. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's has shied away from aggressively attacking tax evasion. Last May, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill voiced suppport for abolishing the corporate income tax. The Treasury Department recently fought to water down an international campaign to reform tax haven practices led by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Last fall, the Administration sought to repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax, a tax designed to ensure that large corporations do not entirely escape taxation. Mr. President, exempting our nation's largest firms from taxation altogether is not the answer. On the contrary, Congress should take steps to ensure that criminal tax evasion is detected and addressed accordingly. The Tax Haven and Abusive Tax Shelter Reform Act of 2002 would impose strict measures against nations identified as uncooperative tax havens–those which use confidentiality rules and practices to undermine tax enforcement and administration or refuse to participate in effective information exchange agreements. The legislation would limit foreign tax credits claimed by taxpayers operating in uncooperative tax havens. It would require a strict reporting of outbound transfers by U.S. taxpayers. The bill imposes a new civil penalty on U.S. taxpayers who fail to report an interest in an offshore account. Finally, it mandates a comprehensive review of the offshore tax evasion problem, including specific mechanisms used by taxpayers to shelter income and assets. By imposing real consequences for jurisdictions which are identified as uncooperative tax havens, the bill pierces the veil of secrecy which shields tax cheats from scrutiny and provides a strong incentive for otherwise uncooperative tax havens to enter into commitments with the United States to reform their practices. The peddling of abusive corporate tax shelters also demands attention. Pre-packaged, tax-motivated transactions with no real economic risk or business purpose–but which capitalize on technical ambiguities in the tax code–are sold to corporations by creative practitioners to generate artificial losses and deductions. Provisions in the Tax Haven and Abusive Tax Shelter Reform Act of 2002, identical to those introduced in the House by Rep. Lloyd Dogget (D-TX), would disallow tax benefits from transactions that have no real business purpose other than tax savings. In addition, they expand disclosure requirements so that the IRS is fully aware of dubious tax schemes and tighten penalties against gross underpayments resulting from illegal tax shelters. A tax system which asks working families to pay their fair share, but gives large corporations such as Enron a free ride, is a national disgrace. And as tax havens and shelters proliferate, confidence in the integrity and fairness of our tax system and government declines. Middle-class families rightly conclude that our own government cannot effectively enforce its laws. The Administration, while proposing new disclosure requirements, has offered little in the way of substantive changes to alter the tax treatment of transactions which clearly serve no real business purpose other than tax avoidance. Furthermore, the Administration has undermined international efforts to aggressively address sheltering activity in tax havens. The Tax Haven and Abusive Tax Shelter Reform Act of 2002 is the first step in what will surely be a long road to restoring the confidence and faith of the vast majority of hard-working, law-abiding Americans who pay taxes on every dollar they earn. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.
|
And 1983. Seems like a nothing to me.
BTTT
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.