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
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.