Campaign Releases Edwards's Earnings

[conjur]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/politics/campaign/10edwards.html

n the four years before he joined the Senate in 1999, John Edwards made a total of nearly $27 million as a personal injury lawyer who won a string of multimillion-dollar jury verdicts and settlements.

The Kerry-Edwards Democratic presidential campaign released Mr. Edwards's income figures in a statement yesterday in response to questions about the taxes he paid after he created a tax shelter in 1995.

Mr. Edwards paid $9,353,448 in federal taxes on his income of $26,869,496, but the shelter allowed him to avoid paying $591,112 in Medicare tax, the figures provided by the campaign show.

Until now, Mr. Edwards's earnings as a trial lawyer have been a matter of speculation. He has declined to release his full tax filings on an annual basis, and his Senate disclosure forms only broadly suggest that he is worth $12 million to $60 million. The campaign said it was still considering whether to release the senator's actual tax filings, and whether it would do so only for his time in the Senate or for his legal career as well, which began in 1978. The campaign said Mr. Edwards had obtained an extension on his returns for 2003, and planned to file them this summer or fall.

The campaign also released a Jan. 14 letter from a Washington law firm, Caplin & Drysdale, that Mr. Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, engaged to review 10 years of their tax filings. "The structure initiated by the Edwardses' tax professionals was entirely lawful, ethical and proper," the letter said.

In campaigning for the presidential nomination, Mr. Edwards attacked President Bush as favoring the wealthy with his tax policies and blamed tax shelters as undermining the Medicare program.

Asked how Mr. Edwards's use of the tax shelter squared with his campaign positions, David Ginsberg, a Kerry campaign spokesman, said: "Senator Edwards believes that no individual should pay more than they owe in taxes, but he also believes that we should make sure our tax code reflects our values. The law should make sure everybody is paying their share - not one penny more and not one penny less."

The campaign said Mr. Edwards created the tax shelter, a so-called S Corporation, on the advice of his accountant, who cited its legal liability protections as well as its tax advantages, about two years after he left a larger firm to start his own practice with a partner.

His use of the tax shelter surfaced in his 1998 run for the Senate against Lauch Faircloth, the incumbent Republican, whose campaign manager called it a "deceitful ploy."

But accountants and tax-law specialists say that S Corporations have grown increasingly popular with lawyers, contractors and entrepreneurs. The IRS received 3,191,108 such filings last year. If anything, these experts said, Mr. Edwards used it rather conservatively.

While most of his income, which included some investments, was labeled dividends on the S Corporation, for which he paid no Medicare tax, Mr. Edwards did designate $360,000 a year as wages on which he was taxed for Medicare.

But even those whose business it is to collect taxes said they could find no fault with what Mr. Edwards did. "Let's face it," said Veranda Smith, a government affairs associate with the Federation of Tax Administrators. "I work for the state tax agencies, and I'm perfectly happy to say that anyone who puts in a structure that pays more taxes than necessary is nuts."

Friends and neighbors say Mr. Edwards does not flaunt his wealth and generally avoids its trappings. The biggest extravagances seem to be homes. The Edwardses own three houses: one in Raleigh, N.C.; a beach house on Figure Eight Island, near Wrightsville Beach, N.C.; and a town house in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, bought last year for $3.8 million.

They do not eat out often, and friends say that when they do they choose restaurants where they can order chicken fingers for their children. The Edwardses recently vacationed at Walt Disney World, but for the most part, vacations are to Raleigh or to the beach house.

"You're not talking people who are in love with money for its own sake," said Glenn Bergenfield, a friend of the couple's since law school, and godparent to their two sons.


Continued

He paid almost 35% of his income in federal taxes. That's a boatload more than I did! And it's a lot more than either Bush or Cheney:

From the Christian Science Monitor:

"Bushes pay $225,000 in federal taxes

Posted: Tuesday, April 13, 12:51pm EDT

President Bush reported $822,126 in adjusted gross income for last year, on which he paid $227,490 in federal income taxes - or about 28 percent, according to the president's federal returns released Tuesday by the White House.
Bush and his wife, Laura, listed as income his presidential salary, interest and the investment income from trusts that hold their assets.

The Bushes' income and tax bill was slightly lower than the previous year, when the First Couple reported $856,056 in adjusted gross income and paid $268,719 in federal income taxes. For 2002, the Bushes paid about 31 percent of their income in federal taxes.

The White House also released the 2003 tax return filed by Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne. They reported $1.3 million in adjusted gross income and owed $253,067 in federal taxes. The Cheneys' 2003 tax bill - much lower than the $341,114 they paid for 2002 on just slightly less money - represented just 20 percent of their income."

 

[Riprorin]

All Americans pay too much tax, including the candidates.

Do you think taxes matter to these guys? They are all filthy rich and will continue to be.

 

[glenn1]

He paid almost 35% of his income in federal taxes. That's a boatload more than I did! And it's a lot more than either Bush or Cheney:

Edwards' figures are from 1999 to present. You have to keep in mind that the Bush tax cuts meant that he was paying at a higher rate in the beginning of that time period, likely the old 39% rate. That would make his 33% rate for the 5-year time period about right. The rate paid by the Bushes seems about right. The Cheney's seem on the low side this year, but I don't know what their tax situation is, they may have been owed a refund last year and decided to apply it to this year's taxes. Who knows. I think it's safe to say that at the level of politics we're talking about, all the tax returns involved have been vetted and are defensible according to current laws.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: glenn1

He paid almost 35% of his income in federal taxes. That's a boatload more than I did! And it's a lot more than either Bush or Cheney:

Edwards' figures are from 1999 to present. You have to keep in mind that the Bush tax cuts meant that he was paying at a higher rate in the beginning of that time period, likely the old 39% rate. That would make his 33% rate for the 5-year time period about right. The rate paid by the Bushes seems about right. The Cheney's seem on the low side this year, but I don't know what their tax situation is, they may have been owed a refund last year and decided to apply it to this year's taxes. Who knows. I think it's safe to say that at the level of politics we're talking about, all the tax returns involved have been vetted and are defensible according to current laws.

Tax laws are specifically written for the Bush and Cheney types so they don't legally have to pay them. What the hell do you think power and contributions are for?

 

[Bowfinger]

Good for Edwards. Here's a guy who has both the means and the motive to shelter most of his income from taxes, yet has the integrity to contribute his fair share. We need more people like that in Washington.


(As a bonus, he helps puncture the whines that the only people OK with taxes are those who don't pay them. LOL)

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Do you think taxes matter to these guys? They are all filthy rich and will continue to be.

and yet, in this era of astronomically insane budget deficits, you support continued tax cuts that mainly benefit the rich!

If you only had a brain! :roll:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
All Americans pay too much tax, including the candidates.

Do you think taxes matter to these guys? They are all filthy rich and will continue to be.

Then why should we care if they are taxed at a higher percentage if they don't care?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
All Americans pay too much tax, including the candidates.

Do you think taxes matter to these guys? They are all filthy rich and will continue to be.

Then why should we care if they are taxed at a higher percentage if they don't care?

There's something called fairness.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
All Americans pay too much tax, including the candidates.

Do you think taxes matter to these guys? They are all filthy rich and will continue to be.

Then why should we care if they are taxed at a higher percentage if they don't care?

There's something called fairness.

Are you somehow now feigning sympathy for the "filthy rich"?

 

[Riprorin]

I suppose that you agree with Michael Moore that the "rich" should have 70% of their income taxed?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I suppose that you agree with Michael Moore that the "rich" should have 70% of their income taxed?

First, answer my question.

Second, how in the hell did you pull a claim like that out of your arse?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I suppose that you agree with Michael Moore that the "rich" should have 70% of their income taxed?

First, answer my question.

Second, how in the hell did you pull a claim like that out of your arse?

Get a transcript of his interview with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike you, I don't have any envy of the rich.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I suppose that you agree with Michael Moore that the "rich" should have 70% of their income taxed?

First, answer my question.

Second, how in the hell did you pull a claim like that out of your arse?

Get a transcript of his interview with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike you, I don't have any envy of the rich.

Answer my question:
Are you somehow now feigning sympathy for the "filthy rich"?


As for me obtaining a transcript from Bill O'Reilly, why the heck would I want to pay to do that??

 

[DealMonkey]

Yup Rip, keep squawking about "envying the rich" -- it's appropriate you chose a parrot for your avatar.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Get a transcript of his interview with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike you, I don't have any envy of the rich.

a) This smells like one of your lies. Source it or stop repeating it.

b) What the hell does Michael Moore have to do with this?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I suppose that you agree with Michael Moore that the "rich" should have 70% of their income taxed?

First, answer my question.

Second, how in the hell did you pull a claim like that out of your arse?

Get a transcript of his interview with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike you, I don't have any envy of the rich.

Answer my question:
Are you somehow now feigning sympathy for the "filthy rich"?


As for me obtaining a transcript from Bill O'Reilly, why the heck would I want to pay to do that??

Who's feigning?

I just don't buy into the "soak the rich" mentality that you do.

The people that I know that are rich worked their butts off. Why should the government confiscate their earnings?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I suppose that you agree with Michael Moore that the "rich" should have 70% of their income taxed?

First, answer my question.

Second, how in the hell did you pull a claim like that out of your arse?

Get a transcript of his interview with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike you, I don't have any envy of the rich.

Answer my question:
Are you somehow now feigning sympathy for the "filthy rich"?


As for me obtaining a transcript from Bill O'Reilly, why the heck would I want to pay to do that??

Who's feigning?

I just don't buy into the "soak the rich" mentality that you do.

The people that I know that are rich worked their butts off. Why should the government confiscate their earnings?

Wait a minute.

Either I'm envious of the rich, as you alluded to, or I'm wanting to "soak the rich".

Which is it?

I think you've skipped your Effexor for a few days.

 

[Strk]

I wish I could complain about having to pay that much in taxes 😉

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I suppose that you agree with Michael Moore that the "rich" should have 70% of their income taxed?

First, answer my question.

Second, how in the hell did you pull a claim like that out of your arse?

Get a transcript of his interview with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike you, I don't have any envy of the rich.

Answer my question:
Are you somehow now feigning sympathy for the "filthy rich"?


As for me obtaining a transcript from Bill O'Reilly, why the heck would I want to pay to do that??

Who's feigning?

I just don't buy into the "soak the rich" mentality that you do.

The people that I know that are rich worked their butts off. Why should the government confiscate their earnings?

Wait a minute.

Either I'm envious of the rich, as you alluded to, or I'm wanting to "soak the rich".

Which is it?

I think you've skipped your Effexor for a few days.

OMGOSH! You caught Ripporin in a obvious flip flop! That's it! Nobody take him seriously anymore. Hes a flip flopper of the highest order!

He was against flip flopping now hes for it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I suppose that you agree with Michael Moore that the "rich" should have 70% of their income taxed?

Everybody pays the same taxes in a progressive code. So the "rich" only pay higher taxes to the extent they make "a lot" more money. IMO, 70% is steep. I would be more inclined to favor something in the high 30s for income over $500k, while making the current code more progressive.

But I think all income should be taxed regardless of source but it should be assessed independently. If you make 40k in earned income and 40k in dividends (I know highly unlikely). You would be taxed at the 40k rate for each not on 80k of total income. IMHO, that would be a "fair" tax code.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I suppose that you agree with Michael Moore that the "rich" should have 70% of their income taxed?

First, answer my question.

Second, how in the hell did you pull a claim like that out of your arse?

Get a transcript of his interview with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike you, I don't have any envy of the rich.

Answer my question:
Are you somehow now feigning sympathy for the "filthy rich"?


As for me obtaining a transcript from Bill O'Reilly, why the heck would I want to pay to do that??

Who's feigning?

I just don't buy into the "soak the rich" mentality that you do.

The people that I know that are rich worked their butts off. Why should the government confiscate their earnings?

Wait a minute.

Either I'm envious of the rich, as you alluded to, or I'm wanting to "soak the rich".

Which is it?

I think you've skipped your Effexor for a few days.

OMGOSH! You caught Ripporin in a obvious flip flop! That's it! Nobody take him seriously anymore. Hes a flip flopper of the highest order!

He was against flip flopping now hes for it.

An RA? That's a first.

 

[junkyardDawg]

the point of the article in the OP is that

In campaigning for the presidential nomination, Mr. Edwards attacked President Bush as favoring the wealthy with his tax policies andText blamed tax shelters as undermining the Medicare program.

and

Mr. Edwards paid $9,353,448 in federal taxes on his income of $26,869,496, but the shelter allowed him to avoid paying $591,112 in Medicare tax, the figures provided by the campaign show.

also, if you're going to compare Edwards' taxes to Bush and Cheney's then throw Kerry's in too.

Kerry paid $90,575 on $395,338 AGI

and to really make it fair we could look at Edwards taxes for 2003

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

when has anyone taken Rip seriously ever?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Perknose
and yet, in this era of astronomically insane budget deficits, you support continued tax cuts that mainly benefit the rich!

If you only had a brain! :roll:

Either way the middle class is going to pay, right now tax cuts are benefitting the well to do and large corporations, not great for the middle and lower classes but not necessarily bad either...increase taxes on the wealthy, combine that with increased fees and penalties on large corps that off shore and viola we will see more jobs leave the country, so while the wealthy will be taxed at a higher rate, jobs will decline and you will see unemployment and poverty rise, also Pharma will take a big blast, and since Pharma is big in the US that will be a serious blow to the econ.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: glenn1

He paid almost 35% of his income in federal taxes. That's a boatload more than I did! And it's a lot more than either Bush or Cheney:

Edwards' figures are from 1999 to present. You have to keep in mind that the Bush tax cuts meant that he was paying at a higher rate in the beginning of that time period, likely the old 39% rate. That would make his 33% rate for the 5-year time period about right. The rate paid by the Bushes seems about right. The Cheney's seem on the low side this year, but I don't know what their tax situation is, they may have been owed a refund last year and decided to apply it to this year's taxes. Who knows. I think it's safe to say that at the level of politics we're talking about, all the tax returns involved have been vetted and are defensible according to current laws.

Tax laws are specifically written for the Bush and Cheney types so they don't legally have to pay them. What the hell do you think power and contributions are for?

Why are they paying 30% of their income in taxes if the tax code was written so they don't have to pay it?