Campaign Releases Edwards's Earnings

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: 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?

Because they would be slammed for it.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
when has anyone taken Rip seriously ever?

about the same time people have taken you seriously 🙂

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: junkyardDawg
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

He's married and benefits from his wife's income. I wonder what percentage SHE paid. Something makes me think she paid significantly less then him.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, guys, 70% marginal tax rates do sound kinda high, but I guess it would depend on where that rate started...

I'd personally be utterly thrilled to have to pay 70% federal taxes on any income over $20M/yr or so...

Whaddaya think, there, Riprorin? How about it? Or would you resent every dime above the already lower than the rest of the top 1% that the top 400 pay, 22.5% vs 27.5%?

WTF happened to Patriotism among the Wealthy, anyway? 40 years ago, they'd stand up and say they were proud to pay big taxes on big money- now they just whine about how it's "not fair!"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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?

Because they're NOT paying 30% of their income in taxes.

Bush paid only 28% and Cheney only 20%.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

please bozack, if I were you I'd try to distance myself away from the partisan hack that Rip is. Comparing my posts to Rips is a bit of a stretch eh?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: junkyardDawg
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

He's married and benefits from his wife's income. I wonder what percentage SHE paid. Something makes me think she paid significantly less then him.

Teresa Heinz Kerry
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/teresa.kerry/index.html

Mrs. Kerry -- whose wealth derives from the Heinz food fortune -- earned about $5 million in 2003 and paid approximately $750,000 in taxes, according to the information...

...According to a statement, she had a gross taxable income of $2,338,000, primarily from dividends and interest. She also earned $2,777,000 in tax-exempt interest income from state, municipal and other bonds.

She paid about 32% in Federal taxes.

 

[ciba]

She paid about 32% in Federal taxes.

Thanks for the post, conjur. Somehow I missed that.

I notice she paid 32% on taxable income, but only 15% on total income. Gotta love those tax shelters!

 

[Todd33]

We have a progressive tax system, it's the only tax system that's has worked in thousands of years of human history. As soon as you come up with a better one that pays the bill, let us all know.

I make plenty and pay plenty. Do I want a tax cut? No. I'd rather pay the bills now, rather than bribe current voters at the expense of those who cannot vote (people under 18 or not yet born).

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ciba

She paid about 32% in Federal taxes.

Thanks for the post, conjur. Somehow I missed that.

I notice she paid 32% on taxable income, but only 15% on total income. Gotta love those tax shelters!

Tax-exempt interest income from State and municipal bonds.

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: conjur

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."

I didn't get a chance to read this, but maybe this has already been brought up.

If you are a democrat then you support higher tax rates for those who have more income, which is exactly what you demonstrated in this post. Edwards earned more (a lot more) and paid more in income tax both on a nominal level (obviously) and on a percentage level.

So I'm not sure what you're saying.

Is it:
"Isn't it great, Edwards made more and paid more taxes"
OR
"Isn't it terrible how Bush/Cheney paid a lower percentage than Edwards?"

Believe me the disparity would have been higher if not for the Bush tax cuts. Edwards would have paid closer to 40%

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, guys, 70% marginal tax rates do sound kinda high, but I guess it would depend on where that rate started...

I'd personally be utterly thrilled to have to pay 70% federal taxes on any income over $20M/yr or so...

Whaddaya think, there, Riprorin? How about it? Or would you resent every dime above the already lower than the rest of the top 1% that the top 400 pay, 22.5% vs 27.5%?

WTF happened to Patriotism among the Wealthy, anyway? 40 years ago, they'd stand up and say they were proud to pay big taxes on big money- now they just whine about how it's "not fair!"

If you pay 70% on anything over 20M, I think you'd see a lot of people retire for the year when they hit 20M, or at least stop trying.

 

[TuxDave]

umm..... so.... Kerry made more... paid more. Bush/Cheney made less... paid less. I don't get the problem.

 

[conjur]

The points are:

1) Kerry/Edwards definitely paid their share in taxes. Also, they voted AGAINST legislation that would have saved them quite a bit of money. Noble.

2) Cheney paid less in taxes than did Bush despite having $500,000 more in AGI!

 

[TaylorD]

well I know a perfect solution to this - abolish the cryptic tax laws and adopt a flat tax for anyone at a certain income level! (would have to be on a slightly graded scale to start with)

anybody?!?

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 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?

Because they're NOT paying 30% of their income in taxes.

Bush paid only 28% and Cheney only 20%.

28% is essentially 30%, doesn't matter if Cheney is paying less. Bush is paying that much, and plenty of other people are too. That alone invalidates the statement I was replying to.

 

[TaylorD]

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?

I disagree.... they are written for anyone who knows them inside and out. I would venture to say that people of all incomes take advantage of anything they can related to taxes.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 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?

Because they're NOT paying 30% of their income in taxes.

Bush paid only 28% and Cheney only 20%.

28% is essentially 30%, doesn't matter if Cheney is paying less. Bush is paying that much, and plenty of other people are too. That alone invalidates the statement I was replying to.

But, 28% <> 30%. $17,500 is not pocket change to most people.

 

[Zebo]

Sucks to work. He needs PASSIVE income sources and cap gains like most millionaires have and then he would'nt pay so much.

 

[TaylorD]

But, 28% <> 30%. $17,500 is not pocket change to most people.

Ok, you can't talk about taxes on a percentage level when it suits you, and on a dollar level when it suits you. Choose one or the other.

When you're talking about increasing taxes for the wealthy you talk in terms of percentage. If, for instance you were going to raise the taxes from 28% to 30% you'd say it was a 2% increase, I doubt you'd say it was $17,500 and "not pocket change to most people" You can't speak about it with gravity at some times and like its nothing at other times

Of course its not pocket change to most people. Some people make more money, and therefore each 1% of their income will be larger than 1% of someone income who makes less, and even more than some peoples entire income.

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Sucks to work. He needs PASSIVE income sources and cap gains like most millionaires have and then he would'nt pay so much.

If I am not mistaken capital gains are taxed twice. (You buy stocks, etc with your already taxed income, and then are taxed again on any earnings you make) You are taxed at whatever rate bracket you are in, so I suppose you could have no income and make a little off cap gains and avoid most taxation. But then again if you make a million off cap gains your in the highest tax bracket.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TaylorD

Originally posted by: Zebo
Sucks to work. He needs PASSIVE income sources and cap gains like most millionaires have and then he would'nt pay so much.

If I am not mistaken capital gains are taxed twice. (You buy stocks, etc with your already taxed income, and then are taxed again on any earnings you make) You are taxed at whatever rate bracket you are in, so I suppose you could have no income and make a little off cap gains and avoid most taxation. But then again if you make a million off cap gains your in the highest tax bracket.

How is that taxed twice?

The earnings were never previously taxed.

 

[TaylorD]

"A government can choose to tax either the value of an asset or its yield, but it should not tax both. Capital gains are literally the appreciation in the value of an existing asset. Any appreciation reflects merely an increase in the after-tax rateof return on the asset. The taxes implicit in the asset's after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset's price or change in price. Any additional tax is strictly double taxation"
.........
"A related effect of the capital gains tax is to encourage the financing of new business investment through debt rather than equity. That is because the capital gains tax is a form of double taxation of the same income (it is taxed as corporate income when earned and later as capital gains income when the taxpayers sell their equity holdings). In contrast, income resulting from debt-financed investments is taxed only once, because interest expenses are tax deductible. "


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-242.html


"Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, Democrats believe every day is April 15th"
(BTW I'm not a republican per-se, but I am vehemently anti Democrat when it comes to the economy and taxation)

 

[conjur]

So, in your opinion, someone whose stock yields enough money should never have to pay taxes again?

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: conjur
So, in your opinion, someone whose stock yields enough money should never have to pay taxes again?

What are you talking about?

BTW, capital gains include more than stocks, just for clarity's sake. Houses (if you make a certain profit when selling) can be considered capital gains.


As for your question:

I do not think it fair for two people to buy 1 share of stock of the same company at the same time, then sell it one year later at the same profit, and one person to be taxed more than someone else on that profit.