Remedial Math & English Tutoring Needed
Earlier this week we linked to Tim Lambert’s find of a Tech Central Station Columnist in desperate need of remedial science (and math) tutoring. (Which followed our own find of a math challenged rant.) Always being on the lookout for further examples showing that “our children isn’t learning,” we are happy to offer you last weekend’s NewsMax email:
Kerry’s Wife Pays Less Taxes Than Median Family
Say what?
For a long time Steve Forbes has been advocating a flat tax. He says this is the only way to make sure the rich pay their fair share of taxes due Uncle Sam.
Now we know why Steve Forbes wants the flat tax. Wealthy individuals such as Teresa Heinz Kerry pay less in taxes, proportionately, than does the median U.S. family.
Let’s see where this takes us:
According to HUD, the median family income for the U.S. for 2003 was $56,500. After applying the standard deduction of $9,500 for married filing jointly we end up with a taxable income of $47,000. This puts the average [do they know average isn’t the same as median? -S,N!] family in the 15 percent tax bracket. Kerry’s wife, using tax shelters, managed to pay only an effective federal tax rate of 11.5 percent, compared with the top federal income tax rate of 35 percent. She paid $587,000 [federal tax only] on an income of $5.1M.
That bitch, this makes us so mad! Except, of course, that the whole thing is bullshit. Let’s go to the video tape:
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.
Ah, half of that was tax free interest income. If NewsMax readers were better informed, they would know that flat tax advocates believe that all “unearned income” (i.e. interest, capital gains, etc…) should not be taxed at the federal level:
Individuals would no longer be taxed on their interest, dividends, capital gains and other “unearned” income.
Teresa Heinz Kerry’s tax bill of $587,000 on a taxable income of $2,338,000 constitutes an effective federal tax rate of approximately 26%, a figure that typical for the average taxpayer with an income between 2 and 5 million dollars, who paid 29% in taxes. The flat tax would constitute a huge tax saving for Mrs. Heinz Kerry (and other wealthy Americans,) and leave the US Treasury with significantly lower tax revenue. Figuring this out, however, would obviously require a longer attention span than your typical NewsMax editors (or readers.) [As for John Kerry’s tax bill, it was just under 23% of his adjusted gross income.]
Bonus points: The average tax return for married persons filing jointly with an income between $40,000 and $50,000 showed $3,432 of income tax paid, an effective tax rate that is significantly less than 10% of their income.
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.
Nice one, Seb; next stop, rocket science!
Maybe I missed something here, or the Citizens for Tax Justice press release is incorrectly characterizing the Forbes plan, but nearly her entire income, not just half, is derived from dividends and interest. Thus, an even smaller amount is subject to tax under Forbes’ plan than you suggest.
Further, the “typical family” cited would, under Forbes’ plan, no longer enjoy the benefit of mortgage interest or charitable donation deductions (to name just two typical deductions, and I’m sure there are more), driving its tax burden even higher.
It’s not difficult to see what drives trust-fund baby Forbes’ interest in such a plan– he is himself the prime beneficiary of it. Wow, there’s a shocker, unenlightened self-interest from a conservative.
What is hard to see is why the plan enjoys support from so many middle income conservative Americans who will so clearly be screwed by it.
These maroons also don’t realize (or pretend not to realize) that if one’s marginal tax rate is 15%, that doesn’t mean that one will pay 15% of one’s taxable income in federal taxes.
Without tax free bonds most states would have to admit that they don’t actually balance their budgets, but are actually running deficits.
Income is income, no matter how it’s generated. I didn’t enjoy paying 40% short-term capital gains when I got stuck with stock instead of cash for a fee, but I didn’t want to get stuck with the high tech stock. I was actually taxed twice on that mess [once on the stock transaction and an again as it was income from business], but I didn’t lose money.
The plan is to make people who work for a living support those who inherit their income or gamble [i.e. invest in the stock market].
Do you enjoy being played for a sucker?
If you’re a reader of NewsMax, you might want to reflect upon the quality of its product….
How can a couple with an income between $40k and $50k pay less than 10% if they’re in the 15% bracket? Lots of breaks?
How can a couple with an income between $40k and $50k pay less than 10% if they’re in the 15% bracket? Lots of breaks?
Tax breaks and the fact that while NewsMax didn’t notice, not all income is taxed at 15%.
Please also see this.
Excellent, thanks!
Here’s the kicker – her taxes are based on Bush’s tax cuts, right? So whatever it is that she’s paying and how it relates to the “typical family” is Bush’s fault!