The Drudge Report has linked to this story in The Wall Street Journal (subscribers only).
It looks like John and Teresa Kerry have availed themselves so thoroughly of creative tax laws designed to benefit the "top out of sight" wealthy that they paid an effective tax rate of only 12.8% on their income for 2003. The average middle class taxpayer paid 20%, and President and Mrs. Bush (who had 1/10 of the income that the Kerrys reported) paid 30.4%.
Now, Kerry has never been known for his generosity. As Byron York reported here back in March on National Review Online,
In 1995, according to published reports, Kerry reported a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0. (emphasis added).
Granted, his wallet opened a little farther after 1995, when he married Teresa Kerry. But it seems as though Kerry thinks taxes are for "the little [rich] people" who make $200,000, not those who enjoy a $6 million yearly income like he does. Could that be why he has no aversion to raising taxes on "the rich"?
One more thing: The other night, in answering the question about abortion, John Kerry said, "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith." Then how is it that he can vote for a progressive income tax that forces "the rich" to pay a higher percentage of their income than the middle class does? Isn't that nothing more than an "article of faith" with Kerry, that those who have more should pay more?
Well, judging from the Journal piece today, maybe not . . .
It looks like John and Teresa Kerry have availed themselves so thoroughly of creative tax laws designed to benefit the "top out of sight" wealthy that they paid an effective tax rate of only 12.8% on their income for 2003. The average middle class taxpayer paid 20%, and President and Mrs. Bush (who had 1/10 of the income that the Kerrys reported) paid 30.4%.
Now, Kerry has never been known for his generosity. As Byron York reported here back in March on National Review Online,
In 1995, according to published reports, Kerry reported a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0. (emphasis added).
Granted, his wallet opened a little farther after 1995, when he married Teresa Kerry. But it seems as though Kerry thinks taxes are for "the little [rich] people" who make $200,000, not those who enjoy a $6 million yearly income like he does. Could that be why he has no aversion to raising taxes on "the rich"?
One more thing: The other night, in answering the question about abortion, John Kerry said, "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith." Then how is it that he can vote for a progressive income tax that forces "the rich" to pay a higher percentage of their income than the middle class does? Isn't that nothing more than an "article of faith" with Kerry, that those who have more should pay more?
Well, judging from the Journal piece today, maybe not . . .
posted by LadybugUSA at 1:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home