posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:54 AM
Ok, WW I'll reply and give some thoughts,
"President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney reaped tax benefits last year from the cuts that they pushed through Congress and that Democrats have
criticized as a boon to the rich.
The government's top two executives, both wealthy men, paid smaller shares of their income in federal taxes in 2003 than in the year before,
according to returns released Tuesday by the White House."
President Bush and his wife filed jointly thus declaring ALL of their adjusted gross income as a couple of $822,126 and paid $227,490 in federal
income taxes, or about 28%. Fairly straightforward, and nothing out of the ordinary.
Since we only have one President it will be necessary to compare John Kerry the presumed nominee and his wife Teresa Heinz in order to put into
perspective the fair amount of the Bush joint tax contribution.
Senator John Kerry decided to file seperately as is legal but it does not fairly declare the joint income nor assets he has access to through his
wife. Kerry reported $395,000 in taxable income with $90,575 in federal income taxes paid, or about 23% of his income.
Taking the Heinz fortune into account however paints a very different story. Lets assume a reported value of $800,000,000 invested at a return of 8%
average return, that equals $64,000,000 dollars, now lets tax that at the claimed advantagious rate of 28% that the Bushs paid.
The total at 28% equals $17,920,000, lets add Johns share at the now higher rate of 28% and see what we get.........
Hmm....$110,600 + $17,920,000 = $18,030,000
Looking at the current math and method of filing it appears the Bush tax cuts have greatly benifitted Kerrys bottom line.
The big question of course is not knowing what the Kerrys paid as a couple, I seriously doubt it was anywhere near $18,030,000 or even 1/2, or even
1/4, or even 1/8 that amount - of course we'll never get that answer will we?
The other point I would like to make is that if the Bushs filed seperately we would be hearing from the media and the left that they were trying to
hide something, why is that not an issue on the other side ? hmmm.............
One only has to compare european socialist democracies(sic) high taxation and the resulting economic stagnation(GDP growth of 1/2 to 1% if lucky)
combined with unemployment well above 10% to see that reduced taxation is the way to go if you want a vibrant economy in this country.
As far as the deficit is concerned, I would much rather see reduced government size and spending as a response to the deficit. In the long run
initiatives should be forced on our polititians to get the government below 15% Gdp, this will never happen if we allow them to in any way get their
hands on our money first, rebates and incentives are just another house of cards to play with as far as washington is concerned, The ONLY control we
have is to keep our money.