[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
First, John Kerry does not own any interest in Heinz Corp., and from the info in his tax filings he doesn't get a dime from Heinz.

Kerry pays his taxes

Mavdog, from what I can tell you're a pretty intelligent guy. But you're trying to split hairs like a damn lawyer.

It is apparent to anyone not trying to be asinine what madape is talking about. Kerry's plan would give a huge benefit to his wife's company. While this may not literally be "in Kerry's pocketbook," the rest of ape's comments ("sugar mamma's company", "savings to Kerry's family") make it abundantly clear what he's talking about. In fact, the Yahoo! story you link states, "The Massachusetts senator and presumed Democratic presidential nominee is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, heiress to the $500 million Heinz Co. food fortune. He files his income taxes returns separately." Since he files his taxes separately, of course his returns won't indicate that he "earns a dime" from Heinz. But no one is naive enough to think that he doesn't financially benefit when Heinz does. Well, no one except you, apparently.

I can only suppose that you have no substantive response to ape's point, so you just start splitting hairs.

On the other hand, our current Vice President was paid $178,437 in 2003 by Halliburton, a company that has received over $6 BILLION in payments by the US Government. Kinda ironic that the AEP would target Kerry about Heinz, who pays him NOTHING, but fails to target Cheney about Halliburton. hmm, something stinks here, and it smells like dishonesty over at the AEP.

Big difference here. Halliburton actually renders services in exchange for the money it receives from the federal government. Heinz isn't going to do anything to receive the massive benefits Kerry's plan would provide. Also, should Dick Cheney forego his retirement from Halliburton? You wouldn't say that if it was your retirement. Should Halliburton be prohibited from doing business with the government because Cheney used to work there? Would that really be fair to the thousands of people that work for Halliburton, to discriminate against them because a former executive is now in public office? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and your analogy falls flat.

Second, the AEP article you linked to is wrong. It states:

"The other factor that harms U.S. competitiveness is the very high rate of U.S. corporate tax. Most other countries have reduced their corporate tax rates sharply in recent years. The U.S. has not, and the result is that we are now one of the highest tax countries on earth. In a recent paper I coauthored with my colleague Eric Engen, for example, we found that the U.S. corporate tax rate was 18 percent higher than the non-U.S. average in 2001"

Odd then that here is a factoid from a news editorial:
"According to recent reports, nearly 2 out of 3 U.S. companies paid no income taxes durng the five years ending in 2000"

So how can it be true that the United States is "one of the highest tax countries on earth"? Because it is not. Canada (and about a dozen others that I could find with a simple google search) has a higher corporate tax than the USA, but that must be too far away for the AEP to investigate.

What you don't point out is that of those "2 out of 3 U.S. companies" that paid no income taxes, virtually all of them are closely held and/or family companies which don't report any income or don't report much income; consequently, they don't pay taxes. This quote does nothing to prove or disprove what the AEP report said in comparing the U.S. tax rate vs. the "non-US average for 2001".

How much does corporate America pay in income taxes you might ask? How about this bit of information: "Corporate tax payments are already at historic lows, less than 8 percent of all federal tax revenues"

Tax editorial

You're still not addressing the issue unless you cite some comparison to the taxation occurring in other countries. The percentage of total revenues is irrelevant.

How about our leaders, surely they pay their taxes. right? Yes, they do, although they pay less due to the Bush tax cuts:
"According to calculations by Bloomberg News, tax cuts that Bush championed and last year signed into law saved his family about $23,000. They saved the Cheneys as much as $60,000.

A new 15% rate on dividend income saved the Bushes $2,586, and lower rates and tax breaks for married people saved them $20,600, according to Bloomberg calculations.

Cheney and his wife saved $19,855 in taxes on dividends they received and as much as $19,350 on capital gains from investments. Lower tax rates for couples saved them about $21,000, Bloomberg calculations showed"
Ouch, you mean they saved themselves alot of dough? And the AEP wants to lambast Kerry about a potential tax savings for a company he doesn't get a dime from? sorta odd, wouldn't you say?

While I think most people would agree that $23,000 or $63,000 is peanuts compared to $33 million, you're still kind of missing the point. One plan contains a loophole that almost seems targeted to help Kerry's wife; the other contains tax savings that benefit Bush and Cheney but also many other American citizens.