[kg_veteran]

kg, you seem to be smarter than the average guy, you tell me why the article's title and point of reference isn't the relative strength or weakness of the Kerry proposal, but how the company that his wife's ex-husband's family made a fotune from may benefit. Pretty much attacking the messenger without even loooking at the message.

Nice attempt to sidestep my point about your hair-splitting.

As for the article, it lays out pretty clearly why the proposal is weak.

Come to think of it, there's been no connection established that Kerry's wife actually gets any money from heinz Corp. either, just a trust set up for her deceased husband. For all we know the trust doesn't have any heinz Corp. stock.

Actually, since you brought it up, I did a quick search. Here's an interesting article:

Does Teresa Heinz Trust John Kerry?

His wife had him sign a prenuptial agreement, so your technical point is correct. He doesn't directly receive any money in his bank account. His wife has to give him an allowance out of that $33 million tax break. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Filing seperately will show all hissources of income BTW, rather than grouped with hers.

Yes, I know that. That's why it was silly for you to suggest that a separate filing would reveal whether his wife benefitted or not.

So what exactly was the "point"? That the tax proposal is wrong? That it will cause what negative result? Funny, the article never got to that did it?

Ape's point was that the plan gives Kerry's wife's company a huge break. Amazing that you didn't catch that.

"massive benefits"? could you quantify this?

I thought the article already did. $33 million.

The plan is to give a tax reduction for US cos. to return foreign earnings. But the article never even looked at it...

As the article points out, most countries don't even tax those foreign earnings.

"Retirement"? Cheney rec. several million $ when he resigned, he has the gov. benefits now as well. Cheney should NOT accept ANY compensation from halliburton while he is the VP, or halliburton should stop doing government work (and especially no bid contracts, which they have been wawarded.)

Odd that Cheney should receive money from the company he ran upon resignation/retirement. That never happens.

As for compensation while he's the VP, why not? If you had earned something, you'd expect to receive it too.

As for Halliburton, you wouldn't feel that way if someone in your family worked there. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that the company should just cease operations until Cheney leaves office.

Unless these are Sub S corps they report income, and 2/3 of the corps are not Sub S.

You're confusing double taxation with reporting income. To report income, you have to earn it. The issue was whether the tax RATE for corporations is one of the highest in the world. Pointing to the ones that pay none doesn't prove that it isn't.

To prove that the tax RATE for corporations in the U.S. isn't "among the highest in the world," you have to compare what a corporation making "X" dollars in the United States pays in taxes vs. what a corporation earning the same amount pays in another country.

It is relevant when compared to the US history of percentage, which it is doing ("Historic lows")

That percentage is "Amount of Tax Paid by U.S. Corporations" divided by "Amount of Tax Paid by all U.S. Taxpayers". It doesn't involve a comparison of what a corporation earning a set amount pays in Mexico vs. here.

In other words, like I pointed out in my last post, it's irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

The presumption that Kerry's plan "almost seems targeted to help Kery's wife" is unsupported, interesting isn't it that the article never mentioned the other multi-nationals who would also be affected. Actually it's interesting that the article never really discussed the tax plan, only an insinuation about a benefit that its proponent might have a connection to. Fine bit of work by that author....at least fine work of attacking by insinuation and character assasination.

You can ignore the obvious if you want, I suppose. The plan does, in fact, help Kerry's wife's company, and helps it substantially.

I never really was defending the article itself, but the article does discuss the multinationals affected and the Kerry plan. You're just so busy accusing everyone of "character assassination" (what an overrated term) that you didn't see that.

Yes, the Bush tax plan helped many American citizens who had similar incomes, especially those with equity investments that paid a dividend.

It helped a heck of a lot more people than the Kerry proposal would.