Is it true Teresa Heinz Kerry only paid 14% in taxes last year???

[leftyandproud]

Just heard this on the radio. :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Shouldn't she be setting an example and paying her fair share? It really makes Kerry look like a hypocrite when he and his wife make tens of millions and shelter most of it from taxes. If Kerry is going to call for a rollback of the shrub tax reductions, he and Teresa should have paid in at least 40-50%. Lead by example, and don't give the pukes this kind of easy ammunition. It hurts our case.

[papau]

1. Yes - over half her income is in TAX FREE investments- so what is big deal

She pays her fair share by accepting a lower interest rate in return for no taxes - and that lower interest rate keeps the city that issued the bonds from raising its tax rates.

Seems rather clean and straight arrow.

Does Fox have a problem - or does Rush and Hannity have a problem?

[Rich Lewis]

28. She should still be paying more than that

[blm]

32. Can you explain HOW she can pay more to the government than required?

Teresa WANTS to pay more in taxes next year. Vote for Kerry so the wealthiest will pay a bit more of their fair share.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

66. I believe you can write a check directly to the

Bureau of Public Debt.


Let's not be disingenuous here. THK doesn't want to pay more taxes but she shouldn't be blamed for following the law.

She may be willing to pay more, though.

[radwriter0555]

30. considering how many billions she GIVES to charity, hell yes! I LOVE it!

what a generous woman!

[catzies]

2. So did I. Millions of Americans have tax shelters or subsidies.

Home mortgage interest.

I don't even know what tax BRACKET I'm in, but at the end of the year I take my total tax liability and divide it by my AGI: voila, 14%.

Where's the hypocrisy? I don't see it.

[David Dunham]

3. The Cheneys only paid 11% of their income in taxes for last year.

[leftyandproud]

10. but the Cheneys want MORE tax reductions..

as wrong as they are, they are consistent

[Aunt Anti-bush]

4. She pays what she is supposed to based on Bush's tax cut for the wealthy.

What do you expect her to do, DONATE another 30 percent or so? Would you?

[leftyandproud]

12. I need an ARGUMENT.

how to I counter the "Why don't you cut the IRS a check?" argument? I get this all the time. "After all, it always comes down to the individual...to YOU...what right do you have demading higher taxes while you take advantage of tax reductions you that YOU OPPOSED?? SEND IT BACK!"

ugh, I really hate this argument...because in a way, it does make sense. I am saving around $100-125 a month thanks to the shrub tax cuts...I really need the money...It gives me some much needed breathing room...but if we had a better leader, I wouldn't mind sending it back...but as long as we are under a pug administration, I'll take every penny I can squeeze from the greedy bastards!

[namnis]

35. What a hypocrite

What a hypocrite

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Left_Wing_Fox]

54. I'll give it a try...

Ok, here's my useless thought on the argument.

Right now, the federal deficit is at $500 Billion, on total Federal Income of about $2 Trillion. The combined national debt is approximately $7 Trillion. It currently pays about 12% of that income in Interest payments. Even if Kerry paid 70% of her total income (the top tax rate _AFTER_ JFK's "tax cut" ), on ALL income, not just taxable income, it would pay back a mere 0.000019% of what Bush's tax cuts drained from the Government's coffers.

To put that in perspective, if the Bush government was a family with a $50,000/year income, they would owe $175,000 in debt, and would be adding another $12,500 in credit card debt to that amount every year. At those ratios, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's generous 70% contribution to that overage would be would be about Twenty-three cents.

Sounds pretty hollow; doesn't it? Charity from the wealthy won't fix the problem.

Right now, 12% the money YOU pay in taxes does nothing more than pay the minimum interest payments on our collective credit card. Bush's deficits will increase the amount of tax you will pay tomorrow to reap the "benefits" of what we get today. He has no solid plans for reducing the deficit, and his tax cuts have forced states to shift the burden onto middle-class and working class people. Planned additional tax cuts by the Bush administration will make the situation even worse, by eliminating ANY tax on income from trusts. Mrs. Heinz-Kerry wouldn't have to pay dime, and they're opposing it.

So, do you pick the man who offers to fix a system rigged to his benefit, or to a man who is actively rigging the system to his own benefit?

I think the answer is obvious. :)

[ProfessorGAC]

65. Here's Your Rebuttal

You don't need an argument Lefty, you need a rebuttal.

When someone tells you to send the IRS check, tell them that if you believed that the money would be spent by government in ways with which you agreed, and would benefit the greater good, you would.

But, when people who don't need the money, AREN'T reinvesting it to create jobs and sustainable economic growth, are getting the lion's share, the tax policy put forth by Li'l Georgie cannot be trusted. So, you can't send the money back, because you can't trust what they'll do with it.
The Professor

[leftyandproud]

69. ...

"But, when people who don't need the money, AREN'T reinvesting it to create jobs and sustainable economic growth, are getting the lion's share, the tax policy put forth by Li'l Georgie cannot be trusted. So, you can't send the money back, because you can't trust what they'll do with it."


I did this...I got some complicates economic response that I don't understand...how savings and investment DO benefit the economy, allowing people to get cheap loans and businesses to invest...used a bunch of "econ speak" that I don't really get...then when I said "Give it to people that need it...the rich don't need it", I got the "Oh, from each according to ability, to each according to need eh?"

So I guess I'm a marxist. I don't care. Screw them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. That's because she isn't as rich as Microsoft

which pays zero income tax.

[RossMcLochNess]

7. Microsoft paid over $394,000,000...

in taxes over the last two years. Granted, they should be paying more but the "heyday" of tax loopholes was 1996-2000 when companies either paid nothing or even got millions in refunds. The loopholes are getting smaller and smaller. Still got some work to do but its getting better.

[papau]

9. No it is not - paying 394 m while sitting on 50 B exposed to taxes is not

getting better -

The hidden earnings and assets are not being exposed because they do not have to be exposed. Section 482 of the IRS Code is no longer enforced by the Bush administration - at least nowhere near the level of enforcement that existed under Clinton.

[SahaleArm]

25. Microsoft Corp. paid $4.7-Billion in income tax for FY-03.

Income Taxes (in Millions)

2003 - $4,733.0
2002 - $3,684.0
2001 - $3,804.0
2000 - $4,854.0
1999 - $4,106.0

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.asp?Symbol=MSFT

[papau]

53. 10Q indicates small def.tax of 2.1 billion, plus residual value games and

the usual hiding of income via license games - plus calling lost court case and regulatory fines as "taxes" - but they force the GAAP tax to 35% of reported GAAP income - so without seeing the actual tax return you can not tell a damn thing except they actively manage their tax situation - using classic loop holes.

"Microsoft Corp. paid $4.7-Billion in income tax for FY-03" is of course not true - that is a GAAP number that is forced and does not represent anything that was "paid"


Fellow that said they paid to the US Fed Tax folks $394,000,000 was possibly correct - it seems low - even for a company that is good at legal cheating of the government (where knowing Bush will not call you on your interpretations of the IRS code makes your "judgements" no longer cheating - and indeed "legal"!), but it is possible.

On edit: I should note that the $2.1 billion def tax portion of the asset build is small for this size company - but I suspect they have a tax department head as good as I was, and it rather means little!

[RossMcLochNess]

67. The Clinton Administration enforced nothing...

Take a look at this article:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P80242.asp

Clinton did nothing along the lines of enforcement. I'm not trying to pee in anyone's Cornflakes but Clinton was just as bad, if not worse, in terms of keeping the loopholes open. Its the one area where Bill does deserve criticism.

[PeaceProgProsp]

16. The average effective tax burden for companies:

- for companies with over 100 million in income is in the 2-3% range.

There is no AMI for corporations and they're able to offset most of their income with tax deductions.

[Deja Q]

43. Here's an article which corroborates your post

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040517/opinion/17edit.htm

In the boom years from 1996 through 2000, when profits went through the roof, over 60 percent of American companies, doing nearly $2.5 trillion in gross income, paid no income taxes. None. Some 71 percent of foreign companies, doing three quarters of a trillion dollars, also paid no federal income taxes... (more...)

The whole article is rather damning, especially when it's in a repuke magazine.

Welcome to DU! :bouce: :party:

[Caution]

6. oh fer pete's sake

almost all of her income comes from tax-exempt bonds. You do know what bonds are right? they are low interest yeilding long term investments in the United States of America. IE the very thing that supports our current deficit government spending? A good example of this for noraml (read not uber-wealthy ) americans is their 401k. Any increase in your net wroth due to contributions to your 401k is not taxable income. (it's much more complicated than this but you get the idea).

She actually paid out about 32% on her taxable income, which is pretty high considering the amount of charity work she also does which is of course also rightly tax deductible.

This is just a stupid smear which you fell right into.

[PeaceProgProsp]

18. How did she pay a 32% rate on her taxable income?

If she doesn't work for a living, wouldn't the highest rate she'd be exposed to 25% for short term capital gains?

Maybe 32% includes all taxes, including state and local taxes.

[rock]

8. Let's assume that it was all perfectly legal

Now what's your point? That she owes a big thanks to bushsucks*

[K8-EEE]

20. ALL The Rich Pay A Lesser Part Of Their Income

Regardless of politics, I don't blame people for paying what they owe...what are they supposed to do, write the government a bonus check of something?

If the support fairer taxes, I'm OK with them paying whatever is legal...

[TNOE]

11. Consider her smart

I had a client this year who owed $16,000,000 in taxes......

Would be great to have the kind of money he made to owe that in taxes though.

Bush's probably have some of the largest trust funds in HISTORY - as well as a supposed joint account with the Queen of England - so they have WAYYYYYYYYYYY more money than Teresa.

[blm]

13. Teresa WANTS to pay more in taxes. She wants the wealthiest to pay more

of their fair share.

You want to BLAME her for what the government charges her?

Can you explain how she can go about paying more?

Did you also notice how many millions she personally gave to charities?

[Ripley]

14. 40%-50%?

Wow, that seems a bit harsh.

[PeaceProgProsp]

15. 100% of her income is probably only taxed at 15% anyway.

She doesn't have a job, right? So she doesn't have any earned income.

If she gets all her money from selling assets she has held for more than or year or living off dividend income, all her money is only taxed at 15% anyway.

Her effective tax rate is 14% probably because she has charitable contributions. And since she probably isn't benefitting from any of the deductions the to which alternative minimum income tax applies, I'm not sure that that would make any difference.

If people have a problem with this, they need to talk to the Republicans and the couple dozen democrats who don't care about the shift of the tax burden from people live off wealth they've already accumulated and on to people who work for a living and who created this situation.

It's not like Heinz did anythign to avoid taxes. This is the fact. She's the kind of person the Republicans had in mind when they started shifting tax burdens.

[MsUnderstood]

17. So what you are saying

Is that Bush gives out tax breaks and you want Kerry to send the government money?

Taxes don't work that way...you can't send money into the government and say "here take this, I don't need it". That is in essence BRIBING the government.

She is following the tax code--it is really a backward arguement that Kerry needs to give up is tax break--where is he gonna give it.

[PeaceProgProsp]

19. It's amazing that Democrats take the heat for crap created by Bush.

If people are outraged by this, they need to talk to the Repubicans who brought us such incredilbe inequities.

[jmowreader]

57. It is possible to do just that

It's called a "gift to reduce the public debt."

All you do is write a check to the Bureau of the Public Debt and enclose it in the envelope with your 1040.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. If you think taxes should be higher on the rich, you should vote for Kerry

If you think people should pay more in taxes than the government says they owe, I encourage you to lead by example, lol.

[rustydog]

22. If so, what is your point?

If you could pay 14% by law, would you, or would you pay 30 % more just to set an example?
I don't think you would.
How much did Bush Pay? Cheny, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz?

These people, like it or not, live in a rarified air we will never see or experience. they are WEALTHY,and by law pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes.

You would do just the same. So would I.

[libcurious]

23. About 10% to much

if you ask me. She shouldn't pay anymore in taxes than any other American does. We should all pay the same percentage of our income, 5% at the most. Quite giving out tax money like it has no end. Why continue to raise taxes when we really need to just manage it better.

[leftyandproud]

24. freeper alert

[MsUnderstood]

26. That is calling the kettle black

I think that after you post "why doesn't kerry give money to the government to set an example" it is pretty silly to then post a freeper alert for someone else making a broad generalization.

[leftyandproud]

29. I posted this...

in hopes of getting some good rebuttles...so far all I have is "They do it too!" See my "I need an argument" post above...I would appreciate any ideas to counter this typical freeper question

[PeaceProgProsp]

44. For a person worth over 500 million to pay 4% in tax is stupid.

That's half of what an ordinary person show spends more money than he or she earns on consumer goods would bay on sales tax alone.

People who have less money shouldn't pay the same percentage of their income in taxes that rich people pay.

Money is more valuable the less you have, and charging people at opposite ends of the income spectrum the same price on each dollar of income is unfair to people who need money more (thus, we have progressive taxation).

Furthermore, we shouldn't tax income earned different ways the same rate. If we want to encourage people to work and contribute to social wealth, we shouldn't make that that the most expensive way to make money. Taxing work at 30% vs taxing dividend income at 15%, no matter how much you make, is outrageous. That has got to stop

[libcurious]

62. Thank you

While I still believe all are equal and should pay the same rate, I thank you for your last half of the reply. I will look further into this aspect and who knows, maybe your side will make a little more sense to me. Again, thanks for some info. to read up on.

[seabeyond]

27. this is really the point

what is she going to say, hey i am only paying 14%, here is an extra couple 100k to bring the percentage up. ya, like the irs can do anything with this. what the president and congress has to do is change the law, then she and everyone else will pay more. to expect her just to throw more in the pot is silliness.

[dollydew]

37. Teresa Kerry taxes

How do you know any of this is true? On numerous threads you say Bush and this whole admin lies about everything. Then when they release information damaging to the democratic candidate or his/her family you believe every word. Is this not the administration that illegally outed a covert CIA agent? Is this not the administration that lied to Congress about the cost of the Medicare bill? Is this not the administration that lied repeatedly about the reason for the Iraq war that cost so many lives? Is this not the administration that says "support the troops" then fails to provide adequate food, water, and body armor? Sometimes I can understand why Naderites dismiss us. At least they are consistently (right or wrong) in support of their candidate and his views. Negative publicity or negative stories do not sway their views. I'm not talking about blind loyalty. I'm talking about solidarity ala Lek Walensa of Poland. His followers knew he wasn't perfect. They didn't expect perfection. What they did expect was something better than the oppression they were living with. American liberals/progressives are so spoiled. We expect our leaders and their families to be all things to all people at all times. In that we're not much different from the wingers. Having lived overseas I can tell you people there are much more pragmatic. They vote their best interests. They take their leaders warts and all (within reason). Get over it. if Teresa didn't pay enough taxes (when many wealthy people in this country pay NONE) for you then vote for Bush. Be willing to live with the results and don't complain.

[Jacobin]

31. What's new about that?

The very wealthy live on capital gains which is taxed at a low rate and which is not subject to social security tax. They have little or no "earned income" which is taxed at more than double the rate.

IN addition, there may have been losses to offset capital gains.

Internal revenue code, btw was written by CONGRESS (i.e. campaign contributers). Does that make sense now?

[progressivejazz]

33. To answer your question, I don't know.

But let's assume it's true she paid only 14%. If she did, I'm sure she was following the law. ('Cause if she weren't, you'd sure have heard that on the same radio show.)

It seems you want her to set an example by paying more than the law requires, to "lead by example".

So in other words, you want us all to pay more than the law requires.

Well, I don't want to.

I want to change the law. And so does she.


P.S., I'm really getting tired of illogical right-wing talking points.

[leftyandproud]

42. progressive

"So in other words, you want us all to pay more than the law requires

Well, I don't want to.

I want to change the law. And so does she."

I'm with you! But how do I answer the question: "You want to change the law to increase your tax burden...Why not have more $$$ withheld from your paycheck then refuse the refund? It will have the same effect as a tax increase, so why not be consistent and refuse the benefits of tax reduction?"

I'll be honest...the main reason I posted this is because I am in a debate with a freeper type on another message board and I need some counters to this specific question. I don't want to post the link because someone did this the other day (asked for help) and was exposed to the pukes on the other board.

[progressivejazz]

51. I've answered the question.

Your freeper friend may not understand it, as you appear not to, but I've answered it none the less.


To reiterate, filling in some of the blanks:
He's asking her to lead by example by paying more than is required. Lead people to do what? Pay more taxes than required? That's not a solution to the problem that the rich don't pay enough taxes. Does your freeper friend really think the rich will follow the example he wants her to set? I don't think even a freeper would believe that. So he doesn't want her to lead by example, does he? He just wants her to pay more taxes now, regardless of the law, in order to justify her position that the law should be changed. That particular logical fallacy is called a non-sequitur. It's as logical as saying W shouldn't have cut taxes unless he paid less than the law required. So his argument is illogical.

There.

[leftyandproud]

59. actually..

the argument isn't illogical, because it is LEGAL to send extra money to the government, while it is ILLEGAL to pay less than required. Kerry can legally pay 40% of his income (the Clinton top rate) rather than 36% (Shrub's top rate). The government won't prosecute you for paying the old tax burden, but they will prosecute you if you pay less than mandated by law. If you want taxes higher, why not pay more?...make a "donation for the public debt" as someone mentioned above.

[progressivejazz]

61. No. Actually,

the argument is illogical because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Your freeper acquaintance won't bother to look up "Non Sequitur" in the lists of logical fallacies he/she can find on the internet, but you can.

It simply doesn't follow that because someone rich wants taxes on all the rich to be raised that she must therefore donate money to lower the national debt. Non-Sequitur. How does her donating money to decrease the national debt cause all rich people to pay their fair share? That's her goal.

My illustration of W's paying less than legally required was just to give another example of a similar non-sequitur argument.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[catzies]

36. Enlighten me please.

I guess you see who the real pukes really are. I don't. Could you help me please?

[theoceansnerves]

38. oooh ouch

what a scathing condemnation! :eyes:

[leftyandproud]

60. well..

I missed what this person said...two of the replies have been deleted...freeps?

[JanMichael]

40. How could she pay 50% when that isn't in the tax code? Magic?

Plus the top rate of what? 35%? is marginal anyway and only kicks in after so much income.

Plus we, stupidly in my opinion, don't really tax Wealth in this nation anyway. The closest we come are local Property Taxes which are somewhat Regressive in nature.

[PeaceProgProsp]

45. I believe you can make a voluntary contribution on your 1040

(to reduce the deficit).

However, I doubt that anyone makes one. It would have been cute for the Heinz-Kerrys to make that contribution at the level they think they should be taxed. That would have made a great statement, but I wouldn't criticize anyone for not doing it either.

[JanMichael]

47. Especially with the way the misAdministration is blowing big bucks.

If she gave them an extra 50 million it'd probably just go for hoods and lube.

[Deja Q]

41. Quite:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040517/opinion/17edit.htm

In the boom years from 1996 through 2000, when profits went through the roof, over 60 percent of American companies, doing nearly $2.5 trillion in gross income, paid no income taxes. None. Some 71 percent of foreign companies, doing three quarters of a trillion dollars, also paid no federal income taxes.

Read the whole article. I'm amazed this article was posted in a big repuke publication.

[Malva Zebrina]

46. I wish we not even discussing this subject

She is probably a very nice and wonderful woman

But, I would prefer the woman to stand up for the people of America to be one like the most of us- and not a super wealthy woman, nice as she may be--she is still used to her class and is still in the upper class. I am tired of that.

I would have preferred a Judy Dean .

[gratuitous]

48. Context is everything

Heck, I only paid federal taxes of 6.7% of my gross income last year. How did I do it? Simple: I gave away 36% of everything I made to charity. Lowers your tax burden considerably.

But that also doesn't take into account Social Security and Medicare withholdings, or state income tax that I paid. In that case, we're looking at a much higher percentage.

To say that someone paid 14% of their declared income in federal taxes is a very partial and fragmentary picture of the total amount that person paid in taxes. The radio commentator who broadcast this meaningless, out-of-context statistic is simply trying to stir up class resentment toward someone who manages a large personal fortune, and who gives millions away in grants. charity and other giving.

Don't take the bait, my friends.

[doubles]

49. Teresa Heinz paying only 15% taxes proves the rich DO NOT pay their fair

share.

They have sooo many loop holes. The next time Hannity mentions that Teresa only paid 15%, we need to let him know that is why we need to move the 35% bracket back to Clinton's 38.6% for the rich! They already get away with murder, from their so called charities to businesses, way too many loop holes to get away from paying their fair share.

[AP]

50. It's not even a loophole for Theresa. She doesn't work. She gets dividends

and she sells stocks.

We don't even try to tax those things over 15%.

She could have filed a straightforwards return with NO deductions and NO credits and she wouldn't have had to shelter any income at all and she only would have paid 15% tax if all her income was from LTCG and dividends.

[maxrandb]

52. They have tried to Hi-jack JFK

I heard over and over and over again from the "A"ll "M"ysogonist hate radio pukes. Over and over you hear Flush, In-sanity, etc talking so "lovingly" about John F Kennedy and how if he were alive today, he'd be a repuke.

How we allow them to claim true Democratic Hero's as their own is one of the sickest things about the f$%k-wads.

My response has always been, that if they want to go back to what the marginal rates were prior to JFK's tax cut, then I'd be all for it.

[John_H]

55. Apparently, it only hurts our case among authoritarians

who presume to be the arbitors of tax-fairness. Like any onther sensible person, she's paying what the law says she has to pay. When Kerry rolls back Chimp's idiotic give-away to his campaign donors, she will pay more. Then again, maybe she could ask Fidelity Ralph how to take advantage of all those tax shelters he's so fond of.

I'd love to see the Rethugs start arguing that the rich people should pay more taxes, though.

[solinvictus]

56. She's fabulously wealthy

Of course she doesn't pay taxes. Geez, like it's a big surprise.

[napi21]

58. You only are seeing an estimate!

She filed for an extention, as do LOTS of taxpayers, so her return won't be filed until August 15th. What you are seeing is an estimate. When this estimate was first filed, they said se was only paying about 23%. This is how things get distorted. Nobody knows for sure, even her accountants!

As far as the %, it's not important. What's important is that all the deductions taken were legitimate. If they were, you need to be arguing a differnt topic.....Lots of the allowable deductions shouldn't be!

I think the very wealthy should pay a higher % of their income too, but if the deductions are there, they would be stupid not to take them.

[truthspeaker]

63. who the fuck cares? JOHN Kerry is running for president, not Teresa

I don't care if she makes her money running heroin up from Mexico. She's not the one running for office.

[underpants]

64. Gues what-SHE's RICH!!! See what the rich pay?

As noted here not only is a lot of her "income" from tax free bounds the Cheneys only paid 11%

YOU ARE BEING RIPPED OFF!

[July]

68. Why does this sound disruptive to me?

"Is it true ..."
"Just heard this on the radio ..."
"don't give the pukes this kind of easy ammunition. It hurts our case."

Your post includes:

Implication that Teresa's millions are Kerry's (also, she's not running). For the record, they file separately. I'd guess that they both benefit from her wealth, but that doesn't mean Kerry controls it.

Right-wingers' prescription for how Kerry can avoid being seen as a hypocrite. Funnily enough, the prescription is that he should voluntarily give money to the government of screwups (who, by the way, aren't giving what you call their "fair share" of THEIR gigantic fortunes).

Number pulled out of ...? JK and THK "should have paid at least 40-50%." Uh-huh. Why?

If you're not disrupting, why offer this typically right-wing setup? The setup is: Prove you are not a hypocrite by our definition (and, ideally, hurt yourself in the process).

You don't say until farther down the thread that you're just looking for a response to freepers. You present this "shouldn't she," etc. and "Lead by example" as your ideas, your recommendations. If you're not being disingenuous, try to be clearer.

If I am mistaken in wondering about your intentions, I apologize.

[TexasBushwhacker]

70. Why do we only look at income tax?

Income tax isn't the only tax the rich pay.

They pay sales tax. If they're big consumers then they pay a lot of sales tax.

They pay property tax. They usually don't live in a hut, so they pay a lot of property tax.

Unless they live in a state that doesn't have a state income tax, they pay that too. If they live in NYC, they have a city income tax as well.

Much of their income is often from investments in tax free bonds issued by our cities and they get a lower interest rate in return for the bonds being tax free.

Much of their income may be in the form of capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than regular wages. Do we want to encourage long term investments or not? That's why capital gains have a different rate.

If they employ housekeepers, groundskeepers, security, etc., they pay the employers portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes for all those people.

Look at their overall tax burden and don't criticize them for making wise investments.