Updated: 5:37 p.m. ET April 14, 2006

WASHINGTON - President Bush reported adjusted gross income of $735,180 for last year, on which he paid $187,768 in federal taxes, according to the president’s return released Friday by the White House. Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne reported a significantly higher adjusted gross income, largely due to exercising stock options.

In 2004, the president and first lady Laura Bush reported $784,219 in adjusted gross income and paid $207,307 in federal income taxes.

On their 2005 return the Bushes listed as income his presidential salary — about $400,000 — and investment income from trusts that hold their assets.
Story continues below ?
advertisement

The White House also released the 2005 tax return filed by the Cheneys. They reported adjusted gross income of nearly $8.82 million, which was largely the result of exercising stock options that had been set aside in 2001 for charity.

  According to the return, they have overpaid their taxes this year and are entitled to a refund of about $1.9 million.

The couple contributed $75,560 to churches and charitable organizations, about $2,200 less than last year. Those included the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army’s funds for hurricane relief in the United States and Pakistan; Martha’s Table, which provides food and services to the underprivileged in the Washington area; the Archdiocese of New Orleans Catholic Charities; and the Mississippi Food Network.

The Bushes paid $26,172 in state property taxes on their ranch near Crawford, Texas, up about $4,000 from the year before.

The Cheneys donated just under $6.87 million to charity from the stock options and royalties from Mrs. Cheney’s books. That left about $1.9 million in income on which the Cheney’s owed $529,636 in taxes.

Over the year, the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. As a result, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930.

NSNBC News



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2006 05:33PM by decocritter.

what do you think of those percentages? A lot lower than the average middle class american pays.

---

>what do you think of those percentages? A lot lower than the average middle class american pays.

Are you sure (maybe you are being sarcastic?)? My family is solid middle class, and we paid 6%. Both of those look more like 25%. kj.

According to Cheney's original promise, he said that he would not pocket the tax deductions that he received as a result of his charitable donations resulting from his Halliburton stock options. Does this mean he is going back on his word, or will he be donating the tax refund too?

KJ, I don't know how you can get off with 6%. We are barely making the mortgage and school costs middle class and are in the 25% bracket, paying something like 18% to Uncle's Sam and Arnold. I suppose that's because we live in inflated California where not only is everything ultraexpensive, but we get thrown into higher tax brackets for the same cost of living levels as the midwestern states.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2006 08:30PM by davester.

I don't know if what they file is really what they pay, but it does show what someone in that position should pay.

And, I guess it depends what a person calls middle class. I would have a hard time calling anyone who makes more than 100k middle class, but in cali that doesn't get you much. We make a lot less than 100k, but have a 2000sq. ft. house and two 10,000 cars, which seems really middle class. Plus, I am only counting federal, since that seems to be most relevant to most topics (Bush has little to do with state or sales tax). If you think 18% is bad, try Norway with about 50%, and another 50% sales tax, since people seem to think Norway is paradise. AND, 18% is still a lot less than 25%. BTW, the current housing cost increase mess screws everything up, which infuriates me because I think it has been created artificially. kj.

Oops, just checked, I'm not at 18%, I'm at 21%. Believe you me, there's no way you can own a 2000 sf house and 2 cars in a California city and earn less that $100k, unless you inherited it. In fact, you can't even qualify for a mortgage earning that little. Why is it that the blue state residents are overall tax-agnostic but pay most of the US tax bill whereas the red states where folks pay very little tax and receive most of the tax revenue are rabidly anti-tax? (I'm just guessing you are in a red state from your low tax bill/housing cost).

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2006 01:32AM by davester.

>Why is it that the blue state residents are overall tax-agnostic but pay most of the US tax bill whereas the red states where folks pay very little tax and receive most of the tax revenue are rabidly anti-tax?<

I don't know if that's really true, but you blue state residents should probably try being more anti-tax. At least state-wise, I think it helps here.

However, your tax rate is high because your earnings are high. You choose to live in a place with high costs. And if you can't afford to buy as much there, it probably doesn't have much to do with taxes (your income would be taxed the same here). . kj.

kj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
You choose to live in a place
> with high costs. And if you can't afford to buy
> as much there, it probably doesn't have much to do
> with taxes (your income would be taxed the same
> here). . kj.

Not exactly true.

This happens to be where my parents emigrated to and where I lived since the mid-teen years, so it's not so much about choice as it is about wanting to remain close to the place I consider to be home (friends and family and all that). I actually can't live in the town my parents lived (though I'd like to) because that area is even more expensive. Neither of these areas were so expensive when I started out here...the same can be probably be said for most Californians. To move to an inexpensive area of the country (i.e. a red state) would be like moving to a foreign country culturally, filled with strangers.

Your statement about my income being taxed differently is not correct. Income is regional and is driven by local cost-of-living (unfortunately, things like tax rates and federal aid are not)...the exception being a completely internet-driven business. Just as you couldn't survive on your income in California, my income would no doubt be dramatically lower in your area.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

And because those things are more important to you than money, you stay there. It's still your choice. And I can't imagine the people elsewhere would be that objectionable to you. I'm sure there are many like you, even in a "red state". I've lived in Cali, Florida, Minnesota, Washington State, Idaho, and more, and I can't imagine thinking I couldn't live with the people in any of those states. Wierd. But I understand your point about not wanting to leave your home state.

>Your statement about my income being taxed differently is not correct.

I said your income would be taxed _the same_ here, as there. Of course, like you say, your income would be less, and cost of living would be less. All I'm saying is that taxes are not that oppressive for the middle class. I'm not sure what your point about red state people complaining about taxes is, since I'm in a red state and I'm not complaining, and you're in a blue state, and you are complaining. Maybe we should switch places. kj.

Do you know who pays the most in taxes?

[www.irs.gov]

Latest data for calendar year 2003 released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service.

All Federal Income Taxes Paid in the United States 2003.

Top 1% of wage earners paid 34.27% of all Federal In come taxes for 2003.

Top 5% of wage earners paid 54.36%

Top 10% of wage earners paid 65.84%

Top 50% of wage earners paid 96.54%

Data covers calender year 2003 and includes all income, excluding Social Security.


[www.ilcaonline.org]
WHAT THE ANNUAL REPORT ON THE 50 RICHEST IN CONGRESS TELLS US:

"Democrats still average $55.6 million per Member on the list, while the Republicans average $34.8 million per Member on the list."

"Of the top six on the Richest list, five are Democrats..."

The wealthiest person in Congress is Kerry...$900 million +


[www.sfgate.com]
Feinstein and Pelosi continue to top the list of the richest members of Congress


[www.factcheck.org]
Kerry's Tax Ad during Presidential campaign: Literally Accurate, But Misleading

Truth: "the middle class is paying a bigger share of America's tax burden." True. But it's a smaller burden all around. And the richest still pay the most."



While the Cheney haters rant, they may well consider the money that members of the Hollywood elite, MLB , NFL, NBA, NHL, PGA, CEO's, etc earn.

Whether you want to admit it or not, I'm sure everyone on this forum would love to earn a million or more.

So we need more tax cuts, you seem to be bent on proving the well off are not as well off as you'd like them to be.

What's the cutoff cassie, when they have enough to choke a horse?

Never before in our history have we embarked on a major war and cut taxes. This is stealing from unborn children, from helpless fetuses, for God's sake, Cassie! Obviously you have no concern for born human life - no Republicans do - but have you no concern, as a loyal Republican, for the rights of the unborn, who will someday be heavily taxed to pay for your fuhrer's fine adventure in Iraq? Shame! Taxing unborn fetuses to pay for your fun.

Taxing fetuses is sure as hell better than killing them. kj.

Oops. I forgot the . Just having fun, Cassie. I know you care about unborn fetuses as much as any true Republican. I just wish you cared about all the ones we're killing or mutating with DU in Iraq and Afghanistan (or Kosovo, for Clinton lovers).

The problem, kj, is that most of those fetuses malformed by their parent's exposure to DU will never grow to be tax paying citizens. Most will die young, or at best, live to become drains on your tax dollars in institutions or other rehabilitative care. This war was based on greed, but it is going to cost, all told, over a trillion dollars. Thank God it's all on credit.

No mention of how much of the total wealth that these top wage
earnings control, they never mention that. Find me one top
1% person that is willing to trade jobs with me for a year. I
bet you can't do it, because with what most of these people
earn in a year I could retire at 45 and live comfortably off
the interest for now on. They complain about the tax they have
to pay but stick them in a 45K/year job and see how long they
last.

---

Grateful11

kj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taxing fetuses is sure as hell better than killing
> them. kj.


Amen.

---

******************************

******************************

SteveJobs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Taxing fetuses is sure as hell better than
> killing
> > them. kj.

> Amen.

Apparently you've forgotten the rallying cry that fomented the revolution which founded our nation: "No taxation without representation."

In order to get your war on you're indebting generations who have had no say or opportunity to say whether this illegal war is something they want. Now you may well get some satisfaction from bombing and killing innocent people, as we are doing, but if future generations are going to be paying for your fun how do you justify borrowing in their name?

---

Top 1% of wage earners paid 34.27% of all Federal Income taxes for 2003.

This is a silly statistic. If you have 500 dollars and I have 5 dollars, and you pay 20 percent and I pay 20 percent, then you have paid 99.9 percent of my hypothetical two-man tax total. But you still have 400 dollars left, so you are still way ahead of me in what you have left for yourself.

Of COURSE people paying taxes on billions and billions of dollars are kicking in more, and I have absolutely no problem with that at all. I doubt that Oprah or Bill Gates is going to have a problem making their next mortgage payment as a result.

cassie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you know who pays the most in taxes?

Wow! It's the people who make the most money! Who woulda thought?

$tevie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Top 1% of wage earners paid 34.27% of all Federal
> Income taxes for 2003.
>
> This is a silly statistic.

Actually, it is a brilliant statistic (as in Karl Rove brilliant) because it totally misrepresents reality and allows the repubs to enrage their base.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan