IRS says rich getting richer: report

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Superman

I do not see corporations as "evil" either. I see them as amoral. I've been pretty impressed with Bob's posts lately, but have to disagree that managers can apply their personal values to corporate decision-making. They are, essentially, prohibited. If there are two profit opportunities and the corporation cannot pursue both, and if one of those opportunities is likely to be more profitable than the other, they are not free to reject that for the other, less profitable opportunity based on morals. A corporation does not have morals, and its managers are not free to decline profit opportunities that are legal, no matter how slimy they might be.

An economist on my staff, while pouring a cup of coffee, answered my question with a statement that I will probably never forget. "You want to increase the economy? Put more money in the hands of the coNsumers." Notice that he didn't say "producers." If consumers' incomes are not growing, then the growth of every business must come at the expense of another business, and the economy as a whole is not improved.

So here's the rhetorical question of the day Supe: what happens when you tax large companies to the extreme? What happens when you start to impact their bottom line? Who gets hurt?

Amoral is a perfect description, corporations exist to serve their fiduciary duty. If you increase their expenses, they'll cut their spending. The obvious, and common, effect of these cuts are layoffs. So while there might not be a direct corrolation between rich and jobs, there's a pretty significant link between costs and payroll. Tax the hell out of these evil corporations, like our resident troll OR would love to see, and you'll only be hurting the little guy. Moral? Of course not. But this is business, not church.

I'll pose another question, related to our outsourcing conversations. What incentive do companies have to produce their products in the USA? Through the 60s or so, it was pretty much the only option, and the USA was an industrial giant. Now we are predominantly consumers, and have a significant trade deficit. Companies exist to make a profit, and if they can build their products for less elsewhere in the world, is anyone suprised that they do so? So what I would ask, is what active efforts do we make to keep our jobs here? Has our government stressed a global economy, at the expense of our national economy? What could realistically be done to remedy this? And leave out the politial BS, both side are sell-outs, just to different interests.

[Mo_Gearhead]

Someone asked for data...

For calendar year 2003 (released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service.) Latest info. from Gov. that I could find.

The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%
________________________

The debate over how ghastly high CEO's (corporate heads) wages are is irrelevant. The above numbers speak volumes.

Re: O-R's initial posting. Not hard to calculate the rich get richer if you are talking "dollars" vs "percentages".

One man earns 1 million per year... his bonus = 20 percent

Second man earns 30K per year, quits his job for a better one, now making 60K per year.

Who did better percentage-wise? Who did better dollar-wise? Duh.

[Superman]

Matt, you're sounding pedantic. If you think Superman just doesn't see the big picture....the connection between squeezing corporations and the loss of jobs from those corporations downsizing, splitting up, outsourcing, etc., then it would be no wonder you seem to think I'm an idiot. Thinking I am an idiot is a mistake that's not made often. Is that the situation, Matt?

[nota]

Originally Posted by Mo_Gearhead

Someone asked for data...

For calendar year 2003 (released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service.) Latest info. from Gov. that I could find.

The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%
________________________

The debate over how ghastly high CEO's (corporate heads) wages are is irrelevant. The above numbers speak volumes.

Re: O-R's initial posting. Not hard to calculate the rich get richer if you are talking "dollars" vs "percentages".

One man earns 1 million per year... his bonus = 20 percent

Second man earns 30K per year, quits his job for a better one, now making 60K per year.

Who did better percentage-wise? Who did better dollar-wise? Duh.

increase in total wealth is not reflected in the numbers on income = wage taxes
things like stock options, increase in net share stock values are eathor way under taxed or never taxed

lets take bill gates
he ''earns'' a million or two a year in CEO pay
and pays taxes at the top rate on that
but most of his wealth is in stocks
billionares donot get their billions from wages
and the capital gains tax is less then 1/2 income tax rates
so I figured his net gain in wealth vs his tax rate
0.25 % for bill gates
vs joe lunch bucket who paid 25%, 15%SS plus 10% income tax on all his income
now if the death tax is killed as planned by BuSh2 bill gates life time taxes will be less then 1% of his total earning from MS stock

the neo-conned still claim the rich are over taxed
that is just an other BIG LIE

or CORPs like ENRON who paid no or very very little tax by loopholes or tricks or lies
many super rich pay little or no income tax

[Rearden]

The majority of Gate's wealth is unrealized, so why should he be taxed on that? And the shares he does sell, he gives away a huge portion of the proceeds.

Bill Gates is an extremely motivated and intelligent man who made a fortune. And will spend the rest of his life giving away that fortune to causes he considers will best help mankind -- especially those most in need. Try to vilify somebody else.

[motion]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

BTW, check out this model:



Krupps, two slicer, has a bagel mode, stainless steel and has a removable crumb tray for easy cleaning. I like it's style too, which is important.

Best,

Kurt

Let's keep the money in the family, shall we?

[Mo_Gearhead]

Ok... so the previous data went right over your head, try this:

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

(Gov. Tax data for 2001. )

__________________

I don't have the 'wage bracket' breakdown, but gee whiz ...it appears that HALF OF THE POPULATION (wage earning/tax payers) is paying less than FOUR percent of the billions of dollars that keeps all this shyt operating.

Try and remove the jealousy that they earn MORE than you do.

ANY additional QUESTIONS?

[frogger]

Originally Posted by motion

Let's keep the money in the family, shall we?

Or share it with our relatives.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by frogger

Or share it with our relatives.

Motion:

Ah, the Siemens Tt91100gb Porsche Design model. That's a fine unit and good for 1000W of heating power. Handsome machine with the power to back up the looks. But, critics claim the slots are too thin for some bread/bagels and the heating elements don't toast uniformly.

Frog:

I haven't heard much about the specs of the VW toaster, but word has it only 5000 or so VW customers in Japan received them for free and there are none to be bought. I like the "roof" style cover for the toasting slots and the VW logo on a slice of toast is brilliant.

That being said, I am still searching for that special toaster and may start a new thread asking for advice. I wouldn't want to make a mistake on such a critical purchase.

Best,

Kurt

[Racerbvd]

hey earn more because the earn it instead of *****ing and whining about what others have

[stevepaa]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Read.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

yes, I did. I see nothing to contradict what I quoted.

[island911]

Originally Posted by on-ramp

...
It said that while the IRS data goes back only to 1986, academic research suggests that the last time wealthy Americans had such a high percentage of the national income pie was in the 1920s......

What's this now . . you say that the IRS is getting rich and richer?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Superman

Sorry, Paul. It is sad that this myth persists. It is a brute fact that this assumption is incorrect. It was Dubya's dad who coined the phrase "Voodoo Economics" as a synonym for "Supply-Side Economics." Same as "Trickle-Down Economics." You don't hear those terms much any more. There is a reason. It is a disproved economic theory.

Let's say Millionaire A has a plant that makes toasters. If demand for toasters does not change, there is no reason for Millionaire A to hire more people or make more toasters. On the other hand, if the workers at Millionaire A's plant get a tax break, some of them might use the extra money to buy a toaster. That would be an instance that creates a job. It is not Millionaires that make the commercial world go 'round. It is consumers. Millionaires do not create jobs. Consumers do. Millionaires just make money when that happens.

Supe, Supe, Supe. I'm not here to judge.

I found it amusing that you claim increasing profits do not benefit the worker or create jobs, but you did not address the converse. Further increasing taxes on these corporations has a very direct impact on employees.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

yes, I did. I see nothing to contradict what I quoted.

"High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities."


Reducing high marginal tax rates always spurs economic growth, which increases revenue across the spectrum.

Spending, indexed progams and riders are the issues, not the current tax structure.

[frogger]

Reaganomics Finally Trickles Down To Area Man

October 13, 2007 | Issue 43•41

HAZELWOOD, MO—Twenty-six years after Ronald Reagan first set his controversial fiscal policies into motion, the deceased president's massive tax cuts for the ultrarich at last trickled all the way down to deliver their bounty, in the form of a $10 bonus, to Hazelwood, MO car-wash attendant Frank Kellener.


The late President Ronald Reagan clearly had people
like present-day car wash attendant Frank Kellener
in mind when articulating his "trickle-down" economic
theory in the early 1980s.

"Back when Reagan was in charge, I didn't think much of him," Kellener, 57, said, holding up two five-dollar bills nearly three decades in the making. "But who would have thought that in 2007 I'd have this extra $10 in my pocket? He may not have lived to see it, but I'm sure President Reagan is up in heaven smiling down on me right now."

Leading economists say Kellener's unexpected windfall provides the first irrefutable proof of the effectiveness of Reagan's so-called supply-side economics, and shows that the former president had "incredible, far-reaching foresight."

"When the tax burden on the upper income brackets is lifted, the rich and not-rich alike all benefit," said Arthur Laffer, who was a former member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board. "Eventually."


Frank Kellener

The $10 began its long journey into Kellener's wallet in 1983, when a beefed-up national defense budget of $210 billion enabled the military to purchase advanced warhead-delivery systems from aerospace manufacturer Lockheed. Buoyed by a multimillion-dollar bonus, then-CEO Martin Lawler bought a house on a 5,000-acre plot in Montana. When a forest fire destroyed his home in 1986, Lawler took the federal relief check and invested it in a savings and loan run by a Virginia man named Michael Webber. After Webber's firm collapsed in 1989, and he was indicted on fraud and conspiracy charges, he retained the services of high- powered law firm Rabin & Levy for his defense. After six years and $7 million in legal fees, Webber received only a $250,000 fine, and the defense team went out to celebrate at a Washington, D.C.-area restaurant called Di Forenza. During dinner, lawyer Peter Smith overheard several investment bankers at an adjoining table discussing a hot Internet start-up that was about to go public. Smith took a portion of his earnings from the Webber case and bought several hundred shares in Gadgets.com, quadrupling his investment before selling them four months later. Gadgets.com's two founders used the sudden influx of investment capital to outfit their office with modern Danish furniture, in a sale brokered by the New York gallery Modern Now! in 1998. After the ensuing dot-com bust, Modern Now! was forced out of business, and Sotheby's auction house was put in charge of liquidating its inventory. The commission from that auction enabled auctioneer Mary Schafer to retire to the Ozark region of Missouri in 2006. Last month, while passing through Hazelwood, she took her Audi to Marlin Car Wash, where Kellener was one of the employees who tended to her car. She was so satisfied with the job that she left a $50 tip, which the manager divided among the people working that day.

"This money didn't just affect one life," Laffer said. "It affected five."

Prior to joining Marlin Car Wash in 2005, Kellener worked for nearly two decades at a local Ford assembly plant that is now defunct. Before that, he was employed by the FAA as an air traffic controller until his union went on strike and Reagan fired him, along with nearly 13,000 others. This is the largest tip he has received in his professional life.

"I thought Reaganomics was nothing more than a mirage that allowed President Reagan to reward his wealthy support base," Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said. "But two generations later I am seeing Reaganomics in action, and I like what I see. It just took a little longer than I thought it was supposed to."

The tip has not gone unnoticed by the economic team in the current administration.

"Had Mr. Kellener received that money in 1981, like the Democrats wanted, it would only be worth $4.24 today because of inflation," Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. said during an official announcement of the economic policy's success at a press conference Monday. "Instead, Kellener has a solid $10 to spend right here and now. The system works, and our current president intends to keep making it work."

Kellener, who has cared for his schizophrenic sister ever since her federally funded mental institution was closed in 1984, said that he plans to donate the full $10 to the Republican presidential candidate who best embodies Reagan's legacy.

[sammyg2]

Wealthy people like HAVING money.
Poor people like SPENDING money.
That is the difference.
Those who collect money get more, those who spend every last penny like drunk sailors on shore-leave have less. Why is that such a shocker?

BTW, it is not a bad thing. wealthy people are wealthy because the earned it and deserve it. Poor people are poor because they haven't earned it or deserved it, they spent it.

Wealthy people pay for poor people. They support poor people. Yet the (insert derogatory term here) poor turn around and consistently bite the hand that feeds them.

Is it my fault they didn't pay attention in school? No.
Is it my fault they didn't go to college? no.
Is it my fault they were born in a third world country? No.
Is it my fault they are too lazy or dumb to get off welfare? No.

So why is it my responsibility to support them?

[Moneyguy1]

Many of the wealthy are inheritors of that wealth. And, if the rich enjoy HAVING money, this would imply they do not spend but accrue. If that were the case, how would that help the economy?

Just curious....

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

Many of the wealthy are inheritors of that wealth. And, if the rich enjoy HAVING money, this would imply they do not spend but accrue. If that were the case, how would that help the economy?

Just curious....

I don't know what percentage of wealth is inherited, but if they inherited the money, they probably paid an estate tax. If their CPA used tax strategies to protect the estate, they will most likely still pay taxes whenever they need to take money out of whatever vehicle created to preserve the wealth.

Besides, isn't it their money anyways? Can't they sock it away under a very BIG mattress if they wish?

What other option would you propose?

Just saying . . .

Best,

Kurt

[pwd72s]

Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and
plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

And the rest of the moral follows below
----------------------------------------------------------------------------



MODERN VERSION:


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and
plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and
demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while
others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the
shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home
with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody
cries when they sing,
"It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where
the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then
has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that
the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for
an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green
bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a
defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of
federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent
welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of
the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to
be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the
house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the
once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

[on-ramp]

I don't think you knuckle -head retards understand.

this is not about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, (this group includes lazy people who don't work and expect a handout )

This is about hard-working middle class families getting "pushed out" because the aristocratic system is making it very difficult for them to make ends meet... why do you think the middle class is disappearing?

are you blind ?