Here is what I am not understanding.
Dude or dudette makes 4 million a year.
Almost $2,000 an hour.
$32 a minute.
Dude is good at making money.
Now dude has to come up with what did we decide? $200,000.
So he can fire the lawn care company and spend a hundred hours a year doing lawn work.
Stop eating out at restaurants.
And stop making political donations.
Or he can work an extra 2 hours a week at what ever it is he does that pays 2,000 an hour.
He's probably not on an hourly wage. Like me, I can work 10 or 15 hours a day and it won't affect my pay.
Plus it's suggesting a millionaire is leaving $200K on the table...which is unlikely.
So his income does not reflect how hard he works?
It's called a salary.
OK.
4 million is a nice salary.
I am surprised that a 4 million dollar salary is not tied to performance in anyway. But I will take your word for it.
In the Obama proposal there is the closing of loopholes. Which will no doubt effect our 4 mil a yearer.
There is also allowing the temporary Bush tax cuts - first implemented to eliminate a budget surplus*, then temporarily extend as a form of stimulus** - to expire. They were never meant to be permanent because of the havoc they are wreaking on the deficit.
But the big piece, and the interesting piece, and the one I have tried to talk about, is bringing capitol gains tax rates (over 1 mil) in line with income tax rates.
I understand this is a very hard concept for people.
Please read up on the difference between capitol gains and salary.
Then read up on the tax rates for each.
*Yes, our elected officials are so stupid they thought a budget surplus was a problem government had to solve.
** Zero jobs created.
If anyone here can tell me why this would be a bad idea, I would honestly like to hear it.
The argument, which I broadly support, is that the internet is doing fine with out government interference, any kind of tax would be interference.
With that said, I will add, I think your tax should be a mail order tax.
Catalog, phone, hsn, internet, all the same.
Edit: I support the idea of limiting government interference in the internet. I do not think the mail order sales tax idea is government interference in the internet.
Here is what I am not understanding.
Dude or dudette makes 4 million a year.
Almost $2,000 an hour.
$32 a minute.
Dude is good at making money.
Now dude has to come up with what did we decide? $200,000.
So he can fire the lawn care company and spend a hundred hours a year doing lawn work.
Stop eating out at restaurants.
And stop making political donations.
Or he can work an extra 2 hours a week at what ever it is he does that pays 2,000 an hour.
He's probably not on an hourly wage. Like me, I can work 10 or 15 hours a day and it won't affect my pay.
Plus it's suggesting a millionaire is leaving $200K on the table...which is unlikely.
So his income does not reflect how hard he works?
It's called a salary.
OK.
4 million is a nice salary.
I am surprised that a 4 million dollar salary is not tied to performance in anyway. But I will take your word for it.
Nobody said it wasn't, in fact it almost always is.
Working an extra two hours a week is not really the deciding factor.
Sure we did. Did you ever read "The Great Gatsby"?
b/w
This, from tonight's Republican debate:
"Bret Baier attempted to get Mitt Romney to define for the audience what amount of money one has to have to be considered "rich." Romney begged off, saying, "I don't want to define what is rich...I want everybody to be rich.""
A Jay Gatsby "High Society Bitches" reality show sounds about right.
There is income. And there is wealth.
A pro athlete who one days owns no more property than a suitcase, and whose family (parents) property is perhaps a car and a tv and a playstation, has no real wealth even though he just got a million dollar signing bonus and a million dollar contract.
His college peer who just graduated and has a job paying 50,000 but has a family (parents) with property and stocks and trusts has more wealth. (Depending on various factors ie family dynamics.)
Mean income in the USA is around $60,000.
Median around $44.000
I think the largest percent of families are in the $50,000 range.
$44,000 - 60,000 will allow most families of 2 or three people to meet basic needs, shelter, food, health care (depending) clothing, cable, with perhaps a little left over for a movie or birthday party.
Double that and that family can think about buying a home, some investing and building wealth.
Double it again and things like vacations, upscale home or homes and luxuries now become the norm.
Double again about half a million, established wealth (property, stocks, investments, trusts) and now you are looking at someone I would have no problem calling rich.
But this person will look at his neighbor, with twice everything he has and deny that he is rich.
I once heard a very wealthy family member say that they were rich, but their child's new in-laws were REALLY rich.
hey, my NY dudes. what kind of cardboard box would you be able to afford for you and two of your homies to live in for $44-60k a year?
The median household income in NYC is actually lower than that in the country as a whole.
But some people do well:
"The New Yorker who is listed as the richest individual, oil magnate David H. Koch, was worth an estimated $17 billion in October 2007. The poorest New Yorkers, 1.5 million people with incomes below the poverty line, are collectively worth less than Mr. Koch's net worth."
This is from a blog that quoted an article in the New Republic, the original of which requires a subscription to access.
Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer of JPMorgan Chase, wrote in July of this year . . . . that "profit margins have reached levels not seen in decades," and "reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement." . . . "US labor compensation," he explained, "is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP."
. . . "The upper classes of this country raped this country" is one of the more polite things that Morgan Stanley money manager Steve Eisman has to say on the eve of the 2008 sub-prime fiasco.
. . . "We now have a Gini index similar to the Philippines and Mexico," a Proctor & Gamble vice president told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month, referring to a measure of income distribution.
. . . "We now have a Gini index similar to the Philippines and Mexico," a Proctor & Gamble vice president told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month, referring to a measure of income distribution.
Most of the world has the same or similar Gimi coefficient as the U.S. The countries with the lowest Ginis, or lowest inc. disparities, are in Europe, and Canada. Unless the U.S. adopts an economic system which many haphazardly label as socialist and un-American the best we can really hope for is that our Gini stagnates. Not saying our system is inherently bad or good, but we've never had our economy set up in such a way that income distribution is "really equal." I guess our Forefathers didn't want that. Inc. distrib. has never been particularly low in the U.S. but the fact that it's rising is troubling.
Current unemployment is looking pretty structural right now, and the way I see it, some occupations have been pushed into obsolescence with the recession as a catalyst. Unless people improve their skills to keep up, no stimulus will lower unemp. any time soon.
We need another space race to get us motivated. Tired of the bitching from those afraid to teach actual science in school. Tired of those who think we can tax our way to industry development.
The Catholic Church owns at least 1.5 billion worth of real estate in NYC alone, most of it investment property they rent out for profit. I can see it if a church is tax exempt (sort of), but an apartment building?
NYC alone would collect a windfall if these properties were taxed like the rest.
Solely religious or charitable property/income should be exempt.
But it aint gonna happen.
Unless the Pope and Pat Robertson and LW Riches join with tax payers united and Mitch McConnell to demand that religions be taxed.
Considering the attitudes and actions of the plutocrats and their enablers in congress this is unfortunately inevitable. You can only kick people when they're down and tell them they should like it for so long before something gives.
Dream on.
Yes you hopelessly dense libertarian, I dream of a violent revolution that will destabilize society so that the lives and future of my children are at risk. Kindly go fuck yourself.
Glad I'm not the only one. I'm not having kids though.
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) ??? Mayor Michael Bloomberg dismissed President Obama???s proposal to raise taxes on people who make more than a million dollars a year.
???The Buffett thing is just theatrics. If Warren Buffett made his money from ordinary income rather than capital gains, his tax rate would be a lot higher than his secretary???s,??? he said.
???I think it???s not fair to say that wealthy people don???t pay their fair share. They pay a much higher percentage of their income, they have a higher rate than people who make less,??? Bloomberg added.
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) ??? Mayor Michael Bloomberg dismissed President Obama???s proposal to raise taxes on people who make more than a million dollars a year.
"it???s not fair to say that wealthy people don???t pay their fair share??? Bloomberg added.
Ok, I know it's a little played out to just post some craziness from the extreme right (or left, Rock), but here's a fun one to point and laugh at. The article and comments are equally good:
Ok, I know it's a little played out to just post some craziness from the extreme right (or left, Rock), but here's a fun one to point and laugh at. The article and comments are equally good:
Comments
OK.
4 million is a nice salary.
I am surprised that a 4 million dollar salary is not tied to performance in anyway. But I will take your word for it.
In the Obama proposal there is the closing of loopholes. Which will no doubt effect our 4 mil a yearer.
There is also allowing the temporary Bush tax cuts - first implemented to eliminate a budget surplus*, then temporarily extend as a form of stimulus** - to expire. They were never meant to be permanent because of the havoc they are wreaking on the deficit.
But the big piece, and the interesting piece, and the one I have tried to talk about, is bringing capitol gains tax rates (over 1 mil) in line with income tax rates.
I understand this is a very hard concept for people.
Please read up on the difference between capitol gains and salary.
Then read up on the tax rates for each.
*Yes, our elected officials are so stupid they thought a budget surplus was a problem government had to solve.
** Zero jobs created.
The argument, which I broadly support, is that the internet is doing fine with out government interference, any kind of tax would be interference.
With that said, I will add, I think your tax should be a mail order tax.
Catalog, phone, hsn, internet, all the same.
Edit: I support the idea of limiting government interference in the internet. I do not think the mail order sales tax idea is government interference in the internet.
Nobody said it wasn't, in fact it almost always is.
Working an extra two hours a week is not really the deciding factor.
A Jay Gatsby "High Society Bitches" reality show sounds about right.
b/w
How would anyone here define what is rich?
A satisfied mind.
Rich or wealthy?
Living outside their means?
I mean, I know people who make money that I would consider "rich". But because they own 3-4 homes and buy new cars every year think they are not rich.
If would have to include those making $One million or more.
My brother makes far less than that, but still makes a bunch. His wife can't shut up about how rich they are. :nagl:
A pro athlete who one days owns no more property than a suitcase, and whose family (parents) property is perhaps a car and a tv and a playstation, has no real wealth even though he just got a million dollar signing bonus and a million dollar contract.
His college peer who just graduated and has a job paying 50,000 but has a family (parents) with property and stocks and trusts has more wealth. (Depending on various factors ie family dynamics.)
Mean income in the USA is around $60,000.
Median around $44.000
I think the largest percent of families are in the $50,000 range.
$44,000 - 60,000 will allow most families of 2 or three people to meet basic needs, shelter, food, health care (depending) clothing, cable, with perhaps a little left over for a movie or birthday party.
Double that and that family can think about buying a home, some investing and building wealth.
Double it again and things like vacations, upscale home or homes and luxuries now become the norm.
Double again about half a million, established wealth (property, stocks, investments, trusts) and now you are looking at someone I would have no problem calling rich.
But this person will look at his neighbor, with twice everything he has and deny that he is rich.
I once heard a very wealthy family member say that they were rich, but their child's new in-laws were REALLY rich.
Koch and his bro are worth $25 billion each right now. That's a 50% increase in 4 years. Not too shabby.
Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer of JPMorgan Chase, wrote in July of this year . . . . that "profit margins have reached levels not seen in decades," and "reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement." . . . "US labor compensation," he explained, "is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP."
. . . "The upper classes of this country raped this country" is one of the more polite things that Morgan Stanley money manager Steve Eisman has to say on the eve of the 2008 sub-prime fiasco.
. . . "We now have a Gini index similar to the Philippines and Mexico," a Proctor & Gamble vice president told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month, referring to a measure of income distribution.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/20/wall_street_experts_can_tell_you_how_the_rich_are_making_out_like_bandits_while_man
Most of the world has the same or similar Gimi coefficient as the U.S. The countries with the lowest Ginis, or lowest inc. disparities, are in Europe, and Canada. Unless the U.S. adopts an economic system which many haphazardly label as socialist and un-American the best we can really hope for is that our Gini stagnates. Not saying our system is inherently bad or good, but we've never had our economy set up in such a way that income distribution is "really equal." I guess our Forefathers didn't want that. Inc. distrib. has never been particularly low in the U.S. but the fact that it's rising is troubling.
Current unemployment is looking pretty structural right now, and the way I see it, some occupations have been pushed into obsolescence with the recession as a catalyst. Unless people improve their skills to keep up, no stimulus will lower unemp. any time soon.
We need another space race to get us motivated. Tired of the bitching from those afraid to teach actual science in school. Tired of those who think we can tax our way to industry development.
^^^This^^^
The Catholic Church owns at least 1.5 billion worth of real estate in NYC alone, most of it investment property they rent out for profit. I can see it if a church is tax exempt (sort of), but an apartment building?
NYC alone would collect a windfall if these properties were taxed like the rest.
Solely religious or charitable property/income should be exempt.
But it aint gonna happen.
Unless the Pope and Pat Robertson and LW Riches join with tax payers united and Mitch McConnell to demand that religions be taxed.
"For a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
- Winston Churchill
It's a good thing that Obama and the Dems aren't suggesting that, then.
Glad I'm not the only one. I'm not having kids though.
???The Buffett thing is just theatrics. If Warren Buffett made his money from ordinary income rather than capital gains, his tax rate would be a lot higher than his secretary???s,??? he said.
???I think it???s not fair to say that wealthy people don???t pay their fair share. They pay a much higher percentage of their income, they have a higher rate than people who make less,??? Bloomberg added.
But he doesn't does he?
Nor does Bloomberg.
So Bloomberg's argument is just theatrics. Totally ignores his own reality and the reality the proposal aims to correct.
Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American
Will anyone step up and defend this sad little dude? Saba?
This is disgusting.
"Now anyone with a pulse can vote."
what a tragedy!