Aa
CEOs who took Trillions in Bailouts, Evaded Taxes and Outsourced Jobs
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/10/25/bernie-sanders-exposes-18-ceos-trillions-bailouts-evaded-taxes-outsourced-jobs.html
"There really is no shame. The Wall Street leaders whose recklessness and illegal behavior caused this terrible recession are now lecturing the American people on the need for courage to deal with the nation’s finances and deficit crisis. Before telling us why we should cut Social Security, Medicare and other vitally important programs, these CEOs might want to take a hard look at their responsibility for causing the deficit and this terrible recession.
Our Wall Street friends might also want to show some courage of their own by suggesting that the wealthiest people in this country, like them, start paying their fair share of taxes. They might work to end the outrageous corporate loopholes, tax havens and outsourcing provisions that their lobbyists have littered throughout the tax code – contributing greatly to our deficit.
Many of the CEO’s who signed the deficit-reduction letter run corporations that evaded at least $34.5 billion in taxes by setting up more than 600 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens since 2008. As a result, at least a dozen of the companies avoided paying any federal income taxes in recent years, and even received more than $6.4 billion in tax refunds from the IRS since 2008.
Several of the companies received a total taxpayer bailout of more than $2.5 trillion from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.
Many of the companies also have outsourced hundreds of thousands of American jobs to China and other low wage countries, forcing their workers to receive unemployment insurance and other federal benefits. In other words, these are some of the same people who have significantly caused the deficit to explode over the last four years."
1). Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $1.9 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? Over $1.3 trillion.
Amount of federal income taxes Bank of America would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.6 billion.
2). Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $278 million tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $824 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes Goldman Sachs would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.7 billion
3). JP Morgan Chase CEO James Dimon
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $416 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes JP Morgan Chase would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.9 billion.
4). General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $3.3 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve? $16 billion.
Jobs Shipped Overseas? At least 25,000 since 2001.
5). Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $705 million tax refund.
American Jobs Cut in 2010? In 2010, Verizon announced 13,000 job cuts, the third highest corporate layoff total that year.
6). Boeing CEO James McNerney, Jr.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? None. $124 million tax refund.
American Jobs Shipped overseas? Over 57,000.
Amount of Corporate Welfare? At least $58 billion.
7). Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Amount of federal income taxes Microsoft would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $19.4 billion.
8). Honeywell International CEO David Cote
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $34 million tax refund.
9). Corning CEO Wendell Weeks
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $4 million tax refund.
10). Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $74 million tax refund.
11). Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $55 million tax refund.
12). Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $1 million tax refund.
13). Marsh & McLennan Companies CEO Brian Duperreault
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $90 million refund.
14). Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs
Amount of federal income taxes Qualcomm would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.7 billion.
15). Tenneco CEO Gregg Sherill
Amount of federal income taxes Tenneco would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $269 million.
16). Express Scripts CEO George Paz
Amount of federal income taxes Express Scripts would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $20 million.
17). Caesars Entertainment CEO Gary Loveman
Amount of federal income taxes Caesars Entertainment would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $9 million.
18). R.R. Donnelly & Sons CEO Thomas Quinlan III
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $49 million tax refund.
Eighteen of the 80 CEOs who signed the call for deficit action are actually some of the biggest outsourcers and tax cheats in America. First, they crashed the economy in 2008. They followed that up by taking billions in taxpayer bailout dollars. Their next step was to outsource jobs and evade taxes. Now they are calling for action on a deficit that they helped create over the past four years."
"There really is no shame. The Wall Street leaders whose recklessness and illegal behavior caused this terrible recession are now lecturing the American people on the need for courage to deal with the nation’s finances and deficit crisis. Before telling us why we should cut Social Security, Medicare and other vitally important programs, these CEOs might want to take a hard look at their responsibility for causing the deficit and this terrible recession.
Our Wall Street friends might also want to show some courage of their own by suggesting that the wealthiest people in this country, like them, start paying their fair share of taxes. They might work to end the outrageous corporate loopholes, tax havens and outsourcing provisions that their lobbyists have littered throughout the tax code – contributing greatly to our deficit.
Many of the CEO’s who signed the deficit-reduction letter run corporations that evaded at least $34.5 billion in taxes by setting up more than 600 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens since 2008. As a result, at least a dozen of the companies avoided paying any federal income taxes in recent years, and even received more than $6.4 billion in tax refunds from the IRS since 2008.
Several of the companies received a total taxpayer bailout of more than $2.5 trillion from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.
Many of the companies also have outsourced hundreds of thousands of American jobs to China and other low wage countries, forcing their workers to receive unemployment insurance and other federal benefits. In other words, these are some of the same people who have significantly caused the deficit to explode over the last four years."
1). Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $1.9 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? Over $1.3 trillion.
Amount of federal income taxes Bank of America would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.6 billion.
2). Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $278 million tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $824 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes Goldman Sachs would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.7 billion
3). JP Morgan Chase CEO James Dimon
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $416 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes JP Morgan Chase would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.9 billion.
4). General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $3.3 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve? $16 billion.
Jobs Shipped Overseas? At least 25,000 since 2001.
5). Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $705 million tax refund.
American Jobs Cut in 2010? In 2010, Verizon announced 13,000 job cuts, the third highest corporate layoff total that year.
6). Boeing CEO James McNerney, Jr.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? None. $124 million tax refund.
American Jobs Shipped overseas? Over 57,000.
Amount of Corporate Welfare? At least $58 billion.
7). Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Amount of federal income taxes Microsoft would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $19.4 billion.
8). Honeywell International CEO David Cote
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $34 million tax refund.
9). Corning CEO Wendell Weeks
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $4 million tax refund.
10). Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $74 million tax refund.
11). Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $55 million tax refund.
12). Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $1 million tax refund.
13). Marsh & McLennan Companies CEO Brian Duperreault
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $90 million refund.
14). Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs
Amount of federal income taxes Qualcomm would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.7 billion.
15). Tenneco CEO Gregg Sherill
Amount of federal income taxes Tenneco would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $269 million.
16). Express Scripts CEO George Paz
Amount of federal income taxes Express Scripts would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $20 million.
17). Caesars Entertainment CEO Gary Loveman
Amount of federal income taxes Caesars Entertainment would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $9 million.
18). R.R. Donnelly & Sons CEO Thomas Quinlan III
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $49 million tax refund.
Eighteen of the 80 CEOs who signed the call for deficit action are actually some of the biggest outsourcers and tax cheats in America. First, they crashed the economy in 2008. They followed that up by taking billions in taxpayer bailout dollars. Their next step was to outsource jobs and evade taxes. Now they are calling for action on a deficit that they helped create over the past four years."
Stop it...
Yep once again you show how ignorant you are. Well done mikey.
Oh, now you want to re-write the criteria.
"Would rather hear form a guy who has $70 mil than Obama or Krugman or one of them..."
But, you named Obama in there too so you included non-financial people in your weak argument. Then, when I play by your rules and trounce you - you try to wiggle out of it. Face it - you just can't win.
Gates is the credible source by your own criteria and I'm the winner.
Teeheehee
"Would rather hear form a guy who has $70 mil than Obama or Krugman or one of them..."
But, you named Obama in there too so you included non-financial people in your weak argument. Then, when I play by your rules and trounce you - you try to wiggle out of it. Face it - you just can't win.
Gates is the credible source by your own criteria and I'm the winner.
Teeheehee
The flaw with that argument you present is Gates is not in the "Financial" world like Schiff.
I should clarify my statement above...$70 mil from a Financial guy over X,Y Z.
I should clarify my statement above...$70 mil from a Financial guy over X,Y Z.
Well son, by that reasoning I guess we have to defer to Bill Gates....
"The co-founder of Microsoft has a combined net worth of greater than 80 billion dollars....."
70 million sounds like a drop in the little baby bucket.
Teeheehee
"The co-founder of Microsoft has a combined net worth of greater than 80 billion dollars....."
70 million sounds like a drop in the little baby bucket.
Teeheehee
Peter David Schiff (/ˈʃɪf/; born March 23, 1963) is an American financial analyst, author and politician. Schiff is CEO and chief global strategist[3] of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a broker-dealer based in Westport, Connecticut, as well as founder and Chairman of SchiffGold, a precious metals dealer based in Manhattan.[4][5]
Peter Schiff has a net worth of $70 million
Would rather hear form a guy who has $70 mil than Obama or Krugman or one of them.
Peter Schiff has a net worth of $70 million
Would rather hear form a guy who has $70 mil than Obama or Krugman or one of them.
Peter Schiff.....teeheehee
Ah the liberal playbook, don't like the message then try to lie and discredit the messenger.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/what-top-1-really-paid-when-top-tax.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dustin-siggins/2012/11/20/debunking-paul-krugmans-beloved-91-percent-tax-myth
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/what-top-1-really-paid-when-top-tax.html
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dustin-siggins/2012/11/20/debunking-paul-krugmans-beloved-91-percent-tax-myth
Part 2
"Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed."
Notice how he simply assumes that there was a net drag on the economy in the 50s? This is simply assumed by conservative theory. He doesn't feel like he actually has to show us proof that there was any net drag in the 50s. In doing so he doesn't meet the liberal argument head on: that despite high nominal rates the economy did very well. On what basis does he claim that the post-Reagan economy has performed better than the pre-Reagan one?]
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/12/peter-schiff-and-91-top-tax-rate-whos.html
"Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed."
Notice how he simply assumes that there was a net drag on the economy in the 50s? This is simply assumed by conservative theory. He doesn't feel like he actually has to show us proof that there was any net drag in the 50s. In doing so he doesn't meet the liberal argument head on: that despite high nominal rates the economy did very well. On what basis does he claim that the post-Reagan economy has performed better than the pre-Reagan one?]
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/12/peter-schiff-and-91-top-tax-rate-whos.html
Part 1
Peter Schiff and a 91% Top Tax Rate: Who's Fantasy Is It?
[Now we have Peter Schiff explaining to us that we're all hopelessly ignorant and uninformed about taxes-at least if we're slightly Left of Center. Schiff gives us a history less of the old 91% tax rate that held from the start of WWII in 1942 through the 50s, until Kennedy dropped it to 73% in the early 60s. Liberals often point to this as proof that despite all the breast beating we here about the pall on economic activity higher taxes on the rich are supposed to cause, the economy did quite well in a time of a very high top nominal tax rate.
Schiff starts off by arguing that in reality the tax rate was never that high. That's true, although his implication that no liberals who call for higher rates know this is false. I knew this, and I'm certain Krugman knows this. Michael Lind in his book Up From Conservatism knew this. He said that even when we had a 91% top rate, in reality no one ever really paid $.91 of every $1 in income taxes. At the time Lind had argued that they did pay about $.45 however, That does sound like a pretty fair rate. It's been my observation that generally speaking the effective top rate is usually about half of the nominal top rate.
So it is that we've seen that the top effective tax rate is actually more like 17.2% compared with the 35% official top rate. So by that principle a call for a tax rate of 70% or even 9!% doesn't sound so outrageous.
So Schiff is correct that no one every paid that top rate, though I don't know who it is that claims they did. He makes the argument that in truth what they pay in taxes hasn't changed much:
"In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%."
"So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.html
There's more than a few moving parts in this and if you don't follow the moving balls you can get mislead. He's actually arguing that lower and middle income workers have a much lighter burden today. This is surely not true-though it depends crucially on how you define burden. Put it this way, whatever their federal income tax rate was-bearing in mind there are many other taxes that they pay besides the federal income tax-would you say that middle and lower income workers are better off today than they were in say 1957, 1957, or even 1977?
"In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans—genuinely wealthy by the standards of the day—paid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes."
"In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s."
There it is. How could we have it so wrong?! I mean they have to be better off today as according to his numbers their share of (federal)taxes dropped by 77%. So they're better off right? I mean case closed right? Let's just assume for argument's sake that his numbers are right. So their share of federal income taxes fell by 77%. They must be better off if all that matters to your economic welfare is what percentage of total federal income taxes comes from you. Of course, that's not the only factor to consider. He leaves wholly out of account the other taxes lower income people pay-in fact the taxes that most Americans pay-payroll taxes.
As 75% of Americans pay most of their taxes in the form of payroll taxes, this is no small omission. Then again, there was another top line number that Schiff gave but didn't comment on. While nonrich Americans saw their share of taxes fall from 22.5% to 6.7%, what about their adjusted gross income? According to his numbers this fell from 41.3% to 22.5%, a drop of 50%.
Maybe Schiff will argue that it's ok as their share of taxes fell by 77% which is more than the 50% their AGI dropped but why is this what matters? Would you welcome your pay being cut in half even if you were told that your taxes paid would decrease by 77%? If I offered you that deal today would you take it?
Let's do a hypothetical. You make $100,000 a year(lucky you!). Today your boss calls you into his office and says "Good news, Lucky U! I'm cutting your pay to $50,000 a year effective immediately. Now don't worry! I'm also going to cut your taxes paid on your income from 22.5% to 6.7%. Merry Christmas! You can't thank me now by working harder!"
Yes, your name is LuckyU-you're a very lucky person. But do you feel jazzed this conversation? Let's do a "back of the envelope calucation."
Until your "raise."
Yearly pay: $100,000.
Federal tax rate: 22.5%
Take home (after taxes): $77,500
Note that it's still $27,500 more than your pretax new salary of $50,000-it's 55% more.
New Yearly pay: $50,000
New tax rate: 6.7%
New take home: $47,600.
So your pay has still be cut by way over 40%. Schiff finishes off with the usual conservative boiler plate about how what matters is not rates but making the code "simple" and "broad" and promoting incentive.
"The changes came about not so much by movements in rates but by the addition of tax credits for the poor and the elimination of exemptions for the wealthy. In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government. Those nostalgic for 1950s-era "tax fairness" should bear this in mind."
"The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure."
"For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/12/peter-schiff-and-91-top-tax-rate-whos.html
Peter Schiff and a 91% Top Tax Rate: Who's Fantasy Is It?
[Now we have Peter Schiff explaining to us that we're all hopelessly ignorant and uninformed about taxes-at least if we're slightly Left of Center. Schiff gives us a history less of the old 91% tax rate that held from the start of WWII in 1942 through the 50s, until Kennedy dropped it to 73% in the early 60s. Liberals often point to this as proof that despite all the breast beating we here about the pall on economic activity higher taxes on the rich are supposed to cause, the economy did quite well in a time of a very high top nominal tax rate.
Schiff starts off by arguing that in reality the tax rate was never that high. That's true, although his implication that no liberals who call for higher rates know this is false. I knew this, and I'm certain Krugman knows this. Michael Lind in his book Up From Conservatism knew this. He said that even when we had a 91% top rate, in reality no one ever really paid $.91 of every $1 in income taxes. At the time Lind had argued that they did pay about $.45 however, That does sound like a pretty fair rate. It's been my observation that generally speaking the effective top rate is usually about half of the nominal top rate.
So it is that we've seen that the top effective tax rate is actually more like 17.2% compared with the 35% official top rate. So by that principle a call for a tax rate of 70% or even 9!% doesn't sound so outrageous.
So Schiff is correct that no one every paid that top rate, though I don't know who it is that claims they did. He makes the argument that in truth what they pay in taxes hasn't changed much:
"In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%."
"So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.html
There's more than a few moving parts in this and if you don't follow the moving balls you can get mislead. He's actually arguing that lower and middle income workers have a much lighter burden today. This is surely not true-though it depends crucially on how you define burden. Put it this way, whatever their federal income tax rate was-bearing in mind there are many other taxes that they pay besides the federal income tax-would you say that middle and lower income workers are better off today than they were in say 1957, 1957, or even 1977?
"In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans—genuinely wealthy by the standards of the day—paid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes."
"In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s."
There it is. How could we have it so wrong?! I mean they have to be better off today as according to his numbers their share of (federal)taxes dropped by 77%. So they're better off right? I mean case closed right? Let's just assume for argument's sake that his numbers are right. So their share of federal income taxes fell by 77%. They must be better off if all that matters to your economic welfare is what percentage of total federal income taxes comes from you. Of course, that's not the only factor to consider. He leaves wholly out of account the other taxes lower income people pay-in fact the taxes that most Americans pay-payroll taxes.
As 75% of Americans pay most of their taxes in the form of payroll taxes, this is no small omission. Then again, there was another top line number that Schiff gave but didn't comment on. While nonrich Americans saw their share of taxes fall from 22.5% to 6.7%, what about their adjusted gross income? According to his numbers this fell from 41.3% to 22.5%, a drop of 50%.
Maybe Schiff will argue that it's ok as their share of taxes fell by 77% which is more than the 50% their AGI dropped but why is this what matters? Would you welcome your pay being cut in half even if you were told that your taxes paid would decrease by 77%? If I offered you that deal today would you take it?
Let's do a hypothetical. You make $100,000 a year(lucky you!). Today your boss calls you into his office and says "Good news, Lucky U! I'm cutting your pay to $50,000 a year effective immediately. Now don't worry! I'm also going to cut your taxes paid on your income from 22.5% to 6.7%. Merry Christmas! You can't thank me now by working harder!"
Yes, your name is LuckyU-you're a very lucky person. But do you feel jazzed this conversation? Let's do a "back of the envelope calucation."
Until your "raise."
Yearly pay: $100,000.
Federal tax rate: 22.5%
Take home (after taxes): $77,500
Note that it's still $27,500 more than your pretax new salary of $50,000-it's 55% more.
New Yearly pay: $50,000
New tax rate: 6.7%
New take home: $47,600.
So your pay has still be cut by way over 40%. Schiff finishes off with the usual conservative boiler plate about how what matters is not rates but making the code "simple" and "broad" and promoting incentive.
"The changes came about not so much by movements in rates but by the addition of tax credits for the poor and the elimination of exemptions for the wealthy. In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government. Those nostalgic for 1950s-era "tax fairness" should bear this in mind."
"The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure."
"For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/12/peter-schiff-and-91-top-tax-rate-whos.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808
Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.
True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/
If you advance a lie by enough people in enough places then the masses will believe the lie, but the lie is still a lie.
Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.
True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.
In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.
So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/
If you advance a lie by enough people in enough places then the masses will believe the lie, but the lie is still a lie.
Bill Gates: Tax Reductions ‘Nonsense,’ Economic Growth Best When Corporate Tax Rates Are High – VIDEO
May 19, 2015 by Rowan Lee
[Bill Gates doesn’t hold back when questioned about his opinion regarding taxing the wealthy. The co-founder of Microsoft has a combined net worth of greater than 80 billion dollars, but is very clear on where that money should be going:
"The highest economic growth decade was the 1960s. Income tax rates were 90 percent…I mean, the idea that there’s some direct connection that all these innovators are on strike because tax rates are at 35 percent on corporations, that’s just such nonsense."
Gates was responding to an interview question on whether or not he thought that tax reductions led to innovation and productivity. Gates calls nonsense, claiming instead that high taxes have led to the most national productivity – and he is absolutely correct. The 1960’s top the post World War II era in terms of GDP – when tax rates on the wealthiest were at 90%. Compared to the past 15 years, where taxes on the wealthy have stagnated at 35-38%, leading to a GDP growth of 1.72% – in the 1960’s that growth rate boomed to 4.36% GDP growth.
These numbers are a simplification of fact, since many factors play into domestic growth other than just tax rates, but as a general rule what Gates claims is true – with the inverse providing a mirrored point. High taxes may not always lead to growth, but low taxes never do.
To top it off, the period of high taxes on the wealthy Gates is referring to began during the Eisenhower era – the President who believed the wealthy should be appropriately taxed was a Republican.
My, how times have changed.
Comments:
Paul Samarin · Top Commenter · UCLA
The idea is quite simple, really, which is why you never hear it mentioned by a media controlled by wealthy people: If you tell a corporation or an individual that they will pay 90% (or any "high" percentage) of their income in excess of (some amount), then they will choose to invest that excess income back into the business -- which creates jobs, or increases the incomes of the existing employees -- RATHER THAN paying the income tax on that excess income. OTOH, if the tax on that excess income is low enough, they will simply KEEP the excess income and pay the pittance in taxes. That's it. That's all there is to it. Lowering taxes on the wealthy kills jobs. Yes, I earned my B.A. in Economics at UCLA......]
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/05/bill-gates-tax-reductions-nonsense-tax-the-rich/
May 19, 2015 by Rowan Lee
[Bill Gates doesn’t hold back when questioned about his opinion regarding taxing the wealthy. The co-founder of Microsoft has a combined net worth of greater than 80 billion dollars, but is very clear on where that money should be going:
"The highest economic growth decade was the 1960s. Income tax rates were 90 percent…I mean, the idea that there’s some direct connection that all these innovators are on strike because tax rates are at 35 percent on corporations, that’s just such nonsense."
Gates was responding to an interview question on whether or not he thought that tax reductions led to innovation and productivity. Gates calls nonsense, claiming instead that high taxes have led to the most national productivity – and he is absolutely correct. The 1960’s top the post World War II era in terms of GDP – when tax rates on the wealthiest were at 90%. Compared to the past 15 years, where taxes on the wealthy have stagnated at 35-38%, leading to a GDP growth of 1.72% – in the 1960’s that growth rate boomed to 4.36% GDP growth.
These numbers are a simplification of fact, since many factors play into domestic growth other than just tax rates, but as a general rule what Gates claims is true – with the inverse providing a mirrored point. High taxes may not always lead to growth, but low taxes never do.
To top it off, the period of high taxes on the wealthy Gates is referring to began during the Eisenhower era – the President who believed the wealthy should be appropriately taxed was a Republican.
My, how times have changed.
Comments:
Paul Samarin · Top Commenter · UCLA
The idea is quite simple, really, which is why you never hear it mentioned by a media controlled by wealthy people: If you tell a corporation or an individual that they will pay 90% (or any "high" percentage) of their income in excess of (some amount), then they will choose to invest that excess income back into the business -- which creates jobs, or increases the incomes of the existing employees -- RATHER THAN paying the income tax on that excess income. OTOH, if the tax on that excess income is low enough, they will simply KEEP the excess income and pay the pittance in taxes. That's it. That's all there is to it. Lowering taxes on the wealthy kills jobs. Yes, I earned my B.A. in Economics at UCLA......]
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/05/bill-gates-tax-reductions-nonsense-tax-the-rich/
Tell a major share holder that money they have every right to, will be redistributed so the company can build a community garden. That would not go over with anyone.
The job of a CEO is to make the company money so it can stay in business. If unions got out of the mix then more jobs would be in America.
The job of a CEO is to make the company money so it can stay in business. If unions got out of the mix then more jobs would be in America.
I agree. If it is legal, then it is their right to take the bail outs offered and outsource jobs and if evading taxes means using whatever legal ways there are to pay less, then I do not have a problem with it.
It's not really a big deal that we disagree on this. We always have. I'm sure there are plenty of people in America that agree with you and plenty of people that agree with me.
I see a bigger problem with the growing numbers that couldn't survive without government assistance.
It's not really a big deal that we disagree on this. We always have. I'm sure there are plenty of people in America that agree with you and plenty of people that agree with me.
I see a bigger problem with the growing numbers that couldn't survive without government assistance.
(computer freaked out)
Education stinks, so those that do graduate with traditionally low scores typically get low income jobs. Because of the lack of education, they find themselves stuck there.
Education stinks, so those that do graduate with traditionally low scores typically get low income jobs. Because of the lack of education, they find themselves stuck there.
If what they're doing is legal, I can't be all that upset.
" i see the decaying of our infrastructure, the increase in homelessness, and the loss of the middle class as being partially caused by this gross inequality ...."
Speaking of a shrinking middle class and a decaying infrastructure, I stumbled upon something somewhere today that said similar to Baltimore spends the 3rd most per student in the nations public schools and they traditionally have some of the worst test averages across the country.
I think its indicative of the quality of education.
" i see the decaying of our infrastructure, the increase in homelessness, and the loss of the middle class as being partially caused by this gross inequality ...."
Speaking of a shrinking middle class and a decaying infrastructure, I stumbled upon something somewhere today that said similar to Baltimore spends the 3rd most per student in the nations public schools and they traditionally have some of the worst test averages across the country.
I think its indicative of the quality of education.
If we get back to the topic of this post, do you think it's right for these CEOs to take trillions in bailouts, evade taxes and outsource our jobs ???
Sigh, yes I know you do. And I do not think they are paying their fare share at all !
I see the decaying of our infrastructure, the increase in homelessness, and the loss of the middle class as being partially caused by this gross inequality and corporate greed, It's not the only cause but certainly it is part.
There was a time when companies supported the communities they made money from. Of course this was before big mulch-national corporations took over.
I see the decaying of our infrastructure, the increase in homelessness, and the loss of the middle class as being partially caused by this gross inequality and corporate greed, It's not the only cause but certainly it is part.
There was a time when companies supported the communities they made money from. Of course this was before big mulch-national corporations took over.
WRITE off.
Well, I believe they do OH. Just because they use the system to their advantage doesn't mean they aren't paying their fair share. I take every right off I can. So should they.
More thoughts on the topic:
Myth: Tax cuts spur economic growth.
Fact: High tax rates are correlated with economic growth.
Summary
There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
Myth: Tax cuts spur economic growth.
Fact: High tax rates are correlated with economic growth.
Summary
There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
Corporate America may pay your bills but we live here in this country together and they should pay their fare share.
Why should a person who is barely getting by be paying a higher tax rate than those making billions ?
I'm sorry but to me it is simply morally wrong.
Why should a person who is barely getting by be paying a higher tax rate than those making billions ?
I'm sorry but to me it is simply morally wrong.
Not for a second do I believe that having corporations pay their fair share in taxes has anything to do with their ability to keep Americans employed. (They operate under the guise that paying more taxes kills jobs...)
As far as CEOS making too much money? I think some of their salaries are ridiculous and their net worth more ridiculous, but I think they are doing a job that not anyone can do. I think its worth something, and maybe a lot of something. (But now we are talking about individuals )
I think Vance's Koch reference is valid. Democrats all of the time preach about the evil empire and there is just enough evil in their own parties to keep the busy.
It's a money issue....
As far as CEOS making too much money? I think some of their salaries are ridiculous and their net worth more ridiculous, but I think they are doing a job that not anyone can do. I think its worth something, and maybe a lot of something. (But now we are talking about individuals )
I think Vance's Koch reference is valid. Democrats all of the time preach about the evil empire and there is just enough evil in their own parties to keep the busy.
It's a money issue....
I believe in keeping corporate America strong. They pay my family's bills. I don't think just because they have money that they shouldn't take advantage of ways to keep it. I do the same with my own money on a much smaller scale.
I get tired of reading the hate speech about corporations. Those managers run companies that employ so many people. And I'd never believe that just because you are a live body working there you deserve what the heads of the corporation make.
Keep America businesses strong. Keep the corporate 'greed' going if means that people jobs! And stock holders still have their investments.
I look at this a different way, obviously. I'm THANKFUL for corporate America and all they have done for my husband and myself. :>)
I get tired of reading the hate speech about corporations. Those managers run companies that employ so many people. And I'd never believe that just because you are a live body working there you deserve what the heads of the corporation make.
Keep America businesses strong. Keep the corporate 'greed' going if means that people jobs! And stock holders still have their investments.
I look at this a different way, obviously. I'm THANKFUL for corporate America and all they have done for my husband and myself. :>)
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
