The Top 40.................

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Here's another site from someone with a bad economic degree that backs up my claims
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm
And another
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html
Butg I guess those are lying right wing sites.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/180#post_3490987
Show me wrong. You post up links from discredited hacks like think progress etc. and discount someone else's link? I showed that link because it isn't too complicated. The Data is straight from the IRS, Here it is from the tax foundation http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table1 Go down to table 7 (thats five fingers and two thumbs in Bionic speak) and that will show you the dollar cut off for each segment. Table 1 shows groups share of taxes and income.
And yes, If I pay taxes on money and then use that same money to earn more income it's being taxed again. I am not saying it shouldn't be taxed again. I am saying it should be taxed at a reduced rate.
And yet again you make stupid assumptions. I don't day trade. I swing trade, huge difference. Sometimes I am in a trade for a few days but it's usually more like a few months and in the case of stocks with good dividends more than a year. Last year I only made like 12 grand and this year maybe 15 so far (gains, not dividends). Only time I ever day traded I made like 1100.00 bux on Ford stock. Had I not gotten greedy and sold quick I would have made better than 4 times that amount in about a month. Selling quick is great if you can turn the money into another 1100.00 trade the next day but I don't trade like that. It's too easy to step into a big loss doing that crap and I don't like losses. It was actually 2008 I had the big year. Made most of my money in a short trade I was in for about a month and a half. Wish I had guts enough to have put a lot more money than I did in that trade.
Great idea to tax gains at a reduced rate. Good for the midle-income person. Just quit complaining about the rising deficit if you implemented something like that. You can reduce that glut simply by reducing spending. Won't happen. Especially when this country relies so heavily on the three biggest deficit busters - SS, Medicare, and the Military.
Swing trade, day trade, selling short - been there, done that. I too have made some significant gains playing those markets. Now look at someone who plays that game with millions. Why invest in a business or increase jobs in a company when you can make twice as much, if not more, simply bankrolling your money in the market wiseley?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/200#post_3490991
Here's another site from someone with a bad economic degree that backs up my claims
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm
And another
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html
Butg I guess those are lying right wing sites.
From your articles:
Collectively, their adjusted gross income was $1.3 trillion. And while $343,927 was the minimum AGI to be included, on average, Top 1-percenters made $960,000
In 2007, when times were good on Wall Street, one needed to have an adjusted gross income of more than $424,000 to get into the highest rank. But the stock market decline in recent years has helped lower that bar back to a level not seen since 2002.
"The further up you go, the wider swings you see," said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union. "They have a great deal of wealth sunk into the markets, which can vary quite widely."
While those at the top have seen their incomes soar over time, middle-class incomes have stagnated.
"The higher up the income distribution you go, the more your income rose and the larger the share of total income gains went to your group," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
But as corporate profits and productivity have increased, workers aren't reaping the benefits, said Edward Wolff, a New York University economics professor who specializes in income inequality. That's helping spark the movement, which has spread across the country.
"There is a lot of anger and it's for a very good reason," Wolff said. "If all of the income gain goes to the top, there's not much left to go to the rest of the people."
They're basing their numbers on AGI. Someone who makes $1 million can easily have an AGI of $323,000 after getting inventive on their itemized deductions. Of course the bar has lowered. The economy sucks right now, unemployment is high, so there's fewer people at the bottom making large incomes. So when you average all the incomes earned across the board, from the burger flippers to the Wall Street moguls, you'll come up with this magic number you claim.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Of course the middle class income has been stagnant...they don't invest nearly as much in the market, therefore don't see nearly as huge a return.
I made a few moves this summer and cashed them out at about 5 grand. started at just under a grand. However if you look at my overall income it would be relatively stagnant. because the gain was not enough to be significant toward my overall income.
You still haven't answered the key question. What happened the last few times a president raised taxes?
Will Obamas tax raise boost the economy?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/200#post_3491035
Of course the middle class income has been stagnant...they don't invest nearly as much in the market, therefore don't see nearly as huge a return.
I made a few moves this summer and cashed them out at about 5 grand. started at just under a grand. However if you look at my overall income it would be relatively stagnant. because the gain was not enough to be significant toward my overall income.
You still haven't answered the key question. What happened the last few times a president raised taxes?
Will Obamas tax raise boost the economy?
Clinton raised taxes, and I believe was the last President that had a balanced budget and also a surplus.
St. Ronald Reagan raised taxes, his biggest increase was in '82 when we were alson in a recession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/200#post_3491012
From your articles:
Collectively, their adjusted gross income was $1.3 trillion. And while $343,927 was the minimum AGI to be included, on average, Top 1-percenters made $960,000 How does that not jive with what I said? The top 1% starts at 342k a year
In 2007, when times were good on Wall Street, one needed to have an adjusted gross income of more than $424,000 to get into the highest rank. But the stock market decline in recent years has helped lower that bar back to a level not seen since 2002.
"The further up you go, the wider swings you see," said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union. "They have a great deal of wealth sunk into the markets, which can vary quite widely." And that has exactly what to you being wrong yet again?
While those at the top have seen their incomes soar over time, middle-class incomes have stagnated.
"The higher up the income distribution you go, the more your income rose and the larger the share of total income gains went to your group," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
But as corporate profits and productivity have increased, workers aren't reaping the benefits, said Edward Wolff, a New York University economics professor who specializes in income inequality. That's helping spark the movement, which has spread across the country.
"There is a lot of anger and it's for a very good reason," Wolff said. "If all of the income gain goes to the top, there's not much left to go to the rest of the people." Again, what does that have to do with the fact the top 1% earns about 19% of income and pays about 40% of income tax? (Depending on year of course)
They're basing their numbers on AGI. Someone who makes $1 million can easily have an AGI of $323,000 after getting inventive on their itemized deductions. Of course the bar has lowered. The economy sucks right now, unemployment is high, so there's fewer people at the bottom making large incomes. So when you average all the incomes earned across the board, from the burger flippers to the Wall Street moguls, you'll come up with this magic number you claim. LOL!!! Again with the smoke and mirrors. I want to meet the person that can get inventive enough to knock a million dollar salary back to 323K. I guess they could use the mortgage deduction on all their mansions but, oops! if they had that many mortgages to pay that amount of interest their million dollar salary wouldn't cover their house payments LOL! It doesn't matter anyway. Look up a little item called the ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Clinton raised taxes, and I believe was the last President that had a balanced budget and also a surplus.
St. Ronald Reagan raised taxes, his biggest increase was in '82 when we were alson in a recession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
And why did Clinton lower taxes after he had raised them? His balanced budget came after he lowered tax in 96.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/200#post_3491011
Great idea to tax gains at a reduced rate. Good for the midle-income person. Just quit complaining about the rising deficit if you implemented something like that. You can reduce that glut simply by reducing spending. Won't happen. Especially when this country relies so heavily on the three biggest deficit busters - SS, Medicare, and the Military.
Swing trade, day trade, selling short - been there, done that. I too have made some significant gains playing those markets. Now look at someone who plays that game with millions. Why invest in a business or increase jobs in a company when you can make twice as much, if not more, simply bankrolling your money in the market wiseley?
Investing in stock is investing in business you boob. You do understand that only long term capital gains are taxed at 15%? Now why would that be?
 
ironeagle2006

ironeagle2006

Active Member
Here is something to CONSIDER also how many Democrats got DESTROYED in 94 after voting FOR Clintons Economic Policy to Raise Taxes. When the Speaker of the House LOSES in an Election along with 53 others it means there is need for a Change. Then in 2010 they lost 63 SEATS both times UNDER a Democratic President that wanted to RAISE TAXES. That tell you anything. The Last Republican President to Raise Taxes was GHW Bush and HE LOST TO Clinton in 92. The American people Hate to have taxes raised and the Threat of them BEING RAISED WILL KILL ANY PRESIDENTS CHANCE OF RELECTION AT ALL.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/200#post_3491084
Investing in stock is investing in business you boob. You do understand that only long term capital gains are taxed at 15%? Now why would that be?
Most Top 5%'ers invest in multiple stocks, not just the stocks in their own business. As a matter of fact, they use the stock options they receive from their own corporations to diversify and buy stocks in busineses besides their own. Their business stocks could tank, but their still making profits because they moved stock options to more lucrative stocks.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/200#post_3491148
Most Top 5%'ers invest in multiple stocks, not just the stocks in their own business. As a matter of fact, they use the stock options they receive from their own corporations to diversify and buy stocks in busineses besides their own. Their business stocks could tank, but their still making profits because they moved stock options to more lucrative stocks.
How do you know? First off you don't have a clue who's in the top 5%, do I need to educate you like the case with the 1%? Corporate officers hold enough of their companies stock that stock analysts track insider transactions. Do they only invest in their own company? Hopefully not but there are enough people holding enough stock in their own company that it is an indication of the health of the company.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Most Top 5%'ers invest in multiple stocks, not just the stocks in their own business.  As a matter of fact, they use the stock options they receive from their own corporations to diversify and buy stocks in busineses besides their own.  Their business stocks could tank, but their still making profits because they moved stock options to more lucrative stocks.
And the money invested in those stocks don't help that particular company/business grow? Is this your point? I certainly hope not. Do you have a point?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/200#post_3491276
cricket?
Guess it is only fitting....the defense has.....

Seems like you found a new picture of Clint Eastwood. Naw, the argument is going nowhere. You have your philosophies on how the wealthy should be pandered to, and I have mine. You think if we hand more money to those that don't need it, they'll create all these magical jobs that will make everything right in this country. Well, they've had that extra mnoney in their pockets for over 10 years, and the unemployment numbers are still stagnant. If all their stock investments are supposed to improve companies to where they hire more people, why aren't they hiring? If their stocks are improving their bottom line, where's the growth? Oh that's right. They're hanging onto their bucks for fear that Obama will take them away from them. The big CEO's listen to the doom and gloom from the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly, and are waiting to see if Obama get reelected before spending their cash again. Guess we better hope Obama doesn't get reelected, or we'll fall into this 100-year abyss, as claimed by Chuck Norris, who has as much brains as Clint Eastwood and his chair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top