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

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/60#post_3489896
You have to educate people on the facts to get a real answer. You'd be amazed at some of the reactions people have when they see exactly who pays income tax and how much they pay. Top 5% earn 30% of the income and pay 60% of the taxes. Typical response is "Uhhh, really?, no, that can't be right"
The percentage of how much an individual pays in taxes is relative to their taxable income. Look at Romney. He made millions last year, mostly in capital gains. However, his effective tax rate was 13.5%. I made six figures last year, and also had some capital gains, and my effexctive tax rate was 15.2%. So technically, I paid more taxes than Romney relative to income earned. He just outlayed more cash in his taxes than I did. But that's how our tax system is designed. So of course the Top 5% pay more taxes into the system, because they make more income that is taxed. Would it be fair that just because a person makes $50 million in income, he's given a tax break so that he only has to pay the same amount in taxes as someone who makes $50K/year in the name of financial equity? If we did that, your deficit would be in the quadrillions instead of trillions.

 

[bionicarm]

Speaking of trillions, I love how the RNC has plastered the Debt Clock as their head piece for their convention this week. So do they think as soon as Romney gets elected, the clock is going to magically stop and start to reverse course? If they think that, they need to start building Romney his space ship to go visit Kolob.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490004
The percentage of how much an individual pays in taxes is relative to their taxable income. Look at Romney. He made millions last year, mostly in capital gains. However, his effective tax rate was 13.5%. I made six figures last year, and also had some capital gains, and my effexctive tax rate was 15.2%. So technically, I paid more taxes than Romney relative to income earned. He just outlayed more cash in his taxes than I did. But that's how our tax system is designed. So of course the Top 5% pay more taxes into the system, because they make more income that is taxed. Would it be fair that just because a person makes $50 million in income, he's given a tax break so that he only has to pay the same amount in taxes as someone who makes $50K/year in the name of financial equity? If we did that, your deficit would be in the quadrillions instead of trillions.
Wrong again. Those numbers include capital gains. The top 1/10th of one percent in this country, the truly wealthy which begins at a million four pay and AVERAGE, effective tax rate of over 24%. (effective tax rate is after deductions, write offs and loopholes) For every Romney or Buffet who has nothing but capital gains income there are hundreds who have salaries. Contrary to the propaganda of envy the more you earn the less write offs and loop holes effect your bottom line.
What just cracks me up is 0bama's scheme to let the tax rates increase for those earning over 250K does nothing to address the situation with Romney and Buffet. And they probably shouldn't. Both men had to earn AND PAY TAX on the money they invested. It's also important to remember that every time the investments are cashed in they pay tax so how many times have their investment portfolios been taxed?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490005
Speaking of trillions, I love how the RNC has plastered the Debt Clock as their head piece for their convention this week. So do they think as soon as Romney gets elected, the clock is going to magically stop and start to reverse course? If they think that, they need to start building Romney his space ship to go visit Kolob.

The test will be next summer is the clock speeding up (0bama) or slowing down (Romney)

 

[mantisman51]

I have a simple theory: All individuals in America are taxed too much. Corporations, not enough. However, with modern international trade, the old model of tariffs and industrial taxes used by our forefathers is woefully inadequate and puts us at a serious disadvantage in global competitiveness. The only answer is to sharply cut spending, then lower taxes for all individuals-poor and rich. But, while I'm at it, why not wish for world peace and free ice cream for everyone? It'll never happen, so we need to figure a way of making what we have more fair.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490024
Wrong again. Those numbers include capital gains. The top 1/10th of one percent in this country, the truly wealthy which begins at a million four pay and AVERAGE, effective tax rate of over 24%. (effective tax rate is after deductions, write offs and loopholes) For every Romney or Buffet who has nothing but capital gains income there are hundreds who have salaries. Contrary to the propaganda of envy the more you earn the less write offs and loop holes effect your bottom line.
What just cracks me up is 0bama's scheme to let the tax rates increase for those earning over 250K does nothing to address the situation with Romney and Buffet. And they probably shouldn't. Both men had to earn AND PAY TAX on the money they invested. It's also important to remember that every time the investments are cashed in they pay tax so how many times have their investment portfolios been taxed?
Capital gains is taxed at a different level than income. The misnomer is people equate capital gains as double taxation. They say you're taxed on the money as income, then you're taxed again as capital gains. No, your capital gains tax is the tax on the earnings you make from investments. The principal (i.e income) isn't getting taxed again. Then of course with every capital gain, you offset it with losses. Then you have people like Romney who toss millions into "charitable contributions" (i.e the Mormon Church) and get even a larger tax deduction. Effective tax rate is just that, what your bottom-line taxes are when you submit your final tax return to the IRS. That includes taxable income, deductions, capital gains, losses, and what every other line is filled out on that form.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490075
Capital gains is taxed at a different level than income. The misnomer is people equate capital gains as double taxation. They say you're taxed on the money as income, then you're taxed again as capital gains. No, your capital gains tax is the tax on the earnings you make from investments. The principal (i.e income) isn't getting taxed again. Then of course with every capital gain, you offset it with losses. Then you have people like Romney who toss millions into "charitable contributions" (i.e the Mormon Church) and get even a larger tax deduction. Effective tax rate is just that, what your bottom-line taxes are when you submit your final tax return to the IRS. That includes taxable income, deductions, capital gains, losses, and what every other line is filled out on that form.
Duh! Capital gains is a different rate but it still figures into your effective tax rate which is what you paid after taking all your write offs, deductions and loopholes. If you don't believe me look at your old tax returns.
I invested 42 grand in my "fun money" account in the stock market in 2001. in 2006 I cashed out 36K. As of today my account is worth 144K and change. Only 6K of that is principle. All but 6K of my investment money going forward has been taxed multiple times and a lot was taxed at regular tax rates because it was short term gains. ALSO, you can only claim up to 3K in capital losses. So if I invest 70K and make 40K in 8 months (which happened in 2007) I pay taxes on 40 grand at whatever rate that and our regular income places me in. If I had lost 40K I could only write off 3K in losses. I can carry it forward to offset future gains but that can take several years. Also the government still doesn't have skin in the game, they lost NOTHING. What a great scam.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490029
I have a simple theory: All individuals in America are taxed too much. Corporations, not enough. However, with modern international trade, the old model of tariffs and industrial taxes used by our forefathers is woefully inadequate and puts us at a serious disadvantage in global competitiveness. The only answer is to sharply cut spending, then lower taxes for all individuals-poor and rich. But, while I'm at it, why not wish for world peace and free ice cream for everyone? It'll never happen, so we need to figure a way of making what we have more fair.
Why tax corporations at all? If they have a bag of money they have to do something with it. Bigger salaries, stock dividends or God Bless us everyone expansion which creates more jobs. Bang had the most genius idea I've seen. Set a flat corporate tax of say 20% and lower it by the percentage of their total corporate payroll that is subject to US income tax witholding. If a company has 25% of their workforce based here they pay a 15% income tax rate. If 90% is based here they pay 2%. Don't suppose that would encourage companies to bring jobs home do you.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490101
Why tax corporations at all? If they have a bag of money they have to do something with it. Bigger salaries, stock dividends or God Bless us everyone expansion which creates more jobs. Bang had the most genius idea I've seen. Set a flat corporate tax of say 20% and lower it by the percentage of their total corporate payroll that is subject to US income tax witholding. If a company has 25% of their workforce based here they pay a 15% income tax rate. If 90% is based here they pay 2%. Don't suppose that would encourage companies to bring jobs home do you.
Bigger salaries - CEO's give themselves outrageous raises, and tell the minions to work harder or the get laid off.
Corporations and the wealthy have been benefitting from the Bush Tax Cuts since 2002. Where are the jobs? Where's the growth? Where's the stock dividends and expansion? Those cuts threw this country into the biggest recession since the Great Depression. That and a $trillion on a wasted Afghan/Iraq War.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490119
Bigger salaries - CEO's give themselves outrageous raises, and tell the minions to work harder or the get laid off.
Corporations and the wealthy have been benefitting from the Bush Tax Cuts since 2002. Where are the jobs? Where's the growth? Where's the stock dividends and expansion? Those cuts threw this country into the biggest recession since the Great Depression. That and a $trillion on a wasted Afghan/Iraq War.
How did corporations benefit from the Bush tax cuts?
You do realize that the so-called rich pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than they did before the Bush tax cuts right? Everyone's taxes decreased but the rish are now pcking up a larger share of the tab than before the cuts.
Unemployment was 4.5% When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. It took about 8 months before their foolish policies began to drag down the economy.

 

[darthtang aw]

Bionic, your whole argument on taxing the rich is self conflicting.
You state if they are given a tax cut they will keep the money. You also believe that they only care about themselves and will do everything to retain their money.
So if the rich are taxed more...what are the gonna do to recoup the money they lose in taxes?
Also,if you were going to be CEO of a company such as Home Depot, how much would you expect to be paid?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490194
Bionic, your whole argument on taxing the rich is self conflicting.
You state if they are given a tax cut they will keep the money. You also believe that they only care about themselves and will do everything to retain their money.
So if the rich are taxed more...what are the gonna do to recoup the money they lose in taxes?
Also,if you were going to be CEO of a company such as Home Depot, how much would you expect to be paid?
The Top 10% and above don't have to worry about recouping any money. That's one of the arguments. How much money is too much money for one person to have? In a Cpitalistic society, it's limited to what you're capable of earming, by whatever means you decide to earn it with. It's actually quite easy to recoup the money, depending on how inventive you want to be. Romney dumped millions into accounts in the Caymans, and pays virtually no taxes up to a set amount due to Foreign Tax credits (look at his 2011 return). It's also relative to one's standard of living. If someone handed me $5 million today, I could dump that money into a simple interest earning account that pays a 3% dividend, and happily live off the interest earned ($150,000) and never touch the principle. Now apply that principle to someone who makes $60 million in income and capital gains. So do you honestly think jacking their tax rate another 3% is going to affect their bottom line?
CEO's get paid based on what the Board of Directors and stockholders allow. The one problem with that concept with huge corporations like Home Depot, is you have so many stockholders that are individuals who don't even realize they own stock in that compnay because their 401K accountants buy the stock without them even knowing it. They get some prospectus in the mail that's 20 pages long with all these economic stats in it that a normal person can't comprehend, and they toss it in the garbage without even reading it. They don't see the voting proxy contained in the 'junk mail' that states what the Board is wanting to vote on regarding salaries and compensations for the upper management, and a "no response" implies the Board determines how to use that vote. So they pay the Home Depot CEO some outrageous 7-figure salary with stock options and other perks, and at the same time write in "out clauses" providing some form of compensation based on performance. It's a win-win situation for the CEO because if he performs well, and Home Depot's profits soar, he get's more money from his stock options. If he's a complete moron and causes Home Depot to file Chapter 11 because of his ineptitude management style, he gets fired and walks out the door with yet another 7-figure package. He then walks to the next medium-sized corporation and tosses his resume to them stating his vast knowledge and experience, and they take a shot with him just based on said experience. It's good to be the king.

 

[theclemsonkid]

This is the main reason we're up s**t creek without a paddle. You give the rich tax breaks, and they keep the money for themselves. You tax the pants off them, and they just cut jobs and workforces, or start to shelter the money, so they can still maintain their wealth either way.
I am so, so tired of hearing the term "job creator". I'm not wealthy, but my father is after his company was bought out by Xerox a few years ago. He and all his rich little buddies at the club or on the golf course are all the same. Most of them own some small to medium sized business, and most all of them have laid off workers in the past three years. Yet all these guys still live in $750,000+ homes, pay that $50,000 country club fee annually, vacation on their island homes, drive their Mercedes, and generally live like you couldn't tell if it was 1998 or 2012. One particular guy I know personally just built a $1.7 million dollar home, after last year his company closed an entire call center and 450 people lost their jobs. The capitalist says "good for him, he earned his money he can do whatever he wants". And that's true, he can. But don't use people like him with the company tag line as a "job creator".
So the right wants me to believe that by giving them more money, they are going to "create" jobs? I think all they are going to create is a nicer car, and bigger home. Call my cynical, but that's just how I see it from my point of view...

 

[mantisman51]

I tend to lean toward supply-side myself, however, it should be done in a way that encourages American job growth. First, let me say that the current economic problems stem from 2 main causes: the cost of energy and job outsourcing. 1) Obama has blown energy policy-we can't depend on alternative energy to solve this and shutting off supply and use of fossil fuel only makes it worse. 2) The Republicans destroyed our industrial base by giving money to companies to close factories here and move the jobs overseas-Americans can't buy the imported goods if they don't have the job that was outsourced. Good tax policy would charge higher taxes on corporations that produce or import goods from overseas and give $ for $ tax credits to companies that invest is jobs and factories here. Until energy prices drop dramatically and jobs are returned here, it's not going to matter what either party does. Permanent high unemployment will be the new norm.

 

[darthtang aw]

CEO's get paid based on what the Board of Directors and stockholders allow.  The one problem with that concept with huge corporations like Home Depot, is you have so many stockholders that are individuals who don't even realize they own stock in that compnay because their 401K accountants buy the stock without them even knowing it.  They get some prospectus in the mail that's 20 pages long with all these economic stats in it that a normal person can't comprehend, and they toss it in the garbage without even reading it.  They don't see the voting proxy contained in the 'junk mail' that states what the Board is wanting to vote on regarding salaries and compensations for the upper management, and a "no response" implies the Board determines how to use that vote. So they pay the Home Depot CEO some outrageous 7-figure salary with stock options and other perks, and at the same time write in "out clauses" providing some form of compensation based on performance.  It's a win-win situation for the CEO because if he performs well, and Home Depot's profits soar, he get's more money from his stock options.  If he's a complete moron and causes Home Depot to file Chapter 11 because of his ineptitude management style, he gets fired and walks out the door with yet another 7-figure package.  He then walks to the next medium-sized corporation and tosses his resume to them stating his vast knowledge and experience, and they take a shot with him just based on said experience.  It's good to be the king.
You didn't answer the question. How much would you expect to be paid to be a ceo of a wold wide corporation like home depot?

 

[theclemsonkid]

What if we gave these so called "job creators" the tax breaks they want, but set up a government entity to oversee that they actually take that money and use it to create jobs, as opposed to lining their own pockets? I'm generally left learning, but if you said that tax breaks given to the rich would be used exclusively to pay for new jobs, new factories, and real world economic stimulation... I'd totally be on board.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490230
You didn't answer the question. How much would you expect to be paid to be a ceo of a wold wide corporation like home depot?
That's a question with a hundred different answers. The noble person says $1 million is more than enough. The greedy capitalist will say $25 million based on sales. The right minded person would say whatever it takes to live comfortably while still keeping stores open and not laying off the workforce...

 

[dragonzim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490241
What if we gave these so called "job creators" the tax breaks they want, but set up a government entity to oversee that they actually take that money and use it to create jobs, as opposed to lining their own pockets? I'm generally left learning, but if you said that tax breaks given to the rich would be used exclusively to pay for new jobs, new factories, and real world economic stimulation... I'd totally be on board.
Perfect! More layers of government!

 

[darthtang aw]

That's a question with a hundred different answers.  The noble person says $1 million is more than enough.  The greedy capitalist will say $25 million based on sales.  The right minded person would say whatever it takes to live comfortably while still keeping stores open and not laying off the workforce...
I asked what would YOU expect to be paid as a ceo of a corporation such as Home Depot. You! Should be a simple enough question.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392751/the-top-40/80#post_3490250
I asked what would YOU expect to be paid as a ceo of a corporation such as Home Depot. You! Should be a simple enough question.
I could easily get by on a million dollars a year. But that's just me.