[Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Fwd: The Facts About the Rich & Taxes

I think that top managers at most companies had been too busy trying to figure out how to comply with new laws and new government regulations to be doing anything with that money. None of them is infinitely smart. It takes them a long time to do that.

--- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Walt L" <muleshet@...> wrote:
>
>
> I believe many banks, large companies,
> venture capitalists, and normal investors are sitting on huge piles of
> ready cash. WHY? Waiting for the voters to be bamboozled into giving
> them another "Bush type" government. Walt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Sheep&Goatlady"
> <springcreek@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, the stock market is doing well, and how many of those companies
> > getting this investment money is actually creating jobs like
> manufacturein
> > and all here in the US?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "zeus32117" zeus32117@
> > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 5:13 AM
> > Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Fwd: The Facts About the
> Rich &
> > Taxes
> >
> >
> > Wealth grows when it is invested in wealth creation, like a
> manufacturing
> > company, a mining company, or a company that delivers a service.
> >
> > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "voice.of.god"
> > voice.of.god@ wrote:
> > >
> > > No employee of a capitalist enterprise is ever paid what he is
> worth, the
> > > difference is the profits that the capitalist employer sticks in his
> > > pocket.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com,
> "Sheep&Goatlady"
> > > <springcreek@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > and companies think the workers are worth less than they really
> are,
> > > > back to working some five and half days, 10 to 12 hour shifts,,
> not over
> > > > time,,remember one thing, those very same workers are also
> consumers, if
> > > > the workers do not make enough money to buy the products their
> company
> > > > is making, the company does not last long,, That is the present
> problem
> > > > right now,, plus the US is a nation of consumers rather than a
> nation of
> > > > producers,
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Susan
> > > > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 5:34 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Fwd: The Facts About
> the
> > > > Rich & Taxes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh phewy, you have class envy. The workers get paid the rates they
> are
> > > > worth. They also have the option of working for whom they want to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Sheep&Goatlady <springcreek@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > what folks do in other countries is in other countries, not here,
> > > > the rich profits off the back of the working folks and that is a
> fact,
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Bruce Majors
> > > > To: DefeatLibs
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 3:59 PM
> > > > Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Fwd: The Facts About the
> > > > Rich & Taxes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > a.. DECEMBER 23, 2010 - Wall Street Journal
> > > > Taxes and the Top Percentile Myth
> > > > A 2008 OECD study of leading economies found that 'taxation is
> > > > most progressively distributed in the United States.' More so than
> > > > Sweden or France.
> > > > By ALAN REYNOLDS
> > > > When President Obama announced a two-year stay of execution for
> > > > taxpayers on Dec. 7, he made it clear that he intends to spend
> those two
> > > > years campaigning for higher marginal tax rates on dividends,
> capital
> > > > gains and salaries for couples earning more than $250,000. "I
> don't see
> > > > how the Republicans win that argument," said the president.
> > > >
> > > > Despite the deficit commission's call for tax reform with fewer
> > > > tax credits and lower marginal tax rates, the left wing of the
> > > > Democratic Party remains passionate about making the U.S. tax
> system
> > > > more and more progressive. They claim this is all about
> payback-that
> > > > raising the highest tax rates is the fair thing to do because top
> income
> > > > groups supposedly received huge windfalls from the Bush tax cuts.
> As the
> > > > headline of a Robert Creamer column in the Huffington Post put it:
> "The
> > > > Crowd that Had the Party Should Pick up the Tab."
> > > >
> > > > Arguments for these retaliatory tax penalties invariably begin
> > > > with estimates by economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of
> > > > Economics and Emmanuel Saez of U.C. Berkeley that the wealthiest
> 1% of
> > > > U.S. households now take home more than 20% of all household
> income.
> > > >
> > > > View Full Image
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Images.com/Corbis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This estimate suffers two obvious and fatal flaws. The first is
> > > > that the "more than 20%" figure does not refer to "take home"
> income at
> > > > all. It refers to income before taxes (including capital gains) as
> a
> > > > share of income before transfers. Such figures tell us nothing
> about
> > > > whether the top percentile pays too much or too little in income
> taxes.
> > > >
> > > > In The Journal of Economic Perspectives (Winter 2007), Messrs.
> > > > Piketty and Saez estimated that "the upper 1% of the income
> distribution
> > > > earned 19.6% of total income before tax [in 2004], and paid 41% of
> the
> > > > individual federal income tax." No other major country is so
> dependent
> > > > on so few taxpayers.
> > > >
> > > > A 2008 study of 24 leading economies by the Organization of
> > > > Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that,
> "Taxation is
> > > > most progressively distributed in the United States, probably
> reflecting
> > > > the greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as
> the
> > > > Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. . . . Taxes
> tend to
> > > > be least progressive in the Nordic countries (notably, Sweden),
> France
> > > > and Switzerland."
> > > >
> > > > The OECD study-titled "Growing Unequal?"-also found that the ratio
> > > > of taxes paid to income received by the top 10% was by far the
> highest
> > > > in the U.S., at 1.35, compared to 1.1 for France, 1.07 for
> Germany, 1.01
> > > > for Japan and 1.0 for Sweden (i.e., the top decile's share of
> Swedish
> > > > taxes is the same as their share of income).
> > > >
> > > > A second fatal flaw is that the large share of income reported by
> > > > the upper 1% is largely a consequence of lower tax rates. In a
> 2010
> > > > paper on top incomes co-authored with Anthony Atkinson of Nuffield
> > > > College, Messrs. Piketty and Saez note that "higher top marginal
> tax
> > > > rates can reduce top reported earnings." They say "all studies"
> agree
> > > > that higher "top marginal tax rates do seem to negatively affect
> top
> > > > income shares."
> > > >
> > > > What appears to be an increase in top incomes reported on
> > > > individual tax returns is often just a predictable taxpayer
> reaction to
> > > > lower tax rates. That should be readily apparent from the nearby
> table,
> > > > which uses data from Messrs. Piketty and Saez to break down the
> real
> > > > incomes of the top 1% by source (excluding interest income and
> rent).
> > > >
> > > > The first column ("salaries") shows average labor income among the
> > > > top 1% reported on W2 forms-from salaries, bonuses and exercised
> stock
> > > > options. A Dec. 13 New York Times article, citing Messrs. Piketty
> and
> > > > Saez, claims, "A big reason for the huge gains at the top is the
> outsize
> > > > pay of executives, bankers and traders." On the contrary, the
> table
> > > > shows that average real pay among the top 1% was no higher at the
> 2007
> > > > peak than it had been in 1999.
> > > >
> > > > In a January 2008 New York Times article, Austan Goolsbee (now
> > > > chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers) claimed
> that
> > > > "average real salaries (subtracting inflation) for the top 1% of
> earners
> > > > . . . have been growing rapidly regardless of what happened to tax
> > > > rates." On the contrary, the top 1% did report higher salaries
> after the
> > > > mid-2003 reduction in top tax rates, but not by enough to offset
> losses
> > > > of the previous three years. By examining the sources of income
> Mr.
> > > > Goolsbee chose to ignore-dividends, capital gains and business
> income-a
> > > > powerful taxpayer response to changing tax rates becomes quite
> clear.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The second column, for example, shows real capital gains reported
> > > > in taxable accounts. President Obama proposes raising the capital
> gains
> > > > tax to 20% on top incomes after the two-year reprieve is over. Yet
> the
> > > > chart shows that the top 1% reported fewer capital gains in the
> > > > tech-stock euphoria of 1999-2000 (when the tax rate was 20%) than
> during
> > > > the middling market of 2006-2007. It is doubtful so many gains
> would
> > > > have been reported in 2006-2007 if the tax rate had been 20%.
> Lower tax
> > > > rates on capital gains increase the frequency of asset sales and
> thus
> > > > result in more taxable capital gains on tax returns.
> > > >
> > > > The third column shows a near tripling of average dividend income
> > > > from 2002 to 2007. That can only be explained as a behavioral
> response
> > > > to the sharp reduction in top tax rates on dividends, to 15% from
> 38.6%.
> > > > Raising the dividend tax to 20% could easily yield no additional
> revenue
> > > > if it resulted in high-income investors holding fewer dividend-
> paying
> > > > stocks and more corporations using stock buybacks rather than
> dividends
> > > > to reward stockholders.
> > > >
> > > > The last column of the table shows average business income
> > > > reported on the top 1% of individual tax returns by subchapter S
> > > > corporations, partnerships, proprietorships and many limited
> liability
> > > > companies. After the individual tax rate was brought down to the
> level
> > > > of the corporate tax rate in 2003, business income reported on
> > > > individual tax returns became quite large. For the Obama team to
> argue
> > > > that higher taxes on individual incomes would have little impact
> on
> > > > business denies these facts.
> > > >
> > > > If individual tax rates were once again pushed above corporate
> > > > rates, some firms, farms and professionals would switch to
> reporting
> > > > income on corporate tax forms to shelter retained earnings. As
> with
> > > > dividends and capital gains, this is another reason that estimated
> > > > revenues from higher tax rates are unbelievable.
> > > >
> > > > The Piketty and Saez estimates are irrelevant to questions about
> > > > income distribution because they exclude taxes and transfers. What
> those
> > > > figures do show, however, is that if tax rates on high incomes,
> capital
> > > > gains and dividends were increased in 2013, the top 1%'s reported
> share
> > > > of before-tax income would indeed go way down. That would be
> partly
> > > > because of reduced effort, investment and entrepreneurship. Yet
> simpler
> > > > ways of reducing reported income can leave the after-tax income
> about
> > > > the same (switching from dividend-paying stocks to tax-exempt
> bonds, or
> > > > holding stocks for years).
> > > >
> > > > Once higher tax rates cause the top 1% to report less income, then
> > > > top taxpayers would likely pay a much smaller share of taxes, just
> as
> > > > they do in, say, France or Sweden. That would be an ironic
> consequence
> > > > of listening to economists and journalists who form strong
> opinions
> > > > about tax policy on the basis of an essentially irrelevant
> statistic
> > > > about what the top 1%'s share might be if there were not taxes or
> > > > transfers.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the
> > > > author of "Income and Wealth" (Greenwood Press 2006).
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>