Each of them makes a lot more money than I do.
--- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Sheep&Goatlady" <springcreek@...> wrote:
>
> They are dime a dozen, her older sister must be a poor lawyer than
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "zeus32117" <zeus32117@...>
> To: <Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 4:42 AM
> Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Fwd: The Facts About the Rich &
> Taxes
>
>
> My younger niece has a Bachelor Degree in Business Administration, and she
> is making more money than her older sister who is a lawyer.
>
> --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, patrick mc govern
> <mcgvrn_ptrck@> wrote:
> >
> > Nowadays a MBA is a dime a dozen
> >
> >
> > Â You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think
> >
> > --- On Mon, 12/27/10, zeus32117 <zeus32117@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: zeus32117 <zeus32117@>
> > Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Fwd: The Facts About the Rich
> > & Taxes
> > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Monday, December 27, 2010, 8:22 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Getting a Master's degree in Business Administration has helped most
> > people a lot more than what you are referring to.
> >
> > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, patrick mc govern
> > <mcgvrn_ptrck@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Profit sharing....lol....maybe 1% of companies offer that at the most.
> > > The only thing that gets you ahead in most corporations is good ole Ass
> > > Kissing
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã, You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 12/26/10, Susan <sailorgirl43@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Susan <sailorgirl43@>
> > > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Fwd: The Facts About the
> > > Rich & Taxes
> > > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Sunday, December 26, 2010, 6:33 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã,Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL, really? Employees in capitalistic societies have all the
> > > opportunities in the world to make themselves worth more to an employer
> > > and they have the choice of jobs. The owner of a company can set wages
> > > in his/her company and there is nothing you can do about it.Ã,Â
> > > Have you ever heard of profit sharing? Many companies that areÃ,Â
> > > privatelyÃ, owned give that to their employees as incentive to work
> > > hard.Ã,Â
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM, voice.of.god <voice.of.god@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã,Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 paybackââ,¬"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 studyââ,¬"titled "Growing Unequal?"ââ,¬"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 formsââ,¬"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 ignoreââ,¬"dividends, capital gains and
> > > > business incomeââ,¬"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
>
No comments:
Post a Comment