In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Kurt. Much more of the
wealthy's
income derives not from paychecks, but from investments so fair comparis
ons
are hard to make. But just like HeyBub claiming our corporate tax rate
is
among the highest in the world, the truth is that it's only on paper.
GE
pays NO taxes along with a boatload of companies, some of whom even get
money back from the government.

Nonsense this the amount of taxes paid.

Are you *sure* you were a journalist? (-: I really do have some serious
trouble figuring out what you're trying to say at times.
You said much more of the wealthy's incomes derive not from paychecks
and them went on to suggest this was a bad comparison (how much of
income taxes the top 1% pay. I merely stated that this was a nonsensical
argument since the figures were based on total income reported which has
very little do with paychecks. It takes into account the different rates
for cap gains as an example.

T
The top 1% get 16% of the income yet pay 34.3% of income taxes.

What's the problem? They have made the most of the system's many benefits.

The problem is they are already paying their share, and part of mine,
and a bit of yours. If they were really ripping off the poor, their
shares of taxes paid and income would be a lot closer. If the
hyperventilation crowd was correct, they would paying LESS than their
part of the income stream, not double.

While I can understand, in principle, that people should get to keep
everything they've earned, in reality, it doesn't bother me much that a
hedge fund boss earning $100M gets to part with a lot of it especially since
I'm pretty sure part of it came from MY pension fund.
Not yours since you don't own it.


When wealth gets
overconcentrated, the whole economy suffers and social unrest begins to
form, especially if they just sit on the cash and don't invest in productive
AMERICAN businesses. If that money helps build up China's manufacturing
prowess, I'm for having them pay 50% or more of their income in taxes. As
HomeGuy's post noted, the uber-rich make lots of money just by having money.
And they pay taxes on it.



This is income on their income taxes. The top 1% pay an effective rate
of 20.4% while the two lowest
quintiles have a negative rate because they get more back than they put in
(credits over and above whatever they get back in withholding). If you
do the total effective rate (including SS and excise taxes (the rate
runs around 31% and 4.5% respectively.

I can only assume from your familiarity with how the rich are taxed that
you're among them. More power to you. If that's true, it can't be from
working as a nurse for the VA. I assume it's family money. The question I
have is this: Which quintiles would you rather be in, even with the
egregious tax rates?
You'd assume wrong, on both counts. Just a LETTLE bit of prejudice
thrown in the conversation. I don't view the tax rates as egregious, I
view them as fair and saying otherwise as demogogary of the first
magnitude.



Too bad. I started buying and am WAY up since then, even with the
pullbacks. There has never been a 10-year period (including this one)
where the S&P has returned less than 8% on an annualized basis. Not my
fault (or the bankers for that matter) that most people pull their money
out at exactly the wrong time.

My pension's in CREF stock. I cashed out all my other stock. CREF's down a
Ferrari's worth but fortunately my cash out, even though it was a little
early, preserved my principle. Cashing out a little too early is still a
lot better than being a little late. The problem with that adage about
"never been a 10 year period" is that people who invest in the market can
get, as Hank Paulson so glibly said, "zeroed out." When you get to your
sixties, 10 year averages don't mean quite so much as when you're in your
thirties and can ride out the valleys.

Only voluntarily by pulling out at the wrong time, or not at all. This
isn't a ten year average, it is a ROLLING ten year period. No ten-year
period (say 1956-1966 or 1978-1988 or even 2001-2011) has shown less
than 8% return over the period. SS (according to the last report from
the Trustees will show a negative rate of return for most boomers. It
has been negative for years for minorities (mostly related to their
dying earlier.) If you invest (actually more importantly REINVEST since
the real money is made by compounding interest, dividends, etc) then
riding out the valleys is less important. I have had an IRA since they
were started and put money in every year. At the depth of the last bull
market it still a worth of more than 4x what I paid in. Stay invested
and use the dips to buy more.
But don't just buy and hold forever. Buy and hold until something
happens that makes you change your mind on the reasons you bought it in
the first place.

You don't get out of bear markets by high speed trading, or other
unfair methods.

Why are they so enormously popular and under the scrutiny of the SEC, then?
Because they cause some short-term flucuations. Nothing resembling
a bear market can come from them. Actually if you want to stabilize the
markets the single biggest change would be for the SEC to reinstitute
the uptick rule for shorting stocks. That the SEC could do tomorrow.

If you see trouble coming and you can execute trades faster than most other
people, you have an advantage and the recent closing and rolling back of a
stock whose name I can't remember shows how fast the bottom can fall out
with automated trading that reacts to falling prices. If my sell order
beats yours to the floor, I'm in much better shape. Brokerages are always
going to favor their richest customers. The stock market needs some serious
reform and I am hoping OWS triggers some of it.

And it righted itself in a few minutes under current rules, the
markets went back and zeroed out most of the trades and instituted some
things that will probably prevent it from happening again.


I've discovered a secret - bidding super low on empty, foreclosed properties
and then reporting all the code violations I can find on that property to
the county. I assume that sooner or later the bank is going to think "it's
costing us a LOT of money to hold this property so we might as well take the
lowball offer." I think we're coming close to acquiring a house for an
outrageously low price as a result. (-:
SOunds damn greedy to me (grin).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz