In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


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.

Much better, although not totally correct. There's a physical limit to the
amount of money you can make by the sweat of your brow. Investment income
has no such limitation. That's an important distinction between the upper
and lower classes.
Not only is it NOT an important distinction, in this context it is
totally. You are looking at total income from all sources and the taxes
thereon when you look at effective rates. The discussion is how much
income and what part of that goes to taxes. The top 1% has a higher
effective rate of taxes than any other group.


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.

But that's what progressive taxation all about. (-:
And according to the OECD figures I spouted numerous times, we not
only have the most progressive system among the developed world but take
a higher %age of total taxes from the top (in this case) 10% than any
other developed country except one.


And they pay taxes on it.

Not enough for my taste.
Now it comes out. You want taxes based on what offends your
sensibilities. Poor way to formulate tax policy.


The rich use government services that the middle
class never, ever need. Like military excursions to protect overseas
investments. Most Americans pay more payroll than income taxes, but that
reverses when incomes cross a certain threshold.
Yeah. the bottom two quintiles since tax credits like earned income
and others were put in place (and expanded under Bush) to address the
payroll tax concerns.
At the other end, SS taxes stop at the exact same place that
benefits stop. So, even if a person makes $60 kajillion a year, their SS
is based only on whatever the cut off is (something like $130,000 IIRC).


e
So there's something clearly amiss. Lots of the 480% rise comes from the
ever-increasing obscene salaries of CEO's. How on earth can it be good
business to pay ONE guy so much instead of plowing that money back into the
company?
Again, I point to the fact that this isn't salaries. They stay
mostly around $1-3 million. Look at the 10-K annual reports. Most of the
pay is in stock options which are related to the tax laws were
structured (by a Dem Congress on purpose years ago). This is paid for by
the shareholders and no one else by dilution of the stock and isn't
plowed back into the company.



I assumed that since you're saying the rich pay more than their fair share
that you consider the rates unfair. My mistake. Sorry. Also, it's
demagoguery or demagogy. (-:
I never said that. I have pointed out that they are already paying
more in taxes than they make (as %age of both income and taxes). I never
made any comments other than to say they are underpaying doesn't really
hold up.


The magic is knowing where the dips are. I've always wondered whether those
"ten year" numbers include the commissions paid, etc.
Probably not because that is VERY individualized. I probably sell 4
stocks a year whereas a guy I know does more than that daily. It does
include dividends. I have always gone mainly with dividend stocks.
Although I did not realize until later is was because it is impossible
to restate a dividend.

Which reminds me that
people living close to the edge just can't do what you've suggested. They
need every penny in the here and now. I remember being frustrated to the
point of exasperation trying to explain to my AA that she HAD to contribute
to her IRA because the company matched her contributions to a certain level.
My kids are the same and yet they find a way. One kid works a second
job over the holidays specifically to make the matching money. The other
buys a fewer things. If you want it bad enough, there are ways.


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.

I agree. But it's sadly clear from the recent insider trading case that the
middle class is flying blind compared to people who are deeply connected.

Again, big whoop. There are literally thousands of companies and
only a few inside traders. Even using your 20:1 standard, it is but a
pimple on the butt of the whole thing. A good diversified (which brings
up your portfolio..grin) portfolio is less concerned about this.

If the standard wisdom about crime is true, for every one they catch and
jail, twenty more got away clean. What do you think of Buffet's purchase of
BOA stock? Crazy? Or crazy like a fox? I've been thinking about investing
just because a) he did, b) they are about to embark on a big round of belt
tightening and c) they are still too big to fail so my feeling is that they
are still "government insured."
Warren got a sweetheart deal on preferred stock that isn't available
elsewhere. You can't get in on the deal of the current hero of the
common man. Another bit of hypocracy to my mind.




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.

The reset button can have good effects and bad ones. Unwinding trades like
that is a good thing but everything I've read is that those seeking to game
the system are always at least three steps ahead of the SEC. But I'll admit
I am paranoid. Some of the first stocks I ever owned included Equity
Funding of America, creators of fake insurance policies and a computer
scheme to cover up the fraud. Then, in high school, both my sister and I
got part time jobs on Wall St. and really got to see "how sausage is made."
The crooks are almost always ahead of the good guys. Even under
Democratic administrations (grin).

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