When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...on-84-percent/

R

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...on-84-percent/

R

Screw it, those making over a million, their taxes would be cut in half.
After all- we're talking about the job creators! Let's continue to balance
the budget on the backs of the working stiffs. C'mon, give the rich a
break!

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:39:49 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...on-84-percent/

R


The plan, as it stands, does not seem so good, but the idea of a flat
tax and elimination of tons of loopholes is a great idea. Maybe it
should be 12-2-4 or 13-1-3. Exemptions for incomes under $x.

No matter how you cut it, our present tax code sucks big time.

It will eliminate the need for tax accounts, lawyers, other tax
preparers that prey on low income or low educated people.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:54:25 -0400, Twayne wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...on-84-percent/

R

Screw it, those making over a million, their taxes would be cut in half.
After all- we're talking about the job creators! Let's continue to balance
the budget on the backs of the working stiffs. C'mon, give the rich a
break!

2009 info from the IRS: the top 1% income earners paid 39% of the income
tax collected (Kerry's wife is a notable exception to this, otherwise the
figure would be significantly higher) while the bottom HALF income earners
paid only 3%. Be fair, quadruple thhe low income tax rates!

On Oct 18, 10:02*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, RicodJour wrote:

When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ax-plan-raises...

The plan, as it stands, does not seem so good, but the idea of a flat
tax and elimination of tons of loopholes is a great idea. *Maybe it
should be 12-2-4 or 13-1-3. *Exemptions for incomes under $x. *

No matter how you *cut it, our present tax code sucks big time.

It will eliminate the need for tax accounts, lawyers, other tax
preparers that prey on low income or low educated people. *

I'm all with you on that, brother! A million pages of tax code is
about 995,000 too many.

I was hoping for more from Cain's plan. Maybe something that would
finally wake people up to demand a better tax plan. Not something
that confuses the **** out of smart people, experts can't agree on,
and your average poor schmuck has no clue WTF is going on and just
praying that Turbo Tax or H&R Block doesn't get him audited or **** up
and cost him money.

R

"Michael Dobony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:54:25 -0400, Twayne wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...on-84-percent/

R

Screw it, those making over a million, their taxes would be cut in half.
After all- we're talking about the job creators! Let's continue to
balance
the budget on the backs of the working stiffs. C'mon, give the rich a
break!

2009 info from the IRS: the top 1% income earners paid 39% of the income
tax collected (Kerry's wife is a notable exception to this, otherwise the
figure would be significantly higher) while the bottom HALF income
earners
paid only 3%. Be fair, quadruple thhe low income tax rates!

Those buying yachts & new vehicles paid significantly more tax money on
their purchases than those buying row boats & clunkers. Let's raise the tax
on who are paying less!

Michael Dobony wrote:

2009 info from the IRS: the top 1% income earners paid 39% of the
income tax collected

Does this take into account the income tax collected at the state level?

See also:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...t_manager.html

The following is taken from that web-page:

==============================

I sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry. Our
clients largely fall into the top 1%, have a net worth of $5,000,000 or
above, and if working make over $300,000 per year. My observations on
the sources of their wealth and concerns come from my professional and
social activities within this group.

Available data isn't exact, but a family enters the top 1% or so today
with somewhere around $300k to $400k in pre-tax annual income and over
$1.2M in net worth. Compared to the average American family with a
pre-tax income in the mid-$50k range and net worth around $120k, this
probably seems like a lot of money. But, there are big differences
within that top 1%, with the wealth distribution highly skewed towards
the top 0.1%.

The Lower Half of the Top 1%

The 99th to 99.5th percentiles largely include physicians, attorneys,
upper middle management, and small business people who have done well.
On earned income in this group, we can figure somewhere around 25% to
30% of total pre-tax income will go to Federal, State, and Social
Security taxes, leaving them with around $250k to $300k post tax. This
group makes extensive use of 401-k's, SEP-IRA's, Defined Benefit Plans,
and other retirement vehicles, which defer taxes until distribution
during retirement. Typical would be yearly contributions in the $50k to
$100k range, leaving our elite working group with yearly cash flows of
$175k to $250k after taxes, or about $15k to $20k per month.

The net worth for this group is usually achieved after decades of
education, hard work, saving and investing as a professional or small
business person. While an after-tax income of $175k to $250k and net
worth in the $1.2M to $1.8M range may seem like a lot of money to most
Americans, it doesn't really buy freedom from financial worry or access
to the true corridors of power and money. That doesn't become frequent
until we reach the top 0.1%.

The Top Half of the Top 1%

Data on net worth distributions within the top 1% indicate that one
enters the top 0.5% with about $1.8M, the top 0.25% with $3.1M, the top
0.10% with $5.5M and the top 0.01% with $24.4M in net worth.

Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and,
particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep
profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens,
ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the
U.S. They have access to the very best in accounting firms, tax and
other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth managers, a
network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative business
opportunities, and many other benefits. Most of those in the bottom
half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially
well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%.

Membership in this elite group is likely to come from being involved in
some aspect of the financial services or banking industry, real estate
development involved with those industries, or government contracting.
Some hard working and clever physicians and attorneys can acquire as
much as $15M-$20M before retirement but they are rare. Those in the top
0.5% have incomes over $500k if working and a net worth over $1.8M if
retired. The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the more likely it is
that their wealth is in some way tied to the investment industry and
borrowed money than from personally selling goods or services or labor.

They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock
options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business
sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate. These
opportunities are largely unavailable to the bottom 99.5%.

The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top
0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial
industry and its creations. I find it questionable as to whether the
majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from
the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the
uber-wealthy who hire them. They are, of course, doing nothing illegal.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex set
of laws and exemptions from laws and taxes has been put in place by
those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system. It allows
them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the
U.S. political and legislative processes. They have real power and real
wealth. Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely not aware of
these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to
participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top
0.5%, much less the top 0.1%. Moreover, those at the very top have no
incentive whatsoever for revealing or changing the rules.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:39:49 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...on-84-percent/

R

If you look at it upsde down. I think that means Michele Bachmann is
stainding on her head.

On Oct 19, 4:24*am, Home Guy wrote:
See also:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...t_manager.html

The following is taken from that web-page:

==============================

I sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry. Our
clients largely fall into the top 1%, have a net worth of $5,000,000 or
above, and if working make over $300,000 per year. My observations on
the sources of their wealth and concerns come from my professional and
social activities within this group.

Available data isn't exact, but a family enters the top 1% or so today
with somewhere around $300k to $400k in pre-tax annual income and over
$1.2M in net worth. *Compared to the average American family with a
pre-tax income in the mid-$50k range and net worth around $120k, this
probably seems like a lot of money. *But, there are big differences
within that top 1%, with the wealth distribution highly skewed towards
the top 0.1%.

The Lower Half of the Top 1%

The 99th to 99.5th percentiles largely include physicians, attorneys,
upper middle management, and small business people who have done well.
On earned income in this group, we can figure somewhere around 25% to
30% of total pre-tax income will go to Federal, State, and Social
Security taxes, leaving them with around $250k to $300k post tax. *This
group makes extensive use of 401-k's, SEP-IRA's, Defined Benefit Plans,
and other retirement vehicles, which defer taxes until distribution
during retirement. *Typical would be yearly contributions in the $50k to
$100k range, leaving our elite working group with yearly cash flows of
$175k to $250k after taxes, or about $15k to $20k per month.

The net worth for this group is usually achieved after decades of
education, hard work, saving and investing as a professional or small
business person. *While an after-tax income of $175k to $250k and net
worth in the $1.2M to $1.8M range may seem like a lot of money to most
Americans, it doesn't really buy freedom from financial worry or access
to the true corridors of power and money. *That doesn't become frequent
until we reach the top 0.1%.

The Top Half of the Top 1%

Data on net worth distributions within the top 1% indicate that one
enters the top 0.5% with about $1.8M, the top 0.25% with $3.1M, the top
0.10% with $5.5M and the top 0.01% with $24.4M in net worth.

Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and,
particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep
profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens,
ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the
U.S. *They have access to the very best in accounting firms, tax and
other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth managers, a
network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative business
opportunities, and many other benefits. *Most of those in the bottom
half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially
well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%.

Membership in this elite group is likely to come from being involved in
some aspect of the financial services or banking industry, real estate
development involved with those industries, or government contracting.
Some hard working and clever physicians and attorneys can acquire as
much as $15M-$20M before retirement but they are rare. Those in the top
0.5% have incomes over $500k if working and a net worth over $1.8M if
retired. The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the more likely it is
that their wealth is in some way tied to the investment industry and
borrowed money than from personally selling goods or services or labor.

They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock
options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business
sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate. *These
opportunities are largely unavailable to the bottom 99.5%.

The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top
0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial
industry and its creations. *I find it questionable as to whether the
majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from
the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the
uber-wealthy who hire them. *They are, of course, doing nothing illegal..

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex set
of laws and exemptions from laws and taxes has been put in place by
those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system. *It allows
them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the
U.S. political and legislative processes. They have real power and real
wealth. *Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely not aware of
these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to
participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top
0.5%, much less the top 0.1%. *Moreover, those at the very top have no
incentive whatsoever for revealing or changing the rules.

That's the way any aristocracy rules. The velvet glove.

RicodJour wrote:
When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...on-84-percent/


At least it's a PLAN. Other Republican candidates haven't offered much.
Certainly the president's plan is unacceptable.

Cain's plan may end up as 15-15-0, or 0-0-20 or something else, but it is a
starting point.

micky wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:39:49 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...on-84-percent/

R

If you look at it upsde down. I think that means Michele Bachmann is
stainding on her head.

Reminds me what a pathologist observed: "Women! Stand 'em on their head and
they all look the same."

In article , Home Guy wrote:

Michael Dobony wrote:

2009 info from the IRS: the top 1% income earners paid 39% of the
income tax collected

Does this take into account the income tax collected at the state level?

Nope. But since most of the debates surround candidates for President
and Congress, it doesn't seem relevant to THIS discussion.

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

On Oct 18, 11:24*pm, Home Guy wrote:
See also:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...t_manager.html

The following is taken from that web-page:

==============================

I sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry. Our
clients largely fall into the top 1%, have a net worth of $5,000,000 or
above, and if working make over $300,000 per year. My observations on
the sources of their wealth and concerns come from my professional and
social activities within this group.

Available data isn't exact, but a family enters the top 1% or so today
with somewhere around $300k to $400k in pre-tax annual income and over
$1.2M in net worth. *Compared to the average American family with a
pre-tax income in the mid-$50k range and net worth around $120k, this
probably seems like a lot of money. *But, there are big differences
within that top 1%, with the wealth distribution highly skewed towards
the top 0.1%.

The Lower Half of the Top 1%

The 99th to 99.5th percentiles largely include physicians, attorneys,
upper middle management, and small business people who have done well.
On earned income in this group, we can figure somewhere around 25% to
30% of total pre-tax income will go to Federal, State, and Social
Security taxes, leaving them with around $250k to $300k post tax. *This
group makes extensive use of 401-k's, SEP-IRA's, Defined Benefit Plans,
and other retirement vehicles, which defer taxes until distribution
during retirement. *Typical would be yearly contributions in the $50k to
$100k range, leaving our elite working group with yearly cash flows of
$175k to $250k after taxes, or about $15k to $20k per month.

The net worth for this group is usually achieved after decades of
education, hard work, saving and investing as a professional or small
business person. *While an after-tax income of $175k to $250k and net
worth in the $1.2M to $1.8M range may seem like a lot of money to most
Americans, it doesn't really buy freedom from financial worry or access
to the true corridors of power and money. *That doesn't become frequent
until we reach the top 0.1%.

The Top Half of the Top 1%

Data on net worth distributions within the top 1% indicate that one
enters the top 0.5% with about $1.8M, the top 0.25% with $3.1M, the top
0.10% with $5.5M and the top 0.01% with $24.4M in net worth.

Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and,
particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep
profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens,
ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the
U.S. *They have access to the very best in accounting firms, tax and
other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth managers, a
network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative business
opportunities, and many other benefits. *Most of those in the bottom
half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially
well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%.

Membership in this elite group is likely to come from being involved in
some aspect of the financial services or banking industry, real estate
development involved with those industries, or government contracting.
Some hard working and clever physicians and attorneys can acquire as
much as $15M-$20M before retirement but they are rare. Those in the top
0.5% have incomes over $500k if working and a net worth over $1.8M if
retired. The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the more likely it is
that their wealth is in some way tied to the investment industry and
borrowed money than from personally selling goods or services or labor.

They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock
options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business
sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate. *These
opportunities are largely unavailable to the bottom 99.5%.

The picture is clear; entry into the top 0.5% and, particularly, the top
0.1% is usually the result of some association with the financial
industry and its creations. *I find it questionable as to whether the
majority in this group actually adds value or simply diverts value from
the US economy and business into its pockets and the pockets of the
uber-wealthy who hire them. *They are, of course, doing nothing illegal..

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex set
of laws and exemptions from laws and taxes has been put in place by
those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system. *It allows
them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the
U.S. political and legislative processes. They have real power and real
wealth. *Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely not aware of
these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to
participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top
0.5%, much less the top 0.1%. *Moreover, those at the very top have no
incentive whatsoever for revealing or changing the rules.

You left out the most important part. What percent of income
in taxes do you claim those in the upper part of that 1% group
are paying? You said for the lower part of the 1% it was 25-30%,
which is substantial. And what exact mechanisms are they using to
reduce it?

On Oct 18, 10:14*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 18, 10:02*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, RicodJour wrote:

When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ax-plan-raises....

The plan, as it stands, does not seem so good, but the idea of a flat
tax and elimination of tons of loopholes is a great idea. *Maybe it
should be 12-2-4 or 13-1-3. *Exemptions for incomes under $x. *

No matter how you *cut it, our present tax code sucks big time.

It will eliminate the need for tax accounts, lawyers, other tax
preparers that prey on low income or low educated people. *

I'm all with you on that, brother! *A million pages of tax code is
about 995,000 too many.

I was hoping for more from Cain's plan. *Maybe something that would
finally wake people up to demand a better tax plan.

It certainly contributes to the discussion and at least it's an
actual plan. But from the start I too was surprised that someone
running for President, who's been a CEO, and has economic
advisors would put forward this plan. It's easy to tear apart.
Start with those on social security and limited retirement
income. Right now they pay zero income tax. The 9% sales
tax would be a huge tax increase for them.

Then take those lower income tax payers who are paying
no income tax. That's almost half of all taxpayers. They
get hit with not only the 9% sales tax, but also a 9% income
tax. They go from paying nothing to close to 18%, assuming
they spend nearly all they make.

At the same time, upper income tax payers who are
probably paying at about a 30% rate overall, wind up
only paying 9%. And Warren Buffet would get a huge
cut because there would be zero capital gains tax.

How he could possibly put this forward as a serious
proposal is beyond me.

" used improper usenet message composition style
by full-quoting:

You left out the most important part.

I didn't write that material - I just quoted it.

And why did you full-quote it - you knucklehead? Don't you know how to
trim unnecessary quoted material when you're composing a usenet reply?

What percent of income in taxes do you claim those in the upper
part of that 1% group are paying? You said for the lower part
of the 1% it was 25-30%, which is substantial.

Again, I'm not claiming anything. The guy that wrote that material did
all the claiming.

He doesn't say what the effective tax rate is for the top 0.5% or even
the top 0.1%, but he does say that the income of those groups are more
likely to have come from stock options, capital gains (probably made
with borrowed money), and real estate - all of which are taxed at a
lower rate than "earned income".

And what exact mechanisms are they using to reduce it?

To quote from the article:

============
Those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for
almost nothing, keep profits and production overseas, hold personal
assets in tax havens, ride out down markets and economies, and influence
legislation in the U.S. They have access to the very best in accounting
firms, tax and other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth
managers, a network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative
business opportunities, and many other benefits.

Those in the top 0.5% have incomes over $500k (if working) and a net
worth over $1.8M if retired. The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the
more likely it is that their wealth is in some way tied to the
investment industry and borrowed money.

They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock
options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business
sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate.
============

And here's more that I did not quote originally:

============
Recently, I spoke with a younger client who retired from a major
investment bank in her early thirties, net worth around $8M. We can
estimate that she had to earn somewhere around twice that, or $14M-$16M,
in order to keep $8M after taxes and live well along the way, an
impressive accomplishment by such an early age.

Folks in the top 0.1% come from many backgrounds but it's infrequent to
meet one whose wealth wasn't acquired through direct or indirect
participation in the financial and banking industries. One of our
clients, net worth in the $60M range, built a small company and was
acquired with stock from a multi-national. Stock is often called a
"paper" asset. Another client, CEO of a medium-cap tech company, retired
with a net worth in the $70M range. The bulk of any CEO's wealth comes
from stock, not income, and incomes are also very high. Last year, the
average S&P 500 CEO made $9M in all forms of compensation.

Another client with a net worth in the $10M range is the ex-wife of a
managing director of a major investment bank, while another was able to
amass $12M after taxes by her early thirties from stock options as a
high level programmer in a successful IT company.
==============

I think what we have here is some bit of trickery on the part of the
upper 1% to say that they're supporting the federal gov't (or maybe all
levels of gov't) off their own back.

The top 1% may be paying close to 40% of all federal income tax, but
they're also earning something like 25 to 30% of all income in the
country.

If you factor in property taxes, payroll tax, sales tax, gasoline tax,
you'll see that the funding of all levels of gov't (state, local,
federal) is more equitably or evenly funded by a broad range of citizens
across all income levels vs just narrowly looking at how the federal
income tax pie is sliced up.

I also read somewhere that Bush's tax cuts have actually *increased* the
tax burden on what I think is the lower half of the upper 1%, probably
by reducing the tax burden on the upper half of the top 1% as well as
the 95% to 99% segment.

On Oct 19, 9:49*am, Home Guy wrote:
" used improper usenet message composition style
by full-quoting:

You left out the most important part.

I didn't write that material - I just quoted it.

And why did you full-quote it - you knucklehead? *Don't you know how to
trim unnecessary quoted material when you're composing a usenet reply?

Geez, having a bad day are you? OK, so you didn't
leave it out, the anonymous source did. But why is
it left out? Isn't the whole point to compare what the
very upper income folks are paying? Yet that part
is just not there, but there is a lot of implying that something
unfair is going on.



What percent of income in taxes do you claim those in the upper
part of that 1% group are paying? *You said for the lower part
of the 1% it was 25-30%, which is substantial.

Again, I'm not claiming anything. *The guy that wrote that material did
all the claiming.

Yes, an anonymous source.





He doesn't say what the effective tax rate is for the top 0.5% or even
the top 0.1%, but he does say that the income of those groups are more
likely to have come from stock options, capital gains (probably made
with borrowed money), and real estate - all of which are taxed at a
lower rate than "earned income".

And what exact mechanisms are they using to reduce it?

To quote from the article:

============
Those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for
almost nothing,

And to that alone I say he's full of crap.


keep profits and production overseas, hold personal
assets in tax havens, ride out down markets and economies, and influence
legislation in the U.S. *They have access to the very best in accounting
firms, tax and other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth
managers, a network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative
business opportunities, and many other benefits.

Those in the top 0.5% have incomes over $500k (if working) and a net
worth over $1.8M if retired. The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the
more likely it is that their wealth is in some way tied to the
investment industry and borrowed money.

They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock
options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business
sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate.
============

And here's more that I did not quote originally:

============
Recently, I spoke with a younger client who retired from a major
investment bank in her early thirties, net worth around $8M. We can
estimate that she had to earn somewhere around twice that, or $14M-$16M,
in order to keep $8M after taxes and live well along the way, an
impressive accomplishment by such an early age.

Folks in the top 0.1% come from many backgrounds but it's infrequent to
meet one whose wealth wasn't acquired through direct or indirect
participation in the financial and banking industries. One of our
clients, net worth in the $60M range, built a small company and was
acquired with stock from a multi-national. Stock is often called a
"paper" asset. Another client, CEO of a medium-cap tech company, retired
with a net worth in the $70M range. The bulk of any CEO's wealth comes
from stock, not income, and incomes are also very high. Last year, the
average S&P 500 CEO made $9M in all forms of compensation.

Another client with a net worth in the $10M range is the ex-wife of a
managing director of a major investment bank, while another was able to
amass $12M after taxes by her early thirties from stock options as a
high level programmer in a successful IT company.
==============

I think what we have here is some bit of trickery on the part of the
upper 1% to say that they're supporting the federal gov't (or maybe all
levels of gov't) off their own back.

The top 1% may be paying close to 40% of all federal income tax, but
they're also earning something like 25 to 30% of all income in the
country.

If you factor in property taxes, payroll tax, sales tax, gasoline tax,
you'll see that the funding of all levels of gov't (state, local,
federal) is more equitably or evenly funded by a broad range of citizens
across all income levels vs just narrowly looking at how the federal
income tax pie is sliced up.

I also read somewhere that Bush's tax cuts have actually *increased* the
tax burden on what I think is the lower half of the upper 1%, probably
by reducing the tax burden on the upper half of the top 1% as well as
the 95% to 99% segment.

Why did you repost all that? Can't you trim?
And when you find a real number, the percentage
of their income that the very upper part of the 1%
pay, instead of BS, let us know.

" wrote:

Yes, an anonymous source.

To quote from the article:

==========
This article was written by an investment manager who works with very
wealthy clients. I knew him from decades ago, but he recently e-mailed
me with some concerns he had about what was happening with the economy.
What he had to say was informative enough that I asked if he might
fashion what he had told me into a document for the Who Rules America
Web site. He agreed to do so, but only on the condition that the
document be anonymous, because he does not want to jeopardize his
relationships with his clients or other investment professionals.

— G. William Domhoff
Sociology Dept.
University of Santa Cruz
===========

The legitimacy of the source can at least be traced back to Domhoff, and
the article itself is hosted on SCSC's website - not some fly-by-night
do-it-yourself blog.

============
Those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow
for almost nothing,

And to that alone I say he's full of crap.

Those with the best credit scores get the lowest interest rates. You
didn't learn that in the school of life?

Why did you repost all that? Can't you trim?

What kind of a moron are you?

Only 15% of that was re-posted, and it was re-posted only to answer your
direct questions.

The remaining 85% was new, original material in this thread.

And when you find a real number, the percentage
of their income that the very upper part of the 1%
pay, instead of BS, let us know.

Yea - you do the same.

But it's still true that the people that pay the majority of federal
income tax also earn the majority of the income in America.

In article , Home Guy wrote:



Again, I'm not claiming anything. The guy that wrote that material did
all the claiming.

He doesn't say what the effective tax rate is for the top 0.5% or even
the top 0.1%, but he does say that the income of those groups are more
likely to have come from stock options, capital gains (probably made
with borrowed money), and real estate - all of which are taxed at a
lower rate than "earned income".

Which is why you use the effective tax rate. This takes their entire
income, no matter what source or the taxable rate for specific parts,
gloms it altogether and then says what the rate of TOTAL income went to
taxes.

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

" wrote:

On Oct 19, 9:49*am, Home Guy wrote:

To quote from the article:

============
Those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for
almost nothing,

And to that alone I say he's full of crap.

I guess it depends on how you define "almost nothing". Anyone with a
significant portfolio of stocks or bonds can borrow money at the broker's call
money rate, currently 2%, plus a broker's markup ranging from 0 to around 3%.
The markup depends on how much you borrow and how good a client of the broker
you are. For the folks we are talking about, it will be between 0 and 0.25%.

-- Doug

On Oct 19, 7:04*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
" wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:49*am, Home Guy wrote:
To quote from the article:

============
Those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for
almost nothing,

And to that alone I say he's full of crap.

I guess it depends on how you define "almost nothing". *Anyone with a
significant portfolio of stocks or bonds can borrow money at the broker's call
money rate, currently 2%, plus a broker's markup ranging from 0 to around 3%.
The markup depends on how much you borrow and how good a client of the broker
you are. *For the folks we are talking about, it will be between 0 and 0.25%.

-- Doug

Yes and if you want to look at borrowing against assets, many
homeowners who aren't in the top 1% of incomes could also refinance
their house, take money out with a new mortage at 3 to 3.75%. That's
pretty close to the margin
loan rate, ie they can borrow at low rates too.

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:39:49 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...on-84-percent/

R


The plan, as it stands, does not seem so good, but the idea of a flat
tax and elimination of tons of loopholes is a great idea. Maybe it
should be 12-2-4 or 13-1-3. Exemptions for incomes under $x.

No matter how you cut it, our present tax code sucks big time.

It will eliminate the need for tax accounts, lawyers, other tax
preparers that prey on low income or low educated people.

No matter what combination of 3 numbers you use, it still looks like
a code for some kind of fertilizer

--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Oct 19, 8:52*pm, "
wrote:

Yes and if you want to look at borrowing against assets, many
homeowners who aren't in the top 1% of incomes could also refinance
their house, take money out with a new mortage at 3 to 3.75%. *That's
pretty close to the margin
loan rate, ie they can borrow at low rates too.

You're not comparing apples to apples. It costs money to refinance.
It's also a lot harder to refinance than it was before the bubble
popped. People that have less than stellar credit are between a rock
and a hard place.

Compare Donald Trump with your average schmoe. He views bankruptcy as
a game. That's a luxury that few can afford.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=13419250

R

On 2011-10-19, RicodJour wrote:
When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.

I don't know spit about the tax plan, but I know "999 = 666" when the
Beast is doing headstands.

nb

On 20 Oct 2011 03:38:58 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2011-10-19, RicodJour wrote:
When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.

I don't know spit about the tax plan, but I know "999 = 666" when the
Beast is doing headstands.

A 666 plan would be even 33% better.

On Oct 20, 12:16*am, "
wrote:
On 20 Oct 2011 03:38:58 GMT, notbob wrote:
On 2011-10-19, RicodJour wrote:

When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.

I don't know spit about the tax plan, but I know "999 = 666" when the
Beast is doing headstands. *

A 666 plan would be even 33% better.

Or maybe 333% better, depending on how you look at it.

R

On Oct 19, 10:14*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 19, 8:52*pm, "
wrote:



Yes and if you want to look at borrowing against assets, many
homeowners who aren't in the top 1% of incomes could also refinance
their house, take money out with a new mortage at 3 to 3.75%. *That's
pretty close to the margin
loan rate, ie they can borrow at low rates too.

You're not comparing apples to apples. *It costs money to refinance.

Fine. Add the closing costs and amortize it over the
life of the loan. So someone with a job and a house can
borrow at 4%. The rich can borrow at 3.5%. You want
to argue the difference?


It's also a lot harder to refinance than it was before the bubble
popped. *People that have less than stellar credit are between a rock
and a hard place.

Having poor credit and not being rich are not the
same thing. The claim was made that the very rich
can borrow for almost nothing. The fact is that
many ordinary people can too. Not only could
they do it using the equity in their homes, if they
have even a modest stock portfolio they can do
it via the same margin loan the rich guy can.
Yeah, the rate might be 1% higher, but is that
some big difference to try to make the claim that
the rich can borrow for free?




Compare Donald Trump with your average schmoe. *He views bankruptcy as
a game. *That's a luxury that few can afford.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...uptcy-times/st...

R

What does bankruptcy have to do with any of this?
Not a very good example. Plenty of ordinary people are using
bankruptcy every day too.. AFAIK, Trump never declared
personal bankruptcy. It was businesses, most or all
of which were publicly traded companies with Trump
as a major shareholder that filed bankruptcy. Bankruptcy
has become more acceptable today for everyone, rich
and poor alike.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:29:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:




No matter what combination of 3 numbers you use, it still looks like
a code for some kind of fertilizer

It is the first time our tax code was properly named then.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:32:55 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 20, 12:16*am, "
wrote:
On 20 Oct 2011 03:38:58 GMT, notbob wrote:
On 2011-10-19, RicodJour wrote:

When your tax plan is simple - and wrong.

I don't know spit about the tax plan, but I know "999 = 666" when the
Beast is doing headstands. *

A 666 plan would be even 33% better.

Or maybe 333% better, depending on how you look at it.

I know you're not good at thinking but you don't have to prove it daily.