The Liberal Myth that the Rich Pay "Virtually No Taxes"

[NYcarbineer]

We added two wars in 2001 and 2003.

Tax cuts do not increase revenue. No cause and effect has ever been proven.

"Buuuuuuuuuuussssssssshhhhhhhhh!"

Over 6 years, after/during 9/11/01, the economic problems that followed, and 2 wars, Bush's administration added $2.5 Trillion in new debt. After promising to cut the debt in half by the end of his 1st term he had added over $6 trillion in new debt, more than EVERY US President in history...COMBINED.

Obama and Libs immediately tacked on almost $1 trillion in new debt by showing their 'pork-filled wet dream' Stimulus bill, which contained over 7,000 pieces of pork (after Obama promised to eliminate pork), through. But enough of the FACTS....let's get back to our previously scheduled Liberal death wail....


'Buuuuuuuusssssshhhhhhh!

Revenues went UP and the budget was balanced after Clinton's 93 tax increase.

Two words

Tech Bubble

So the revenue increases were caused by too much investment?

lolol. I thought tax increases killed investment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Revenues went UP and the budget was balanced after Clinton's 93 tax increase.

You, like other libs, fail to mention that Clinton was DRAGGED into making and supporting those changes.

The topic is when do revenues go up. Try to stick to it.

btw, taxes on the Rich went up about 3 years ago when the top rate of the Bush tax cuts was finally allowed to expire.

What have revenues been doing since then?

 

[rightwinger]

What a stupid op.

Where are those liberals who make the claim that the ultra rich pay virtully nothing in the way of income taxes....where are those people other than in the head of the OP.

Uhhhh, there are two threads going right now in which liberals have claimed that the rich "pay virtually nothing" in taxes and/or that "the rich pay less in taxes than the middle class," etc., etc. Those comments, and many others I've seen/heard in recent years, prompted me to write this thread.

If the wealthy are paying 17% effective tax rate compared to the 50% they should be paying, does that qualify as "virtually nothing"?

You make two dubious assumptions and then proceed from there.

Why should anyone have an effective tax rate of 50%?

Does your fuzzy-math claim about a 17% effective tax rate include all the taxes that the rich pay in state and county taxes? I am barely in the top 20% and my state takes about 5% of my gross income and refunds about $100 of that money to me each year. And, good grief, I pay many thousands of dollars in state sales tax and county property tax. Two of my relatives own businesses, and they pay a huge amount in state and county business and property taxes. Does your 17% figure include state and county taxes?

Why?

Because that is where our tax rate used to be before we were running up record debt. It is where our tax rate used to be when taxes actually paid more for infrastructure, education and healthcare. It is where our tax rate used to be when the Government actually accomplished things

We have seen what Supply Side tax rates have done for this country...time to fix the mistake

You are totally confused. Every major tax cut has been followed by a huge increase in federal revenue. So you can't blame tax cuts for the rise in the debt. If we had just held spending to a growth rate that mirrored inflation after 2003, the debt would have gone no higher than maybe $6 trillion, we would have had a balanced budget by 2007, and would have paid down a sizable chunk of the national debt by now.

Bullshit

Trying to resurrect the myth that "All tax cuts pay for themselves"
Tax cuts cut revenue and that revenue needs to be made up for

 

[easyt65]

Bullshit

Trying to resurrect the myth that "All tax cuts pay for themselves"
Tax cuts cut revenue and that revenue needs to be made up for

You tell 'em RW!

Everyone knows the only thing that pays for itself is OBAMACARE!

 

[Timmy]

Can someone provide me a real example of someone paying 40% tax rate ?

Other than a lottery winner .

 

[sealybobo]

If the rich pay "virtually nothing" in taxes, as liberals continue to claim, how is it that they pay the majority of federal personal income taxes? According to federal income tax data, the top 1% pay about 45% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% pay at least 60% of all federal income taxes. And the top 20% pay over 80% of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes?

Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

What's more, the top 1% pay around 24% of all federal taxes (income taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, etc.). The top 10% pay over 50% of all federal taxes.

1 Percenters Pay 24 Percent and Top 10 Percent Pay 53.3 Percent of All Federal Taxes

And this is on top of the huge amount of county and state taxes that the rich pay, especially rich people who own businesses. I have two relatives who own businesses, and I can't believe how much they get soaked in county and state taxes, especially property taxes.

Liberals who go around peddling the kool-aid myth that "the rich pay virtually no taxes" or that "the average rich person pays less than a middle-income earner" obviously don't know any rich people and/or any business owners and are basing these silly claims on grossly misleading "studies" churned out by liberal think tanks and economists.

So what? We clearly need more.

America's Infrastructure Is Slowly Falling Apart | VICE | United States

And then we learn this:

Forbes 400 richest Americans list shows Jeff Bezos made $16B in a year

They aren't paying enough and no one understands why you are crying for them.

So tell me why should any dollar be taxed more than any other dollar and why do so many people who earn dollars pay no tax on those dollars but other people pay almost 40% tax on some of their dollars?

Progressive tax system. Why does Buffet pay 15% on the billions he makes and his secretary pays 30%? Its wrong.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

Americans don’t much like the federal tax system, a recent Pew Research Center reportfinds. But it’s not, as you might imagine, because they think they pay too much. Rather, they think people other than themselves don’t pay their fair share.

Some six-in-ten Americans in the Pew Research survey said they were bothered a lot by the feeling that “some wealthy people” and “some corporations” don’t pay their fair share. Only 27% cited their own tax bills as something that bothered them a lot, even though 40% thought they paid more than their fair share given what they get from the federal government.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We added two wars in 2001 and 2003.

Tax cuts do not increase revenue. No cause and effect has ever been proven.

"Buuuuuuuuuuussssssssshhhhhhhhh!"

Over 6 years, after/during 9/11/01, the economic problems that followed, and 2 wars, Bush's administration added $2.5 Trillion in new debt. After promising to cut the debt in half by the end of his 1st term he had added over $6 trillion in new debt, more than EVERY US President in history...COMBINED.

Obama and Libs immediately tacked on almost $1 trillion in new debt by showing their 'pork-filled wet dream' Stimulus bill, which contained over 7,000 pieces of pork (after Obama promised to eliminate pork), through. But enough of the FACTS....let's get back to our previously scheduled Liberal death wail....


'Buuuuuuuusssssshhhhhhh!

Revenues went UP and the budget was balanced after Clinton's 93 tax increase.

Two words

Tech Bubble

So the revenue increases were caused by too much investment?

lolol. I thought tax increases killed investment.

You once again demonstrate your ignorance of the economy

Clinton was the benefactor of a bubble that luckily burst right after he left office

 

[sealybobo]

It’s true that corporations are funding a smaller share of overall government operations than they used to. In fiscal 2014, the federal government collected $320.7 billion from corporate income taxes, or 10.6% of its total revenue. Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues (though payroll taxes have grown considerably over that period).

Nor have corporate tax receipts kept pace with the overall growth of the U.S. economy. Since 1980, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has risen 149%, while inflation-adjusted corporate tax receipts were 84.5% higher in fiscal 2014 than in fiscal 1980.

 

[sealybobo]

We added two wars in 2001 and 2003.

Tax cuts do not increase revenue. No cause and effect has ever been proven.

"Buuuuuuuuuuussssssssshhhhhhhhh!"

Over 6 years, after/during 9/11/01, the economic problems that followed, and 2 wars, Bush's administration added $2.5 Trillion in new debt. After promising to cut the debt in half by the end of his 1st term he had added over $6 trillion in new debt, more than EVERY US President in history...COMBINED.

Obama and Libs immediately tacked on almost $1 trillion in new debt by showing their 'pork-filled wet dream' Stimulus bill, which contained over 7,000 pieces of pork (after Obama promised to eliminate pork), through. But enough of the FACTS....let's get back to our previously scheduled Liberal death wail....


'Buuuuuuuusssssshhhhhhh!

Revenues went UP and the budget was balanced after Clinton's 93 tax increase.

Two words

Tech Bubble

So the revenue increases were caused by too much investment?

lolol. I thought tax increases killed investment.

You once again demonstrate your ignorance of the economy

Clinton was the benefactor of a bubble that luckily burst right after he left office

And worst than the small recession 9:11 caused were the policies Bush implemented after 9:11

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the rich pay "virtually nothing" in taxes, as liberals continue to claim, how is it that they pay the majority of federal personal income taxes? According to federal income tax data, the top 1% pay about 45% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% pay at least 60% of all federal income taxes. And the top 20% pay over 80% of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes?

Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

What's more, the top 1% pay around 24% of all federal taxes (income taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, etc.). The top 10% pay over 50% of all federal taxes.

1 Percenters Pay 24 Percent and Top 10 Percent Pay 53.3 Percent of All Federal Taxes

And this is on top of the huge amount of county and state taxes that the rich pay, especially rich people who own businesses. I have two relatives who own businesses, and I can't believe how much they get soaked in county and state taxes, especially property taxes.

Liberals who go around peddling the kool-aid myth that "the rich pay virtually no taxes" or that "the average rich person pays less than a middle-income earner" obviously don't know any rich people and/or any business owners and are basing these silly claims on grossly misleading "studies" churned out by liberal think tanks and economists.

So what? We clearly need more.

America's Infrastructure Is Slowly Falling Apart | VICE | United States

And then we learn this:

Forbes 400 richest Americans list shows Jeff Bezos made $16B in a year

They aren't paying enough and no one understands why you are crying for them.

So tell me why should any dollar be taxed more than any other dollar and why do so many people who earn dollars pay no tax on those dollars but other people pay almost 40% tax on some of their dollars?

Progressive tax system. Why does Buffet pay 15% on the billions he makes and his secretary pays 30%? Its wrong.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

Americans don’t much like the federal tax system, a recent Pew Research Center reportfinds. But it’s not, as you might imagine, because they think they pay too much. Rather, they think people other than themselves don’t pay their fair share.

Some six-in-ten Americans in the Pew Research survey said they were bothered a lot by the feeling that “some wealthy people” and “some corporations” don’t pay their fair share. Only 27% cited their own tax bills as something that bothered them a lot, even though 40% thought they paid more than their fair share given what they get from the federal government.

Yes we have a so called progressive tax system but you have not answered the question of why some earned dollars are taxed at a lower rate than other earned dollars

And when so many people pay ZERO how can anyone be talking about "fair shares"

If we're going to tax an earned dollar then every earned dollar should be taxed exactly the same

We should get rid of all deductions and simple tax income like we tax everything else

 

[sealybobo]

If the rich pay "virtually nothing" in taxes, as liberals continue to claim, how is it that they pay the majority of federal personal income taxes? According to federal income tax data, the top 1% pay about 45% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% pay at least 60% of all federal income taxes. And the top 20% pay over 80% of all federal income taxes.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes?

Do the rich pay lower taxes than the middle class?

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

What's more, the top 1% pay around 24% of all federal taxes (income taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, etc.). The top 10% pay over 50% of all federal taxes.

1 Percenters Pay 24 Percent and Top 10 Percent Pay 53.3 Percent of All Federal Taxes

And this is on top of the huge amount of county and state taxes that the rich pay, especially rich people who own businesses. I have two relatives who own businesses, and I can't believe how much they get soaked in county and state taxes, especially property taxes.

Liberals who go around peddling the kool-aid myth that "the rich pay virtually no taxes" or that "the average rich person pays less than a middle-income earner" obviously don't know any rich people and/or any business owners and are basing these silly claims on grossly misleading "studies" churned out by liberal think tanks and economists.

So what? We clearly need more.

America's Infrastructure Is Slowly Falling Apart | VICE | United States

And then we learn this:

Forbes 400 richest Americans list shows Jeff Bezos made $16B in a year

They aren't paying enough and no one understands why you are crying for them.

So tell me why should any dollar be taxed more than any other dollar and why do so many people who earn dollars pay no tax on those dollars but other people pay almost 40% tax on some of their dollars?

Progressive tax system. Why does Buffet pay 15% on the billions he makes and his secretary pays 30%? Its wrong.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

Americans don’t much like the federal tax system, a recent Pew Research Center reportfinds. But it’s not, as you might imagine, because they think they pay too much. Rather, they think people other than themselves don’t pay their fair share.

Some six-in-ten Americans in the Pew Research survey said they were bothered a lot by the feeling that “some wealthy people” and “some corporations” don’t pay their fair share. Only 27% cited their own tax bills as something that bothered them a lot, even though 40% thought they paid more than their fair share given what they get from the federal government.

Yes we have a so called progressive tax system but you have not answered the question of why some earned dollars are taxed at a lower rate than other earned dollars

And when so many people pay ZERO how can anyone be talking about "fair shares"

If we're going to tax an earned dollar then every earned dollar should be taxed exactly the same

We should get rid of all deductions and simple tax income like we tax everything else

If it worked we would do it but it wouldn't work and so we don't. Remember Herman Cain's 999 bullshit? Won't work. But the rich would love it. It would be a huge victory for them.

Unfortunately it won't work and it wouldn't be fair. The rich got rich under the system where the rich pay more and so they can't change it now that they've made it. That's how we fund the military and schools and infrastructure.

I would explain how the rich benefit more from the US Government than poor people do but you would not understand and I don't feel like explaining something for the 101th time. Not to you but to people like you.

Maybe this will help you understand.

Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes

This is more than just a tax cut story. It's about a fundamental shift in power and wealth from average people and the governments they had formed to represent them, to the capture of those governments and economic enslavement of their people by corporate aristocracies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We added two wars in 2001 and 2003.

Tax cuts do not increase revenue. No cause and effect has ever been proven.

"Buuuuuuuuuuussssssssshhhhhhhhh!"

Over 6 years, after/during 9/11/01, the economic problems that followed, and 2 wars, Bush's administration added $2.5 Trillion in new debt. After promising to cut the debt in half by the end of his 1st term he had added over $6 trillion in new debt, more than EVERY US President in history...COMBINED.

Obama and Libs immediately tacked on almost $1 trillion in new debt by showing their 'pork-filled wet dream' Stimulus bill, which contained over 7,000 pieces of pork (after Obama promised to eliminate pork), through. But enough of the FACTS....let's get back to our previously scheduled Liberal death wail....


'Buuuuuuuusssssshhhhhhh!

Revenues went UP and the budget was balanced after Clinton's 93 tax increase.

Two words

Tech Bubble

So the revenue increases were caused by too much investment?

lolol. I thought tax increases killed investment.

You once again demonstrate your ignorance of the economy

Clinton was the benefactor of a bubble that luckily burst right after he left office

You dodged the truth. Keep on being you.

 

[imawhosure]

Sorry Mike but....on factual grounds you may win this arguement. You will also win this arguement on moral grounds. But you will never win this arguement under the current conditions of politics/tax code in this country. As long as a large % of the adult population in the US pays 0 or less federal tax, they have no inclination to fight against overtaxing. The politicians have purposely set it up this way so as they have a group to pander to in elections. We both know this, and so does every lefty on this board, and good luck beating your head against the wall trying to get them to admit it; although I do appreciate your using facts in an attempt to try and get them to do so!

As the wise say...........a 10% rise in taxes on 100 dollars is 10 bucks. A 10% rise on zero taxes is still zero. Nothing from nothing means nothing to them financially, so how we gonna win that arguement on any political grounds?

he wins neither argument. and the people who pay no taxes CAN'T pay taxes because they don't have sufficient earnings or they are exempt (e.g., social security recipients or those in the military).

when people say the rich pay no taxes, they mean PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR EARNINGS.

I pay a certain percentage of income in taxes. someone who makes millions should pay the same percentage.

and multinational corporations like exxon mobile pay almost nothing.... or nothing at all.

and if someone earns their money from dividends, they should be taxed at the same rate as someone who earns the same amount as a W-2 employee or independent contractor

Jillian, you are honestly incompetent on economics, but do not feel badly, most lefties are.
To suggest that someone should pay the same rate on dividends as they pay on earnings on a W-2 tells me you must not have investments, or have no clue how they work.

Besides a company/corporation going out of business, when was the last time you heard of someone LOSING money when they work?

Not so on owning stock to get dividends! How do companies expand product lines and hire more people? Because other people take a chance, own their stock, and yes, many times get dividends.

Oh yes Jilly, you can do it to, you ought to look into it, it is not a rich persons secret, or maybe lefties are to busy whining to figure it out. Maybe instead of crying here, some of you should join an investment club; or is that to hard for you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Buuuuuuuuuuussssssssshhhhhhhhh!"

Over 6 years, after/during 9/11/01, the economic problems that followed, and 2 wars, Bush's administration added $2.5 Trillion in new debt. After promising to cut the debt in half by the end of his 1st term he had added over $6 trillion in new debt, more than EVERY US President in history...COMBINED.

Obama and Libs immediately tacked on almost $1 trillion in new debt by showing their 'pork-filled wet dream' Stimulus bill, which contained over 7,000 pieces of pork (after Obama promised to eliminate pork), through. But enough of the FACTS....let's get back to our previously scheduled Liberal death wail....


'Buuuuuuuusssssshhhhhhh!

Revenues went UP and the budget was balanced after Clinton's 93 tax increase.

Two words

Tech Bubble

So the revenue increases were caused by too much investment?

lolol. I thought tax increases killed investment.

You once again demonstrate your ignorance of the economy

Clinton was the benefactor of a bubble that luckily burst right after he left office

You dodged the truth. Keep on being you.

The truth that Clinton surfed a stock market bubble out of office

If you think a bubble is caused by investing in healthy market conditions you must have forgotten the dot bomb era and the later housing bubble I suppose that was too much investment as well

 

[Wyatt earp]

The 1% pay an effective tax rate of 17%...lowest in a hundred years

The middle class have to make up the difference

One Question


Why?


Does Obama really need to go to Hawaii for vacation? What is wrong with the Motel 6 in Chicago where he was a community organizer?

 

[my2¢]

For me it isn't so much the money but rather the invasion of privacy that concerns me about the income tax code. A system where one has to account to the government for their every dollar is totally against the principles of both privacy and justice.

Then don't do it..

Not much of a choice. The gestapo in Washington demands banks and brokerage collect and submit my financial information. I don't hear Republicans talk much about ending use of social security number for other than it's original intended use. It's pretty much a party of insincere promises. If Hillary gets elected we'll end up with what we deserve.

 

[rdean]

Sorry Mike but....on factual grounds you may win this arguement. You will also win this arguement on moral grounds. But you will never win this arguement under the current conditions of politics/tax code in this country. As long as a large % of the adult population in the US pays 0 or less federal tax, they have no inclination to fight against overtaxing. The politicians have purposely set it up this way so as they have a group to pander to in elections. We both know this, and so does every lefty on this board, and good luck beating your head against the wall trying to get them to admit it; although I do appreciate your using facts in an attempt to try and get them to do so!

As the wise say...........a 10% rise in taxes on 100 dollars is 10 bucks. A 10% rise on zero taxes is still zero. Nothing from nothing means nothing to them financially, so how we gonna win that arguement on any political grounds?

And a 10% raise on a billion dollars is a hundred million. What is it you could do with 1,000,000,000 dollars that you couldn't do with 900,000,000?

That's a false premise

What can you do with 2 pairs of shoes that you can't do with one?

What right does the government have to take a persons property ? One's money is one's property after all

1 pair of shoes compared to two is 50%. Where did I say 50%?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry Mike but....on factual grounds you may win this arguement. You will also win this arguement on moral grounds. But you will never win this arguement under the current conditions of politics/tax code in this country. As long as a large % of the adult population in the US pays 0 or less federal tax, they have no inclination to fight against overtaxing. The politicians have purposely set it up this way so as they have a group to pander to in elections. We both know this, and so does every lefty on this board, and good luck beating your head against the wall trying to get them to admit it; although I do appreciate your using facts in an attempt to try and get them to do so!

As the wise say...........a 10% rise in taxes on 100 dollars is 10 bucks. A 10% rise on zero taxes is still zero. Nothing from nothing means nothing to them financially, so how we gonna win that arguement on any political grounds?

And a 10% raise on a billion dollars is a hundred million. What is it you could do with 1,000,000,000 dollars that you couldn't do with 900,000,000?

That's a false premise

What can you do with 2 pairs of shoes that you can't do with one?

What right does the government have to take a persons property ? One's money is one's property after all

1 pair of shoes compared to two is 50%. Where did I say 50%?

That you don't have the right to tell people how much of their own money they need or don't need was my point

 

[edthecynic]

If the rich pay "virtually nothing" in taxes, as liberals continue to claim, how is it that they pay the majority of federal personal income taxes?

Because the gullible don't know the difference between "rich" wage earners, who pay the bulk of taxes, and the "WEALTHY" who do NOT work for the common wage.

First of all, it is not the "Liberals" who make that claim, unless you can pass off your MessiahRushie off as a "flaming Lib."
Once you understand the difference between "wealth" and "earnings" you will understand how WEALTHY Nelson Rockefeller could pay not one single penny in income taxes on his $2.5 million 1970 income as reported during his confirmation hearings for VP under Ford.

I will let Porky explain it to you:

August 7, 2007

CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.

END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes

August 6, 2007

RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...

But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

"Own nothing. Control everything"
- John D Rockefeller

 

[edthecynic]

Gary Allen: The Rockefeller File Chapter 1 to 4

The Rockefellers invented a scheme, used by the super rich today, whereby the more money you appear to give away, the richer and more powerful you become. Through the help of captive politicians, guided by some bright boys in the family law offices, legislation was written and passed which would protect the Rockefellers and other elite super-rich from the repressive taxation they have foisted on everyone else.

The key to this system is giving up ownership but retaining control. For example, most people don't believe they really own something unless they retain title to it in their own name. The Rockefellers know this is a big mistake. Often it is better to have your assets owned by a trust or a foundation-which you control-than to have them in your own name.

For example, when Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis ordered Standard Oil broken up back in 1911, sly old John D. simply created some new foundations and gave his stock to them. The net effect was the same as if you took your wallet out of your right-hand pocket and put it in the left. In this case, however, Rockefeller not only managed to avoid income taxes, but also escaped the probate, estate and inheritance taxes which have ravaged the wealth of those not in the know.

So three generations of Rockefellers have been - giving away millions of dollars - giving much of it to themselves. For example, if a Rockefeller gives a million dollars worth of stock in the Titanic Oil Corporation to the Dogood Foundation, which the family controls, he is not really out one million bucks. All he has done is transfer title of the securities to an alter ego. Of course, the foundation may then give away some of the money, or, more likely, donate some of the stock's future earnings to some allegedly worthwhile cause. But, as the few investigations by Congress into this devious field have shown, in the case of the Rockefellers such bequests somehow end up increasing the Rockefeller financial or political power.