Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I used to be a financial planner and I never met one family no matter how strapped they said they were than couldn't find 100 a month to saveExcept they are few and far between among wage earners.
Concentration of stock ownership by wealth class in the United States
Wealth class Percent of all stock owned
Top 1% 33.5%
Next 19% 55.8%
Bottom 80% 10.7%
It's not out of reach people don't do it because politicians tell them the stock market is the same as gambling and they'd rather get 1% guaranteed interest than the growth found in the market
If you invested 100 a month from the time you were 18 until age 68 and assumed a very conservative rate of return of 8% you would have nearly 800K which is enough to provide you with over 5000 a month income for 20 years in retirement and no one will tell you you have to take required distributions and pay the higher regular income tax rates.
Anyone can invest and take advantage of the capital gains tax rate you are confusing don't and won't with can't
Actually, they don't do it because their paycheck goes for frivolous things like rent, heat, healthcare
Having thousands of dollars of spare money to sink into the stock market is a luxury most Americans don't have
We're talking 25 bucks a week not thousands of dollars at a time
Oh yes....the old pick yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can be a millionaire
That $100 a month saved for ten years will disappear with one stay in a hospital
No it won't because you're mandated to have health insurance now
No the DONOR gets the tax deductions!!!!!Geeezzz you are stubborn. I already debunked that bullshit. They generate more in tax deductions than they have in income.and that all pay taxes on the money the foundation gives themAnd yet his family still rules America thanks to his inheritance.And he's dead now
Money from trust funds is not tax free
Another example: The wealthy buy art for $1 million. they hold it for a while then donate it to their foundation. They ask people they buy art from to appraise it and miraculously the people who want to sell them more art appraise it for $10 million. It does not matter that the art would never sell for $10 million, when you "donate" it is only the appraised value that counts. So the art that hung in their office gets donated to the foundation they control an hangs on the wall of their office at the foundation and they net $9 million in tax deductions.
The foundation gets the tax breaks not the beneficiaries of the trusts that pay them. All that money will eventually end up on someone's tax return
No the DONOR gets the tax deductions!!!!!Geeezzz you are stubborn. I already debunked that bullshit. They generate more in tax deductions than they have in income.and that all pay taxes on the money the foundation gives themAnd yet his family still rules America thanks to his inheritance.And he's dead now
Money from trust funds is not tax free
Another example: The wealthy buy art for $1 million. they hold it for a while then donate it to their foundation. They ask people they buy art from to appraise it and miraculously the people who want to sell them more art appraise it for $10 million. It does not matter that the art would never sell for $10 million, when you "donate" it is only the appraised value that counts. So the art that hung in their office gets donated to the foundation they control an hangs on the wall of their office at the foundation and they net $9 million in tax deductions.
The foundation gets the tax breaks not the beneficiaries of the trusts that pay them. All that money will eventually end up on someone's tax return
And you claim to have been a financial planner!
LIAR!!!!!
I used to be a financial planner and I never met one family no matter how strapped they said they were than couldn't find 100 a month to saveIt's not out of reach people don't do it because politicians tell them the stock market is the same as gambling and they'd rather get 1% guaranteed interest than the growth found in the market
If you invested 100 a month from the time you were 18 until age 68 and assumed a very conservative rate of return of 8% you would have nearly 800K which is enough to provide you with over 5000 a month income for 20 years in retirement and no one will tell you you have to take required distributions and pay the higher regular income tax rates.
Anyone can invest and take advantage of the capital gains tax rate you are confusing don't and won't with can't
Actually, they don't do it because their paycheck goes for frivolous things like rent, heat, healthcare
Having thousands of dollars of spare money to sink into the stock market is a luxury most Americans don't have
We're talking 25 bucks a week not thousands of dollars at a time
Oh yes....the old pick yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can be a millionaire
That $100 a month saved for ten years will disappear with one stay in a hospital
No it won't because you're mandated to have health insurance now
Yes...and that $100 a month you had been saving for ten years will amount to about $15,000
Which will hardly pay the bill when you have to pay 15-20% of a hospital bill
One of the reasons the working poor cannot accumulate wealth
so it seems health insurance is cheaper than not having itI used to be a financial planner and I never met one family no matter how strapped they said they were than couldn't find 100 a month to saveIt's not out of reach people don't do it because politicians tell them the stock market is the same as gambling and they'd rather get 1% guaranteed interest than the growth found in the market
If you invested 100 a month from the time you were 18 until age 68 and assumed a very conservative rate of return of 8% you would have nearly 800K which is enough to provide you with over 5000 a month income for 20 years in retirement and no one will tell you you have to take required distributions and pay the higher regular income tax rates.
Anyone can invest and take advantage of the capital gains tax rate you are confusing don't and won't with can't
Actually, they don't do it because their paycheck goes for frivolous things like rent, heat, healthcare
Having thousands of dollars of spare money to sink into the stock market is a luxury most Americans don't have
We're talking 25 bucks a week not thousands of dollars at a time
Oh yes....the old pick yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can be a millionaire
That $100 a month saved for ten years will disappear with one stay in a hospital
No it won't because you're mandated to have health insurance now
Yes...and that $100 a month you had been saving for ten years will amount to about $15,000
Which will hardly pay the bill when you have to pay 15-20% of a hospital bill
One of the reasons the working poor cannot accumulate wealth
I used to be a financial planner and I never met one family no matter how strapped they said they were than couldn't find 100 a month to saveActually, they don't do it because their paycheck goes for frivolous things like rent, heat, healthcare
Having thousands of dollars of spare money to sink into the stock market is a luxury most Americans don't have
We're talking 25 bucks a week not thousands of dollars at a time
Oh yes....the old pick yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can be a millionaire
That $100 a month saved for ten years will disappear with one stay in a hospital
No it won't because you're mandated to have health insurance now
Yes...and that $100 a month you had been saving for ten years will amount to about $15,000
Which will hardly pay the bill when you have to pay 15-20% of a hospital bill
One of the reasons the working poor cannot accumulate wealth
Don't pay the bill and file bankruptcy
there are ways to exempt savings when filing for bankruptcy
They could put that 100 a month in a Roth IRA for example
Chapter 11 is there for a reasonI used to be a financial planner and I never met one family no matter how strapped they said they were than couldn't find 100 a month to save
We're talking 25 bucks a week not thousands of dollars at a time
Oh yes....the old pick yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can be a millionaire
That $100 a month saved for ten years will disappear with one stay in a hospital
No it won't because you're mandated to have health insurance now
Yes...and that $100 a month you had been saving for ten years will amount to about $15,000
Which will hardly pay the bill when you have to pay 15-20% of a hospital bill
One of the reasons the working poor cannot accumulate wealth
Don't pay the bill and file bankruptcy
there are ways to exempt savings when filing for bankruptcy
They could put that 100 a month in a Roth IRA for example
LOL Some financial planner
You didn't work for Trump did you?
Not for the truly wealthy. The children inherit the CONTROL of the foundations and thus inherit CONTROL of their monopolies tax free. If you own it you pay taxes on it, the foundations own everything for the truly wealthy.No they won't. If money is suddenly needed it will be borrowed using the gains as collateral. Eventually the gains will be passed tax free to their children.All those gains will get used eventually so they will be taxed then
It depends on how much there still is an inheritance tax.
For example, they get their estate declared a "historical site" and set up a foundation, that they and only their family can head, to maintain the historical site. They donate their estate to the foundation stipulating that the head lives at the historical site, then every household expense, including things like heating the swimming pool, becomes a tax deduction offsetting any capital gains tax they incur from realizing their gain. When they die the next family member becomes the head and inherits tax free control over their financial empire.
"Own nothing. Control everything"
John D Rockefeller
There is a lot of talk on the news about taxing the rich. But do they even pay taxes? How would you know. Any information you hear comes from them! As for what any government agency may have to say, we all know what a revolving door it is between the private sector (the wealthy) and the political sector. And of course, the politicians that run the government agencies I mentioned are part of that.
Also, there are banks all over the world where the wealthy can deposit anonymously. Thereby avoiding taxes. Also, tax laws themselves are written by and for the wealthy. The wealthy can also afford to hire tax lawyers to find any of what are probably zillions of loopholes written into those tax laws. On top of all that, every year there are many companies that pay no taxes at all. Which I call corporate welfare.
On top of all that, back in the 60's, the average salary for a company executive was around 25 times what the average worker made. Today, it is around 250 times that. And not all that long ago, it for closer to 400 times what the average worker made! And the wealthy complain about being taxed too much?! Boo fukin Hoo!!!
Also, there are banks all over the world where the wealthy can deposit anonymously.
Cool!
You have a list?
On top of all that, every year there are many companies that pay no taxes at all.
It's true, if they make no profits, they pay no taxes.
On top of all that, back in the 60's, the average salary for a company executive was around 25 times what the average worker made. Today, it is around 250 times that.
It's about 4 times what the average worker makes.
But don't let reality ruin your rant.
So, the US takes in 4 trillion a year in tax revenues per year! Who dew ewe think is paying taxes?You can tell though, from his post, his mind is made up. In his mind the wealthy pay no taxes!
Do tax loopholes exist? Do banks exist that you can anonymously deposit money in? Do the wealthy control just about everything you hear? Go ahead and tell me none of these things are true.
Also, I used to pay taxes. It was deducted from my paycheck every week. But after I filed my income taxes, I got most of it back. So how can that be taxation. A loan is more accurate. From what I hear of long past history, when people were taxed, they were taxed. There were no tax returns. Has any of this made up your mind yet?
Now I know how I was taxed. But I don't know if the wealthy are treated the same way. Do they file taxes returns and get BIG tax refunds? I don't know. But even if they are taxed, what does it mean. If I made $10,000 a year and paid $.50 cents for a candy bar, what percentage of my income would that be. Now if I made $100,000 a year, what percentage of my income would it be. Or what if I bought a new car and made $200,00 dollar payments on it each month, making 10,000 dollars a year, what percentage of my income would that be over 5 years. But if I made $100,000 dollars a year and just outright bought a car, what percentage of my income would that be over 5 years. I think you see what I am getting at.
There is a lot of talk on the news about taxing the rich. But do they even pay taxes? How would you know. Any information you hear comes from them! As for what any government agency may have to say, we all know what a revolving door it is between the private sector (the wealthy) and the political sector. And of course, the politicians that run the government agencies I mentioned are part of that.
Also, there are banks all over the world where the wealthy can deposit anonymously. Thereby avoiding taxes. Also, tax laws themselves are written by and for the wealthy. The wealthy can also afford to hire tax lawyers to find any of what are probably zillions of loopholes written into those tax laws. On top of all that, every year there are many companies that pay no taxes at all. Which I call corporate welfare.
On top of all that, back in the 60's, the average salary for a company executive was around 25 times what the average worker made. Today, it is around 250 times that. And not all that long ago, it for closer to 400 times what the average worker made! And the wealthy complain about being taxed too much?! Boo fukin Hoo!!!
You are guilty of cherrypicking data, an intellectually dishonest practice that is common among many of those who support Leftist positions.
While the huge multi-million pay packages of a few hundred CEOs get all of the media attention, what usually receives much less attention is the small number of CEOs represented in the annual salary surveys, especially compared to the total number of CEOs in the US. For example, the WSJ’s executive compenstation survey last year included only 300 CEOs at large, U.S.-traded public companies, and the AP analyzed compensation figures for only 337 companies in the S&P 500 last year. The AFL-CIO did an analysis of the CEOs of 350 companies in the S&P 500 in 2013 and then computed a “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331 times, up from a ratio of 300 ten years ago and 200 twenty years ago.
Although these samples of 300-350 CEOs are representative of large, publicly-traded, multinational US companies, they certainly aren’t very representative of the average US company or the average US CEO. According to both the BLS and the Census Bureau, there are more than 7 million private firms in the US, so the samples of 300-350 firms for CEO pay represent only one of about every 21,500 private firms in the US, or about 1/200 of 1% of the total number of US firms. And yet the AFL-CIO, Financial Times, AP, the WSJ and others compare the average annual wages of hundreds of millions of full-time employees working at the more than 7 million US companies to the CEO pay of executives at only several hundred companies, which is hardly a fair comparison.
We can get a more accurate and complete picture of CEO compensation in the US by looking at wage data released recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its annual report on Occupational Employment and Wages for 2014. The BLS report provides “employment and wage estimates by area and by industry for wage and salary workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations,” including the occupational category “chief executives.” In 2014, the BLS reports that the average pay for America’s 246,240 chief executives was only $180,700. The CEOs of the 300-350 S&P 500 firms that supposedly represent typical CEO compensation represent only one out of about every 820 firms in the country (or 1/7 of 1%) that have a CEO at the head. The larger sample of almost a quarter-million CEOs reported by the BLS gives us a much better understanding of “average CEO compensation.”
For the larger sample of CEOs reported by the BLS, their average pay of $180,700 last year was an increase of only 1.3% from the average CEO pay of $178,400 in 2013. In contrast, the BLS reports that the average pay of all workers increased by 1.7% last year to $47,230 from $46,440 in 2013. That’s right, the average worker last year saw an increase in their pay that was more than 30% greater than the increase in pay for the average US CEO.
And the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” for the average CEO compared to the average worker was only 3.83 times last year (see chart above), nowhere close to the pay ratio of 331X reported by the AFL-CIO using the 350 highest-paid CEOs in the country. Call it a “statistical falsehood-to-truth ratio” of 87-to-1 for the AFL-CIO’s exaggerated, bogus ratio. The chart above also shows that the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 13 years, averaging 3.8-to-1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89-to-1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69-to-1 in both 2005 and 2006. The ratio of 3.83-to-1 in the most recent year (2014) was actually the lowest CEO-to-worker ratio in six years, since 2008.
When we consider all US 'chief executives,' the ‘CEO-to-worker pay ratio’ falls from 331:1 to below 4:1 • AEI
I wasn't talking about the CEO's of big multinational corporations. I was talking about the average company executive. For example, I was watching something somewhere once where they were talking to the manager of some grocery store that was part of some larger grocery store chain. The company decided that the manager should "only" earn about 14 times more than the average worker made. Does that straighten things out at all?Yes as if stealing money from the rich at gunpoint for yet another crippling welfare program is going to help anybody.The constitution allowed slavery and genocide, I don't really view it as a guide to anything moral or just. And the working class and poor have been sodomized over the past half century. I say we stick to it until the unrest comes. Please.the Constitution says we cant discriminate against the rich so why do we let liberals get away with it?Wall Street Journal, gee, they couldn't have a dog in that fight could they.
High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?
The unrest has already come. The question is how much of it does there need to be for change. And with how most people have been programmed to like "taking it up the ass," there is probably going to need to be quite a lot of it.
You drooling moron, that's the percentage of their income.
You do realize that you get your information from liars, don't you. Also, do you pay taxes? If you said yes, I say BULLSHEIT! At least you don't pay what you think you pay. I know. Because if you were anything like me, every paycheck had taxes removed from it. But in the new year after you filed your tax returns, you got most of it back.
So for the most part, what you call taxes were nothing more than a temporary government loan. In fact, you were probably glad about it. Because instead of trying to save money, you got a nice fat tax return. To buy something you normally wouldn't have been able to afford. Am I right or am I wrong. Also, I will include a graph that shows the tax burden for state taxes by income level. See how your "top 20% paying 84%" fits into that.
Yet, the right wing implies it is ok to increase our debt by lowering taxes.There is a lot of talk on the news about taxing the rich. But do they even pay taxes? How would you know. Any information you hear comes from them! As for what any government agency may have to say, we all know what a revolving door it is between the private sector (the wealthy) and the political sector. And of course, the politicians that run the government agencies I mentioned are part of that.
Also, there are banks all over the world where the wealthy can deposit anonymously. Thereby avoiding taxes. Also, tax laws themselves are written by and for the wealthy. The wealthy can also afford to hire tax lawyers to find any of what are probably zillions of loopholes written into those tax laws. On top of all that, every year there are many companies that pay no taxes at all. Which I call corporate welfare.
On top of all that, back in the 60's, the average salary for a company executive was around 25 times what the average worker made. Today, it is around 250 times that. And not all that long ago, it for closer to 400 times what the average worker made! And the wealthy complain about being taxed too much?! Boo fukin Hoo!!!
There is a lot of talk on the news about taxing the rich. But do they even pay taxes? How would you know. Any information you hear comes from them! As for what any government agency may have to say, we all know what a revolving door it is between the private sector (the wealthy) and the political sector. And of course, the politicians that run the government agencies I mentioned are part of that.
Also, there are banks all over the world where the wealthy can deposit anonymously. Thereby avoiding taxes. Also, tax laws themselves are written by and for the wealthy. The wealthy can also afford to hire tax lawyers to find any of what are probably zillions of loopholes written into those tax laws. On top of all that, every year there are many companies that pay no taxes at all. Which I call corporate welfare.
On top of all that, back in the 60's, the average salary for a company executive was around 25 times what the average worker made. Today, it is around 250 times that. And not all that long ago, it for closer to 400 times what the average worker made! And the wealthy complain about being taxed too much?! Boo fukin Hoo!!!
You are guilty of cherrypicking data, an intellectually dishonest practice that is common among many of those who support Leftist positions.
While the huge multi-million pay packages of a few hundred CEOs get all of the media attention, what usually receives much less attention is the small number of CEOs represented in the annual salary surveys, especially compared to the total number of CEOs in the US. For example, the WSJ’s executive compenstation survey last year included only 300 CEOs at large, U.S.-traded public companies, and the AP analyzed compensation figures for only 337 companies in the S&P 500 last year. The AFL-CIO did an analysis of the CEOs of 350 companies in the S&P 500 in 2013 and then computed a “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331 times, up from a ratio of 300 ten years ago and 200 twenty years ago.
Although these samples of 300-350 CEOs are representative of large, publicly-traded, multinational US companies, they certainly aren’t very representative of the average US company or the average US CEO. According to both the BLS and the Census Bureau, there are more than 7 million private firms in the US, so the samples of 300-350 firms for CEO pay represent only one of about every 21,500 private firms in the US, or about 1/200 of 1% of the total number of US firms. And yet the AFL-CIO, Financial Times, AP, the WSJ and others compare the average annual wages of hundreds of millions of full-time employees working at the more than 7 million US companies to the CEO pay of executives at only several hundred companies, which is hardly a fair comparison.
We can get a more accurate and complete picture of CEO compensation in the US by looking at wage data released recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its annual report on Occupational Employment and Wages for 2014. The BLS report provides “employment and wage estimates by area and by industry for wage and salary workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations,” including the occupational category “chief executives.” In 2014, the BLS reports that the average pay for America’s 246,240 chief executives was only $180,700. The CEOs of the 300-350 S&P 500 firms that supposedly represent typical CEO compensation represent only one out of about every 820 firms in the country (or 1/7 of 1%) that have a CEO at the head. The larger sample of almost a quarter-million CEOs reported by the BLS gives us a much better understanding of “average CEO compensation.”
For the larger sample of CEOs reported by the BLS, their average pay of $180,700 last year was an increase of only 1.3% from the average CEO pay of $178,400 in 2013. In contrast, the BLS reports that the average pay of all workers increased by 1.7% last year to $47,230 from $46,440 in 2013. That’s right, the average worker last year saw an increase in their pay that was more than 30% greater than the increase in pay for the average US CEO.
And the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” for the average CEO compared to the average worker was only 3.83 times last year (see chart above), nowhere close to the pay ratio of 331X reported by the AFL-CIO using the 350 highest-paid CEOs in the country. Call it a “statistical falsehood-to-truth ratio” of 87-to-1 for the AFL-CIO’s exaggerated, bogus ratio. The chart above also shows that the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 13 years, averaging 3.8-to-1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89-to-1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69-to-1 in both 2005 and 2006. The ratio of 3.83-to-1 in the most recent year (2014) was actually the lowest CEO-to-worker ratio in six years, since 2008.
When we consider all US 'chief executives,' the ‘CEO-to-worker pay ratio’ falls from 331:1 to below 4:1 • AEI
I wasn't talking about the CEO's of big multinational corporations. I was talking about the average company executive. For example, I was watching something somewhere once where they were talking to the manager of some grocery store that was part of some larger grocery store chain. The company decided that the manager should "only" earn about 14 times more than the average worker made. Does that straighten things out at all?Yes as if stealing money from the rich at gunpoint for yet another crippling welfare program is going to help anybody.The constitution allowed slavery and genocide, I don't really view it as a guide to anything moral or just. And the working class and poor have been sodomized over the past half century. I say we stick to it until the unrest comes. Please.the Constitution says we cant discriminate against the rich so why do we let liberals get away with it?Wall Street Journal, gee, they couldn't have a dog in that fight could they.
High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?
The unrest has already come. The question is how much of it does there need to be for change. And with how most people have been programmed to like "taking it up the ass," there is probably going to need to be quite a lot of it.
And the rich stealing money from the poor at gunpoint is good how?
There is a lot of talk on the news about taxing the rich. But do they even pay taxes? How would you know. Any information you hear comes from them! As for what any government agency may have to say, we all know what a revolving door it is between the private sector (the wealthy) and the political sector. And of course, the politicians that run the government agencies I mentioned are part of that.
Also, there are banks all over the world where the wealthy can deposit anonymously. Thereby avoiding taxes. Also, tax laws themselves are written by and for the wealthy. The wealthy can also afford to hire tax lawyers to find any of what are probably zillions of loopholes written into those tax laws. On top of all that, every year there are many companies that pay no taxes at all. Which I call corporate welfare.
On top of all that, back in the 60's, the average salary for a company executive was around 25 times what the average worker made. Today, it is around 250 times that. And not all that long ago, it for closer to 400 times what the average worker made! And the wealthy complain about being taxed too much?! Boo fukin Hoo!!!
If they didn't you wouldn't get your government handouts and would be starving. So yeah, yeah they do!
Chapter 11 is there for a reasonOh yes....the old pick yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can be a millionaire
That $100 a month saved for ten years will disappear with one stay in a hospital
No it won't because you're mandated to have health insurance now
Yes...and that $100 a month you had been saving for ten years will amount to about $15,000
Which will hardly pay the bill when you have to pay 15-20% of a hospital bill
One of the reasons the working poor cannot accumulate wealth
Don't pay the bill and file bankruptcy
there are ways to exempt savings when filing for bankruptcy
They could put that 100 a month in a Roth IRA for example
LOL Some financial planner
You didn't work for Trump did you?
Anyone can use it
and like I said I'm no longer in that field haven't been for over 20 years
There is a lot of talk on the news about taxing the rich. But do they even pay taxes? How would you know. Any information you hear comes from them! As for what any government agency may have to say, we all know what a revolving door it is between the private sector (the wealthy) and the political sector. And of course, the politicians that run the government agencies I mentioned are part of that.
Also, there are banks all over the world where the wealthy can deposit anonymously. Thereby avoiding taxes. Also, tax laws themselves are written by and for the wealthy. The wealthy can also afford to hire tax lawyers to find any of what are probably zillions of loopholes written into those tax laws. On top of all that, every year there are many companies that pay no taxes at all. Which I call corporate welfare.
On top of all that, back in the 60's, the average salary for a company executive was around 25 times what the average worker made. Today, it is around 250 times that. And not all that long ago, it for closer to 400 times what the average worker made! And the wealthy complain about being taxed too much?! Boo fukin Hoo!!!
If they didn't you wouldn't get your government handouts and would be starving. So yeah, yeah they do!
No, no, they don't! And if they did, how would you know. Are you wealthy? And if you are, I wouldn't believe anything you had to say anyway. As for any "handouts," what makes you think it isn't the majority of poor slobs who are paying for them.
Another thing is that as I pointed out to someone else, when you pay taxes over the year, you file a tax return and get most of it back. So for the most part, that isn't a tax, it is a loan. Another thing I was wondering is if the wealthy are treated the same way. That they pay their taxes, then file a tax return and get a BIG tax refund. I know an untrustworthy person who is the son of a fairly well off restaurant owner. He said that taxes don't work that way for the wealthy. If that is the case, I guess that they don't have to make the same kind of loan through taxes to support the common good as the poor working class do. That sounds like a lose lose situation.
Omg! Really? I am done with you! Seek help.There is a lot of talk on the news about taxing the rich. But do they even pay taxes? How would you know. Any information you hear comes from them! As for what any government agency may have to say, we all know what a revolving door it is between the private sector (the wealthy) and the political sector. And of course, the politicians that run the government agencies I mentioned are part of that.
Also, there are banks all over the world where the wealthy can deposit anonymously. Thereby avoiding taxes. Also, tax laws themselves are written by and for the wealthy. The wealthy can also afford to hire tax lawyers to find any of what are probably zillions of loopholes written into those tax laws. On top of all that, every year there are many companies that pay no taxes at all. Which I call corporate welfare.
On top of all that, back in the 60's, the average salary for a company executive was around 25 times what the average worker made. Today, it is around 250 times that. And not all that long ago, it for closer to 400 times what the average worker made! And the wealthy complain about being taxed too much?! Boo fukin Hoo!!!
You are guilty of cherrypicking data, an intellectually dishonest practice that is common among many of those who support Leftist positions.
While the huge multi-million pay packages of a few hundred CEOs get all of the media attention, what usually receives much less attention is the small number of CEOs represented in the annual salary surveys, especially compared to the total number of CEOs in the US. For example, the WSJ’s executive compenstation survey last year included only 300 CEOs at large, U.S.-traded public companies, and the AP analyzed compensation figures for only 337 companies in the S&P 500 last year. The AFL-CIO did an analysis of the CEOs of 350 companies in the S&P 500 in 2013 and then computed a “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” of 331 times, up from a ratio of 300 ten years ago and 200 twenty years ago.
Although these samples of 300-350 CEOs are representative of large, publicly-traded, multinational US companies, they certainly aren’t very representative of the average US company or the average US CEO. According to both the BLS and the Census Bureau, there are more than 7 million private firms in the US, so the samples of 300-350 firms for CEO pay represent only one of about every 21,500 private firms in the US, or about 1/200 of 1% of the total number of US firms. And yet the AFL-CIO, Financial Times, AP, the WSJ and others compare the average annual wages of hundreds of millions of full-time employees working at the more than 7 million US companies to the CEO pay of executives at only several hundred companies, which is hardly a fair comparison.
We can get a more accurate and complete picture of CEO compensation in the US by looking at wage data released recently by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its annual report on Occupational Employment and Wages for 2014. The BLS report provides “employment and wage estimates by area and by industry for wage and salary workers in 22 major occupational groups, 94 minor occupational groups, 458 broad occupations, and 821 detailed occupations,” including the occupational category “chief executives.” In 2014, the BLS reports that the average pay for America’s 246,240 chief executives was only $180,700. The CEOs of the 300-350 S&P 500 firms that supposedly represent typical CEO compensation represent only one out of about every 820 firms in the country (or 1/7 of 1%) that have a CEO at the head. The larger sample of almost a quarter-million CEOs reported by the BLS gives us a much better understanding of “average CEO compensation.”
For the larger sample of CEOs reported by the BLS, their average pay of $180,700 last year was an increase of only 1.3% from the average CEO pay of $178,400 in 2013. In contrast, the BLS reports that the average pay of all workers increased by 1.7% last year to $47,230 from $46,440 in 2013. That’s right, the average worker last year saw an increase in their pay that was more than 30% greater than the increase in pay for the average US CEO.
And the “CEO-to-worker pay ratio” for the average CEO compared to the average worker was only 3.83 times last year (see chart above), nowhere close to the pay ratio of 331X reported by the AFL-CIO using the 350 highest-paid CEOs in the country. Call it a “statistical falsehood-to-truth ratio” of 87-to-1 for the AFL-CIO’s exaggerated, bogus ratio. The chart above also shows that the real CEO-to-worker pay ratio has not been increasing as is frequently reported, but instead has been remarkably constant over the last 13 years, averaging 3.8-to-1 in a tight range between a maximum of 3.89-to-1 in 2004 and a minimum of 3.69-to-1 in both 2005 and 2006. The ratio of 3.83-to-1 in the most recent year (2014) was actually the lowest CEO-to-worker ratio in six years, since 2008.
When we consider all US 'chief executives,' the ‘CEO-to-worker pay ratio’ falls from 331:1 to below 4:1 • AEI
I wasn't talking about the CEO's of big multinational corporations. I was talking about the average company executive. For example, I was watching something somewhere once where they were talking to the manager of some grocery store that was part of some larger grocery store chain. The company decided that the manager should "only" earn about 14 times more than the average worker made. Does that straighten things out at all?Yes as if stealing money from the rich at gunpoint for yet another crippling welfare program is going to help anybody.The constitution allowed slavery and genocide, I don't really view it as a guide to anything moral or just. And the working class and poor have been sodomized over the past half century. I say we stick to it until the unrest comes. Please.the Constitution says we cant discriminate against the rich so why do we let liberals get away with it?Wall Street Journal, gee, they couldn't have a dog in that fight could they.
High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?
The unrest has already come. The question is how much of it does there need to be for change. And with how most people have been programmed to like "taking it up the ass," there is probably going to need to be quite a lot of it.
And the rich stealing money from the poor at gunpoint is good how?
You drooling moron, that's the percentage of their income.
You do realize that you get your information from liars, don't you. Also, do you pay taxes? If you said yes, I say BULLSHEIT! At least you don't pay what you think you pay. I know. Because if you were anything like me, every paycheck had taxes removed from it. But in the new year after you filed your tax returns, you got most of it back.
So for the most part, what you call taxes were nothing more than a temporary government loan. In fact, you were probably glad about it. Because instead of trying to save money, you got a nice fat tax return. To buy something you normally wouldn't have been able to afford. Am I right or am I wrong. Also, I will include a graph that shows the tax burden for state taxes by income level. See how your "top 20% paying 84%" fits into that.
But that percentage of their income constitutes the majority of taxes paid.
It isn't rocket science, but seriously, it might as well be.
A household that earns 20,000 will pay $3,460 in a year
A household that earns 537,000 a year will pay $13,962.
Which pays more taxes?
You do realize that you get your information from liars, don't you. Also, do you pay taxes? If you said yes, I say BULLSHEIT! At least you don't pay what you think you pay. I know. Because if you were anything like me, every paycheck had taxes removed from it. But in the new year after you filed your tax returns, you got most of it back.
So for the most part, what you call taxes were nothing more than a temporary government loan. In fact, you were probably glad about it. Because instead of trying to save money, you got a nice fat tax return. To buy something you normally wouldn't have been able to afford. Am I right or am I wrong. Also, I will include a graph that shows the tax burden for state taxes by income level. See how your "top 20% paying 84%" fits into that.
That graph says "State Residents" but you don't say what state and besides we are talking about federal taxes
You drooling moron, that's the percentage of their income.
You do realize that you get your information from liars, don't you. Also, do you pay taxes? If you said yes, I say BULLSHEIT! At least you don't pay what you think you pay. I know. Because if you were anything like me, every paycheck had taxes removed from it. But in the new year after you filed your tax returns, you got most of it back.
So for the most part, what you call taxes were nothing more than a temporary government loan. In fact, you were probably glad about it. Because instead of trying to save money, you got a nice fat tax return. To buy something you normally wouldn't have been able to afford. Am I right or am I wrong. Also, I will include a graph that shows the tax burden for state taxes by income level. See how your "top 20% paying 84%" fits into that.
But that percentage of their income constitutes the majority of taxes paid.
It isn't rocket science, but seriously, it might as well be.
A household that earns 20,000 will pay $3,460 in a year
A household that earns 537,000 a year will pay $13,962.
Which pays more taxes?
You are the drooling moron. The percentage of your income is the most important thing! For example, what if you earned $10,000 a year and got a speeding ticket that cost you $100.00. Then what if you earned $100,000 a year and got a $100.00 dollar speeding ticket. Who do you think will feel the bite of it more. Care to guess?
As for who pays what, it is hard to say. Certainly the wealthy can afford tax lawyers to find them more exemptions or other tax loopholes than the poor. Also, I don't know if they still do it. But there used to be a time that if you were wealthy enough to buy a house that came with land that you could in theory at least grow rice on, the government would actually GIVE you money to not grow rice. Who knows what other perks for the wealthy there are out there that would offset any taxes they do pay. If they pay any to begin with.
