Wall Street bonuses...$144 billion

[Sallow]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

This is great for NYC's economy, as well as the NY suburbs. Resturants will be crowded, car sales will increase, people will be able to pay thier mortgages and property taxes.

That might be true to some extent but the reality is that this money is concentrated among relatively very few people so the trickle down effect is not going to be that great.

Exactly right.

Add in "the rich" don't eat out much unless they can write it off.

Another burden on the tax payer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is great for NYC's economy, as well as the NY suburbs. Resturants will be crowded, car sales will increase, people will be able to pay thier mortgages and property taxes.

That might be true to some extent but the reality is that this money is concentrated among relatively very few people so the trickle down effect is not going to be that great.

Exactly right.

Add in "the rich" don't eat out much unless they can write it off.

Another burden on the tax payer.

in most cases only 50% of meals on the business's dime can be written off. it ain't as big of a perk as you seem to think.

 

[Mr Natural]

This is great for NYC's economy, as well as the NY suburbs. Resturants will be crowded, car sales will increase, people will be able to pay thier mortgages and property taxes.

That might be true to some extent but the reality is that this money is concentrated among relatively very few people so the trickle down effect is not going to be that great.

Exactly right.

Add in "the rich" don't eat out much unless they can write it off.

Another burden on the tax payer.

And they sure as hell don't buy Chevrolets or hold mortgages like the rest of us "little people".

But I imagine the Bentley and Lamborghini dealers will be happy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That might be true to some extent but the reality is that this money is concentrated among relatively very few people so the trickle down effect is not going to be that great.

Exactly right.

Add in "the rich" don't eat out much unless they can write it off.

Another burden on the tax payer.

in most cases only 50% of meals on the business's dime can be written off. it ain't as big of a perk as you seem to think.

How much of a family of four having dinner at taco bell can be written off?

 

[martybegan]

I suspect a roof every 30 years, one car every year a dinner out every night does help employment; I also suspect dinner out once a month for 10 or 20 million, one car every five years for 10 or 20 million and one roof every 30 years for 10 or 20 million trumps you post.
That said, most very wealthy individuals invest their income, an argument which might help make your point. However, even that cannot trump the amount of capital the masses could put into the system, including investments.
Are you familiar with the term "iron law of wages"? It seems the attacks on unions and wage earners has reved up in recent years, and imho another example of a rennissance of reactionary thought.
The iron law of wages states that wages must remain at the subsistance level. This level, according to 18th century economic theorist David Ricardo, is labors natural price, the income of which is necessary for the worker to exist. Ricardo argued that wages should be left to free competition and should never be controlled by government interference.

Again, short of taxing richer people, and then GIVING money to other people, how does increasing taxes on the rich allow for middle class people to buy more? To do this you have to lower taxes/fees etc on them, even if you dont cut any governmental budget. And by investing thier money they now pay stock brokers, allow businesses to invest and expand, and create, again, more jobs.

The current state of unions and labor is a seperate argument. And most wages in the US are far from what the rest of the world considers subsistance level.

Wow. The attacks on union contracts has become a loud and on-going theme in debates around the country. To dismiss such attacks is at best disingenuous. As for wages relative to world-wide levels it's very unlikely American's top 2% are hurting.
I suggest you actually think about the points I made, I'd enjoy a reasoned response.
In regards to your question, I am not suggesting the rich subsidize the middle class; as I pointed out, we in the middle class are in a very real sense subsidizing the rich. However, on point, if the tax schedule were to return to pre Reagan levels revenue to the Federal Government will increase. IF the congress chooses to return more money to the states, in terms of revenue sharing, grants and (to be provocative, a public option for health insurance) each state will be able to address its own needs and require less fees from its citizens. Providing more money will stimulate the economy, particularly small business.

Most of the attacks are on government unions themselves, where the argument is how can politicians be employers at the same time as relying on thier employees for their electability? Unions have done great work in the past assuring basic rights for workers. The problem is, like all organizations, they cannot rest on the status quo, and must make further demands to appease thier members. Look as some of the assinine work rules you see in some indsutries for that. I am not anti-union, but some of the more stupid parts of some contracts have to go.

The whole concept of a progressive income tax IS richer people subsidizing people who make less money. Denying that is just being intellecually dishonest. Are you telling me that by paying 35% of the tax burden while making 28% of the income the 1% rich are not allowing for lower taxes on everyone else?They pay for programs they often do not use, or use less than people who make less money.

The problem with the gut response of "increasing taxes on people who make more than me" is that we the middle class NEVER see the savings, as all the government does is increase its budget, requiring even MORE taxes, from them AND us. Sooner or later you go from taxation to basic confiscation, and at that point I would have more respect for people who want to soak the rich if they would just go to these peoples houses and rob them at gunpoint instead of making the goverment and the IRS do thier dirty work.

At some point it stops being about funding the government and simply becomes "I hate that person because they have more than me, therefore I will use mob rule to take is assets and do with them as I please, not as they want to"

 

[Skull Pilot]

Exactly right.

Add in "the rich" don't eat out much unless they can write it off.

Another burden on the tax payer.

in most cases only 50% of meals on the business's dime can be written off. it ain't as big of a perk as you seem to think.

How much of a family of four having dinner at taco bell can be written off?

boo hoo.

You want to write off a meal then start a business and quit your ******* whining.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That might be true to some extent but the reality is that this money is concentrated among relatively very few people so the trickle down effect is not going to be that great.

Exactly right.

Add in "the rich" don't eat out much unless they can write it off.

Another burden on the tax payer.

And they sure as hell don't buy Chevrolets or hold mortgages like the rest of us "little people".

But I imagine the Bentley and Lamborghini dealers will be happy.

Another good point. The wealthy today are buying up property with "all cash" preventing families and young people from buying homes at bargin prices. These houses bought for all cash will become rentals, deprecitated with maintenance deferred and neighborhoods destroyed. A boom for slum lords, not so much for the American family.

 

[Trajan]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

New York City needs that dough...Bloomberg says back off dude!!!!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

Doesn't even compare to the raises Fed workers get.

 

[Trajan]

I'll answer your question, first, with a question. How does funneling middle class dollars to millionaires help getting our economy moving again?

The enormous wealth of the few is basically subsidized by the many.

booyah!!! and thx !! didn't I say thx?

Consider the taxes you mentioned. If millionaires and billionaires were taxed by the schedules in effect in 1980 more revenue sharing dollars would return to the states, reducing the states, local communities and special districts the need to raise fees and taxes. More money will be available for wage earners to pay for college, go to movies, eat out and enjoy life - in short stimulating the economy.
McConnell, Boehner, Murdoch, Limbaugh are all wealthy - surely they all earn over $250,000 per year. How many f/t employees do they employ?
Cut taxes for the American Family, they will put money back into the economy - and the economy will grow. More jobs = more income tax revenue and government at all levels able to finance rebuilding our infrastructure, creating more private sector jobs.

That few is already paying 75% of the Federal Taxes. What percentage should they pay? They also probably pay the majority of local taxes as well (with the exception of property and sales taxes probably.)

And say you do increase taxes on the wealthy, you get the same problem unless you lower taxes for everyone else. Now that extra 100k you got from Dr. so and so goes to the government, dissapearing into the hole of the federal budget. So no new lexus, less dinners out, no new roof on that 1.5M dollar house. So screw the roofer, the car salesman, the resturant employees. Since rich people have more to spend, they tend to be able to spread it around more, enabling jobs for all those nice middle class people.


Taxes take money OUT of the economy at all levels. It is then re-inserted via government contracts. So in the end, you are still making rich people richer, just in a more convoluted, and I guess for a progressive, more politically acceptable way.[/QUOTE]

I suspect a roof every 30 years, one car every year a dinner out every night does help employment; I also suspect dinner out once a month for 10 or 20 million, one car every five years for 10 or 20 million and one roof every 30 years for 10 or 20 million trumps your post.
That said, most very wealthy individuals invest their income, an argument which might help make your point. However, even that cannot trump the amount of capital the masses could put into the system, including investments.
Are you familiar with the term "iron law of wages"? It seems the attacks on unions and wage earners has reved up in recent years, and imho another example of a rennissance of reactionary thought.
The iron law of wages states that wages must remain at the subsistance level. This level, according to 18th century economic theorist David Ricardo, is labors natural price, the income of which is necessary for the worker to exist. Ricardo argued that wages should be left to free competition and should never be controlled by government interference.[/QUOTE]

ever hear of the law of diminishing returns?

 

[Trajan]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

Doesn't even compare to the raises Fed workers get.

back up off my pie Iam.....

 

[Oddball]

Wow....So many broke dicks as experts on what the wealthy do to get and stay that way.

Kinda makes ya wonder how it is they're still broke dicks, don't it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'll answer your question, first, with a question. How does funneling middle class dollars to millionaires help getting our economy moving again?

The enormous wealth of the few is basically subsidized by the many.

booyah!!! and thx !! didn't I say thx?

Consider the taxes you mentioned. If millionaires and billionaires were taxed by the schedules in effect in 1980 more revenue sharing dollars would return to the states, reducing the states, local communities and special districts the need to raise fees and taxes. More money will be available for wage earners to pay for college, go to movies, eat out and enjoy life - in short stimulating the economy.
McConnell, Boehner, Murdoch, Limbaugh are all wealthy - surely they all earn over $250,000 per year. How many f/t employees do they employ?
Cut taxes for the American Family, they will put money back into the economy - and the economy will grow. More jobs = more income tax revenue and government at all levels able to finance rebuilding our infrastructure, creating more private sector jobs.

That few is already paying 75% of the Federal Taxes. What percentage should they pay? They also probably pay the majority of local taxes as well (with the exception of property and sales taxes probably.)

And say you do increase taxes on the wealthy, you get the same problem unless you lower taxes for everyone else. Now that extra 100k you got from Dr. so and so goes to the government, dissapearing into the hole of the federal budget. So no new lexus, less dinners out, no new roof on that 1.5M dollar house. So screw the roofer, the car salesman, the resturant employees. Since rich people have more to spend, they tend to be able to spread it around more, enabling jobs for all those nice middle class people.


Taxes take money OUT of the economy at all levels. It is then re-inserted via government contracts. So in the end, you are still making rich people richer, just in a more convoluted, and I guess for a progressive, more politically acceptable way.

I suspect a roof every 30 years, one car every year a dinner out every night does help employment; I also suspect dinner out once a month for 10 or 20 million, one car every five years for 10 or 20 million and one roof every 30 years for 10 or 20 million trumps your post.
That said, most very wealthy individuals invest their income, an argument which might help make your point. However, even that cannot trump the amount of capital the masses could put into the system, including investments.
Are you familiar with the term "iron law of wages"? It seems the attacks on unions and wage earners has reved up in recent years, and imho another example of a rennissance of reactionary thought.
The iron law of wages states that wages must remain at the subsistance level. This level, according to 18th century economic theorist David Ricardo, is labors natural price, the income of which is necessary for the worker to exist. Ricardo argued that wages should be left to free competition and should never be controlled by government interference.[/QUOTE]

ever hear of the law of diminishing returns?[/QUOTE]

Well we've heard from Nero; the debate is over. The echo chamber has begun to spam with idiotgrams.

 

[martybegan]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

This is great for NYC's economy, as well as the NY suburbs. Resturants will be crowded, car sales will increase, people will be able to pay thier mortgages and property taxes.

That might be true to some extent but the reality is that this money is concentrated among relatively very few people so the trickle down effect is not going to be that great.

and giving it to the federal government is any better? Again unless that money lowers your taxes, or the goverment gives you a cut of it, all it does is add to the buracracy, and lines the pockets of people paid by the goverment instead of your own.

 

[blu]

Funny JFK... I don't see you calling for a cap on athletes, actors, musicians, lottery winners, gamblers, etc

nice deflection dumbass. those people aren't solvent due to taxpayer funded handouts

 

[blu]

If the Boards of Dirctors and stock holders want to pay big salaries thats up to them.

I sure can't figure out why anyone would care what someone else makes in the way of salary.

Actors and athletes make big bucks. Don't see anyone giving a shit about that.

Oh wait. I forgot. Its the "evil" bankers. Never mind. Jeeze.

dumbass #2

 

[blu]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

gee just think of all the taxes that will be collected on that money and be happy.

well less than 10% after writeoffs

 

[Sallow]

That might be true to some extent but the reality is that this money is concentrated among relatively very few people so the trickle down effect is not going to be that great.

Exactly right.

Add in "the rich" don't eat out much unless they can write it off.

Another burden on the tax payer.

in most cases only 50% of meals on the business's dime can be written off. it ain't as big of a perk as you seem to think.

It's a perk..I've used often.

And..sometimes you get to write off 100% of the meal.

I'll be doing that on Thursday..

 

[Skull Pilot]

A report from The Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning won't help Wall Street dodge any more bullets. A survey of about 35 top financial institutions -- comprising banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges -- estimates distribution of $144 billion in compensation and benefits for 2010. This amounts to a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, and potentially a whole lot more billionaire contenders for the title of wealthiest Americans.

$144 Billion in Wall Street Bonuses: How Much Is That, Really?

gee just think of all the taxes that will be collected on that money and be happy.

well less than 10% after writeoffs

10% the ******* government wouldn't have gotten if bonuses were banned.

 

[blastoff]

These guys honestly don't get it. I am all for wealth, but their is wealth, then there is unneccessary excessive wealth. You have to eventually put a cap on it, there is only so much money out there. If they continue to get more and more, none will be left and we are a third world country.

Stop using credit cards, don't buy houses, don't give any more money to anymore bankers.

There you have it folks. The root of the crackpot liberal class/wealth envy baloney. There is only a finite amount of money out there so folks who don't have much are the victims of those who have "too much."

Can't really blame them though because we have this highly intelligent and very well educated fuckin' idiot in the White House who believes the same nonsense...Hey, Joe Plumber, yeah taxes are high but that's because folks like me want to spread the wealth around.

God help us.