The answer is simple...raise taxes on the rich. That's always the answer, right libs?
Replies to: The answer is simple...raise taxes on the rich. That's always the answer, right libs?
Do you support a repeal of the R's last $2T tax giveaway to the wealthiest 1%?
(no message)
everyone paid less federal taxes.
(no message)
False, almost all benefit to the 1%. Capped property/local tax deductions also hurt in many states.
so you’re upset that some wealthy paid more in taxes. interesting.
(no message)
Even some of the 1% got hammered in CA, HI, NY, NJ, DC, OR, MN, IA, VT & WI due to lost deductions.
(no message)
Here's another perspective.."Inequality is slowing U.S. economic growth"...I know these links
take time to read and absorb, but even a quick look at the graphs should get your attention and make you question the "Status Quo" and what the future holds if no changes are made.
Don't feel you have to respond immediately, but at your convenience look them over and think about what message they are sending...
Link: https://www.epi.org/publication/secular-stagnation/
Ty... what is your worker pay utopia? Is it everyone makes the same? Is it based on value added to
the organization? How about race or gender? Tell us what your utopic vision is for equality of pay. Also, to insure you are not looking at this with jaded vision, let us in on what your profession is/was and where you were at within the organization.
Green energy is going to do as much damage to lower and middle income citizens as anything in histor
y. Beyond that, it's a global economy, and our lower skilled workers are getting beat. But, hey, schools would rather teach CRT and lower standards so everyone feels happy about themselves.
LOL...don't give up so easily...let's hear your (substantiated) arguments as to why inequality isn't
slowing U.S. economic growth.
why do you say it is?
(no message)
"CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978 Typical worker compensation has risen only 12%..."
Here's another perspective...
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality
Do you honestly believe that CEOs are 940/12 times more productive than the average worker?...what's wrong with this picture?
The USA was strong and growing during the Eisenhower years when the maximum tax rate approached 90%...i.e. there was ZERO incentive for corporate boards to throw gobs of money at their CEOs, since the majority of it would go to the government, yet all industries were profitable and growing...and with the (unionized) labor force...this is historical fact...now look where we are...what changed?...look to the Reagan/Bush tax breaks for top earners and corps.
The operative word here is "Sharing"...something that many CEOs today are loathe to do.
Link: https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
They are 940 times more valuable. Don’t kid yourself none of us could be a CEO.
(no message)
CEOs of today are no more valuable than those of 70 years ago when the ratio of their
compensation to that of average workers was on the order of 20:1...even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett side with Thomas Piketty.
but what is their pay difference from front line workers!
(no message)
The USA was strong because the rest of the developed world was in ruins.
(no message)
Certainly a factor, but how about the 90% upper income tax bracket...didn't seem to slow us down,
now did it...the wealthy were still wealthy, but even average factory workers could afford small vacation homes and send their kids to college...not the case today, is it?
Bbbbut Ty, 'One Percenters' only have a minimum of $11.1 million. They needed the R's last scheme.
(no message)
just do some research...
(no message)
Link: https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
You are not accounting for "How" CEOs have been paid over time...in the 1950s, it was a rarity for
them to get compensated with stock options...the vast majority received cash subject to the tax codes...now much of a CEOs compensation is in the form of stock options that get taxed at capital gains rates...big difference from the 1950s...no?
The attached link suggests a solution...
-----------------------
An Alternative Approach: Mark-to-Market Taxation of Stock Options
The Levin-McCain approach is not the only possible solution to the stock option book-tax mismatch. An alternative could make use of the mark-to-market valuation of financial instruments that is gaining greater attention in tax reform efforts. Under this alternate approach, the corporate employer could deduct the cost of the stock options at the time they are granted, matching the cost reported on the corporate books just as in the Levin-McCain proposal. In addition, this approach would require the employee to report taxable income in an equal amount in that same year and then subject the employee’s ongoing stock option holdings to mark-to-market taxation each year until the options are exercised, with any gains or losses taxed as ordinary income.
For example, assume that, in Year 1, a corporation grants an employee options to buy shares at a fixed strike price for the next 10 years, providing compensation estimated to be worth $10 million. Under this alternate proposal, in Year 1 the employer would record $10 million on its books as a compensation expense and deduct $10 million from its income for tax purposes. That same year, the employee would report $10 million in taxable income.
In Year 2, assume the value of the stock rises, and the value of the employee’s stock option holdings increases by $3 million over the previous year. The employer would not be able to claim an increased tax deduction, because the estimated value it recorded on the grant date was designed to take into account future fluctuations in the value of the options. At the same time, because the options actually increased in market value, the employee would report another $3 million in income for Year 2, to be taxed at ordinary rates.
Assume in Year 3, the stock options lose value. The employee would be able to use those losses to offset other taxable income.
Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, introduced a bill in the previous Congress called the Modernization of Derivatives Act, which would subject derivatives to mark-to-market taxation and tax the gains at ordinary income tax rates on an annual basis. Stock options are derivatives, since they derive their value from the underlying stock. However, as currently written, the Wyden bill would exempt derivatives that are paid as compensation. A better approach would be to drop that exemption, limit corporate tax deductions for stock option compensation to the value reported on the corporate books in the year the compensation was granted, and tax employees on the ongoing mark-to-market value of their stock option holdings until the options are exercised.
-----------------------
What do think about this?
Link: https://itep.org/how-congress-can-stop-corporations-from-using-stock-options-to-dodge-taxes/
should an A list actor make so much more than the SAG worker running errands for said actor?
(no message)
Are you opposed to a progressive tax policy?...if the A list actor can draw billions in revenue
for the producer, pay him/her an appropriate percentage of the gross...but then tax him/her at a significantly higher rate than the SAG actor.
See the link for a rationale as to why Progressive Tax Policies are beneficial.
Link: https://economics.mit.edu/files/6820
why do you give an a list actor a pass but not a ceo?
(no message)
An A List actor is likely to vote D.
(no message)
It’s interesting that the notion that some can escape govt dependence bothers people.
In fact, it’s fairly horrifying. The goal should be to have the largest percentage of the population possible self-sufficient. But if anything our systems drastically move away from that: education, healthcare, etc
.
(no message)
it creates a weaker country.
(no message)