Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?

and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.

SOME rules have changed:


EFFECTIVE tax rates

do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?

You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.

ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%


WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!

You really dont understand incentive do you.
so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.

Yes, we didn't have "incentives to work" when EFFECTIVE rates were 60%-70% on the top 1/10th of 1% of US right?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.

Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*


Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Read more: Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor.
Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)

You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be

Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!

I think you make too much.
there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.

Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted

Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.

SOME rules have changed:


EFFECTIVE tax rates

do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?

You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.

ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%


WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!

You really dont understand incentive do you.
so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.

Yes, we didn't have "incentives to work" when EFFECTIVE rates were 60%-70% on the top 1/10th of 1% of US right?

I just dont understand how you can think you deserve someone elses money.
bet you are a blast in a resturant, do you look around when you are done eating to pick out someone that looks like they make more than you, then have your bill brought to them so they can pay?

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, the Kochs, Walton family, Romney ALL started at the same place as the poor *shaking head*


Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

Read more: Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor.
Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)

You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be

Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!

I think you make too much.
there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.

Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted

Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have to argue?

Hint we aren't talking charity, but GOV'T POLICY!

 

[Dad2three]

SOME rules have changed:


EFFECTIVE tax rates

do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?

You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.

ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%


WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!

You really dont understand incentive do you.
so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.

Yes, we didn't have "incentives to work" when EFFECTIVE rates were 60%-70% on the top 1/10th of 1% of US right?

I just dont understand how you can think you deserve someone elses money.
bet you are a blast in a resturant, do you look around when you are done eating to pick out someone that looks like they make more than you, then have your bill brought to them so they can pay?

"logic" fail from the right again. Shocking

We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. Louis Brandeis SCOTUS

 

[dblack]

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!

If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple: A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!

Flat would be ideal, but just getting rid of all the exemptions, "incentives", and similar bullshit would be a fine start. And there'd be actual bipartisan support for such an effort.

A lot of the exemptions and deductions were put in place to justify higher rates. A change needs to involve reducing rates as well.

Linking the two issues isn't necessary and ensures gridlock. We should seize the opportunity for positive change, even if it results in higher net taxes for some. The argument for lower tax rates will be much more compelling when people are actually paying the rates in question.

Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.

If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.

We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.

Politics is the art of the possible. We won't get political consensus on cutting taxes. But we can get consensus on removing all the BS. And here's the thing - the BS is what enables higher taxes. As long as someone thinks they're getting a 'special' deal, they won't support changes to the tax structure. Nevermind that, overall, everyone is getting fucked more - the psychology of these "incentives" is such that most people will think that they're winning.

If we strip away all that crap, even if it's painful for a bit, we'll get real with what taxes are actually costing us - and then we'll get real support for cutting rates.

 

[sealybobo]

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!

If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple: A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!

Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!

What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.

I don't find it perplexing at all. History is replete with greedy envious people wanting and taking other people's money.

Middle class Republicans really are that stupid.

 

[thanatos144]

Only progressive rich should pay more taxes.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,

You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
That's awful!
Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.

why should they benefit from the fathers hard work

Why not. You know, private ownership.

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.

Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses


The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation. The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.



Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.

“Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses; just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”

Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune




“This report shows that our current system is anything but fair – rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,” the report concluded.

The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid. It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.


Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study


How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State

A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes more than $1.2 billion in tax breaks, free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments around the country.

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First

tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.

Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????

Outrageous!!!!!

Moron.

BENDING the law they bought? Yep

Bending the law? Could you explain what that means?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Somewhere along the line someone in their families was poor.
Waltons only really took off in the mid 80s so thiers is what is to be considered "New" money in many circles. ( yes, thats an insult from one rich guy to another)

You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be

Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!

I think you make too much.
there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.

Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted

Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have to argue?

Hint we aren't talking charity, but GOV'T POLICY!

so its ok to take half of what someone earns and give it to someone else that does not earn it as long as its government policy?
Can you tell me what someone does to have a right to someone elses money?
You might have a nicer car than I do, I don't think that's fair, so how about you chip in the amount Im short so I can have the same.
Maybe we can get government policy to say you have to contribute half again what the cost of the car is so I can have one for 1/3 what yours cost you.
Sounds fair to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you put 12.4% of your lifetime earnings in the stock market and 12.4% of your lifetime earnings into Social Security and die tomorrow, at the age of 61 years, 363 days, which of your two retirement plans will give your family more money, the stock market or Social Security?

Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised


Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?

If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.

So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways

Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
basically zero.

Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.

Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
That doesn't seem fair, does it?

PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans. And then there’s Social Security.

But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”

Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model. That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.


Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options. Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad. It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.

But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.” Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.

The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent. Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done. So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.

But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.


How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

 

[Dad2three]

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.

Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses


The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation. The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.



Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.

“Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses; just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”

Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune




“This report shows that our current system is anything but fair – rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,” the report concluded.

The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid. It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.


Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study


How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State

A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes more than $1.2 billion in tax breaks, free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments around the country.

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First

tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.

Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????

Outrageous!!!!!

Moron.

BENDING the law they bought? Yep

Bending the law? Could you explain what that means?

Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses


The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation. The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.



Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.

“Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses; just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”

Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune

 

[Dad2three]

You mean they didn't become BILLIONAIRES until the 1970's? And yes, they INHERITED the wealth AND aren't what a MERIT based society is SUPPOSED to be

Hint: Allowing the Walton's to become aristocrats, like the Kochs, is more harmful, IMHO, than allowing a few million "illegals" into the USA!

I think you make too much.
there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.

Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted

Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have to argue?

Hint we aren't talking charity, but GOV'T POLICY!

so its ok to take half of what someone earns and give it to someone else that does not earn it as long as its government policy?
Can you tell me what someone does to have a right to someone elses money?
You might have a nicer car than I do, I don't think that's fair, so how about you chip in the amount Im short so I can have the same.
Maybe we can get government policy to say you have to contribute half again what the cost of the car is so I can have one for 1/3 what yours cost you.
Sounds fair to me.

Don't understand taxes, by their very nature, ARE re-distributive? I'm not shocked

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I think you make too much.
there are people in this country that cant afford internet. Maybe you should cut your pay in half and give it to them.

Your empathy is noteworthy, disingenuous, but noted

Its not my empathy that is in question, its yours.
are you going to give half of your money to someone that does not work. Simple to answer, Yes or No.

Without false premises, distortions and lies, what would right wingers EVER have to argue?

Hint we aren't talking charity, but GOV'T POLICY!

so its ok to take half of what someone earns and give it to someone else that does not earn it as long as its government policy?
Can you tell me what someone does to have a right to someone elses money?
You might have a nicer car than I do, I don't think that's fair, so how about you chip in the amount Im short so I can have the same.
Maybe we can get government policy to say you have to contribute half again what the cost of the car is so I can have one for 1/3 what yours cost you.
Sounds fair to me.

Don't understand taxes, by their very nature, ARE re-distributive? I'm not shocked

If I didn't understand that I wouldn't be asking how someone else deserves money from anothers paycheck.
I don't think you understand how wrong that is. So I would suspect that you are collecting some type of assistance.
What is that teaching your children, or do you pretend that you earn everything that you have.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.

What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?

and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.

SOME rules have changed:


EFFECTIVE tax rates

do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?

You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.

ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%


WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!

You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.

Who did that? How did he game the system?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

and then comes the question, if someone made it within the rules of society, why didnt the other person. too lazy to get an education still comes in to play since both started equal.

SOME rules have changed:


EFFECTIVE tax rates

do you honestly think that a 70% tax rate is fair at any income level? seriously?

You mean like the hedge funder making $4.7+ billion by gamiong the system on his subprime bets? HELL YES.

ANY income over about $10 million a year should be taxed about 50%. ANYTHING over $100 million, 70%


WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE GOPers TO SUPPORT A MIN 30% TAX ON $1+ MILLION INCOMES THOUGH!

You really dont understand incentive do you.
so, are you going to give half of your income to someone that doesnt work? to them, you must look rich if you can eat and keep a roof over your head.

Yes, we didn't have "incentives to work" when EFFECTIVE rates were 60%-70% on the top 1/10th of 1% of US right?

If the federal tax rate was 0%, the government would collect 0 dollars.

If the federal tax rate was 100%, the government would still collect 0 dollars because who would be stupid enough to create wealth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Yep, same depreciation schedules as everyone else, same dividend tax rates, same corporate income tax rate.

Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses


The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation. The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.



Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.

“Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses; just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”

Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune




“This report shows that our current system is anything but fair – rather it provides special treatment to America’s biggest corporations and richest families leaving individual taxpayers and small businesses to pick up the tab,” the report concluded.

The $7.8 billion includes an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance for low-wage Walmart employees, including programs like food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid. It also includes an estimated $70 million per year in “economic development subsidies” from state and legal governments eager to host Walmart in their cities.


Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study


How Wal-Mart Has Used Public Money in Your State

A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes more than $1.2 billion in tax breaks, free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments around the country.

Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch - brought to you by Good Jobs First

tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.

Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????

Outrageous!!!!!

Moron.

BENDING the law they bought? Yep

Bending the law? Could you explain what that means?

Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses


The report, titled “Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions,” focuses on tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation. The law was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay, according to the study, which goes on to say that Wal-Mart has abused the law.



Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to change law to prohibit tax deductions for executive bonuses. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas who is pushing such a bill, excoriated big corporations for forcing small businesses and families to pay more because of the current tax law.

“Publicly held companies like Wal-Mart can continue paying their executives multimillion dollar bonuses; just don’t expect the American taxpayer to pick up your tab,” he said in a statement. “It makes no sense for working families to subsidize those making nearly 300 times the average worker.”

Wal-Mart attacked for big tax breaks - Fortune

Retail giant received $100 million in tax breaks for big executive bonuses

Corporations get to deduct employee wages.
Perfectly legally.
It's too bad whining doesn't pay, you'd be as rich as a Walton.

 

[Dad2three]

Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised


Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?

If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.

So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways

Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
basically zero.

Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.

Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
That doesn't seem fair, does it?

PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans. And then there’s Social Security.

But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”

Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model. That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.


Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options. Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad. It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.

But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.” Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.

The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent. Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done. So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.

But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.


How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security

Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle


Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.


Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan

Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan


· Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested. Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory.



The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security

Galveston | Strengthen Social Security


"The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."

Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well


In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.

“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”


Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model

 

[Dad2three]

Don't understand how an INSURANCE policy works huh? I'm NOT surprised


Hint how'd the stock market work out after the Banksters hosed US in the 1920's?

If you're paying 12.4% of your lifetime earnings for a low yielding insurance policy, you may be doing it wrong.

So NO, you don't understand how insurance works. Thanks anyways

Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
basically zero.

Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.

Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
That doesn't seem fair, does it?

PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans. And then there’s Social Security.

But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”

Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model. That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.


Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options. Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad. It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.

But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.” Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.

The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent. Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.

Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done. So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.

But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.

Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.


How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

The Galveston Plan bears little resemblance to the President’s plan. The Galveston plan does not have voluntary private accounts. Instead, the county invests pension funds in the market; individual workers do not have accounts or any control over investment decisions. In addition, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory. The Galveston Plan also features higher payroll tax contributions: 13.9 percent of payroll, as compared to 12.4 percent under the traditional Social Security system

Retirement benefits are generally lower under the Galveston Plan. Under the Galveston Plan, initial retirement benefits are lower for many workers than under Social Security. Furthermore, unlike Social Security, the Galveston plan does not adjust benefits from year to year to reflect increases in the cost of living. As a result, according to a Social Security Administration study, “After 20 years, all of Galveston’s benefits are lower relative to Social Security’s.”


Galveston could not provide a model for the country as a whole.



The 5,000 municipal employees covered by the plans run by Galveston and the two other Texas counties opting out of Social Security do not make any contributions to support current Social Security beneficiaries. If the United States as a whole adopted a Galveston-like plan, there would be no one left to pay the $500 billion annual cost of benefits for the nation’s 45 million current Social Security beneficiaries .

In other words, municipal employees from these three Texas counties are “free riders” who are escaping their share of the national obligation to finance Social Security for current retirees. The United States as a whole cannot “free ride” in the way that government employees in one relatively small county can.

Does Galveston Offer a Model For Social Security Reform? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True, they ONLY benefited over half the Corp tax breaks right Bubs,

You mean they paid taxes, just like every other corporation?
That's awful!
Feel free to cut out all the welfare payments that WalMart takes advantage of.

why should they benefit from the fathers hard work

Why not. You know, private ownership.

Yep, Walton's/Walmart use the best tax breaks they can buy in Congress!

Oh so our Founders were wrong to worry about INHERITED aristocracy over merit? Thanks for letting me know!

If it bothers you to have a complex tax code, the solution is quite simple: A low fair flat rate tax that applied to everyone.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!

Keep dreaming. A REGRESSIVE tax isn't needed, but weird how the GOP stops ANYTHING that might require their overlords to pay more equitable with their wealth!

What I find perplexing is how the liberals seem to think they have a right to someone elses earned income.

What I find perplexing, is conservatives/libertarians "think" those people made it on their own, without SOCIETY and our laws?

What does our society and laws have to do with anything? We all have the same society and laws, yet many of us don't become wealthy. How does that work anyhow?

The only people that benefit more from our society are those who put more in: more hours, more money, more borrowing, more headaches.........

Other than that, I'll trade you one bushel of apples for your bushel of corn. Now if you happen to have much more corn than I have apples, that doesn't mean you owe me (society) anything. It means you worked harder than I did.