Wall Street bonuses...$144 billion

[rdean]

The enormous wealth of the few is basically subsidized by the many. 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 of the need to raise fees and taxes. More money will be available for wage earners to pay for college, as tuition may drop, as fees and local taxes drop they may go to movies more oftern, 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? Suggesting the wealthy create jobs is little more than propaganda.
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 and maybe solve some of the chronic problems of our nation.
We have become a plutocracy, anyone who beliefs differently is invited to explain why they believe I'm wrong.

One can also argue that if goverment stopped needing money to do things it was never intended to do in the first place, everyone would have more money because everyones taxes could be lowered.

The issue becomes that with the current system it never stops at "just raise the taxes back to X time." Sooner or later it has to be raised again and again. This is happening at the state and the city level more than the federal level. Whats worse there is at that level people of a certain income can just move away.

The system as it is set up when it comes to income taxes IS progressive. I would prefer monkeying around with the system to simplify it first, to see the true rates we are taxing at before we just decide to raise taxes on people who are "not us." re-defining the income tax as all income, for example, and not just wages. This would eliminate the distiction between capital gains, wage and investment income, and would probably allow for a lowering of the rate for all.

Do you believe it is healthy for a society, one which supports democratic institutions, to allow the redistribution of wealth?

Of course not. That's why the Bush tax cuts, with 52% going to the top 1% were such a disaster. The year Obama took office, insurance companies raised rates 39% and hospital costs became the number one cause of bankruptcy. Moving jobs to China using taxpayer paid subsidies and tax breaks so the rich could get even more rich.

This is only a repeat of the 1930's. When you concentrate all the money into the hands of a very few, it will always lead to a depression. Those rich people pour money into congress to change laws so their stealing is completely legal.

What this means is that Republican created the greatest transfer and redistribution of wealth from the Middle Class to the top 1% in the history of the world. How else can you describe the rich making staggering amounts of money and the middle class and the poor getting nothing, not even jobs. That is called a "transfer of wealth".

And the GOP plan is to continue. Look at what they did. Right after he last election, the only thing they could talk about was money to millionaires and billionaires. Not jobs. Not unemployment benefits. Not the Middle Class. No, "Millionaires and billionaires". Their only concern. It's not like you can deny it.

 

[KissMy]

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.

Why not buy houses? They are really cheap so you can take the bankers for a loss. Yes on not using credit cards & how about self insuring when you can & don't keep money in banks or bonds paying less than 8%. Don't shop needlessly, buy only what you need & make sure it is quality & not junk you will need to replace again. Cut energy use, combine trips & cut travel. Don't buy new trendy or fad items, buy used items of timeless quality.

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

Why not buy houses? They are really cheap so you can take the bankers for a loss. Yes on not using credit cards & how about self insuring when you can & don't keep money in banks or bonds paying less than 8%. Don't shop needlessly, buy only what you need & make sure it is quality & not junk you will need to replace again. Cut energy use, combine trips & cut travel. Don't buy new trendy or fad items, buy used items of timeless quality.

Wife and I took your advice(don't shop needlessly). Yesterday we went to a Bass Pro Shops to look around. The prices were ridiculously high. They had some crap they were selling on clearance, crap I wouldn't even buy at a garage sale. Jacked up prices on most everything.
So, to make a short story a little longer, as we're walking out to the car empty-handed, she turns to me and says, "That place is like a Nordstrum's for rednecks!".

 

[martybegan]

The enormous wealth of the few is basically subsidized by the many. 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 of the need to raise fees and taxes. More money will be available for wage earners to pay for college, as tuition may drop, as fees and local taxes drop they may go to movies more oftern, 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? Suggesting the wealthy create jobs is little more than propaganda.
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 and maybe solve some of the chronic problems of our nation.
We have become a plutocracy, anyone who beliefs differently is invited to explain why they believe I'm wrong.

One can also argue that if goverment stopped needing money to do things it was never intended to do in the first place, everyone would have more money because everyones taxes could be lowered.

The issue becomes that with the current system it never stops at "just raise the taxes back to X time." Sooner or later it has to be raised again and again. This is happening at the state and the city level more than the federal level. Whats worse there is at that level people of a certain income can just move away.

The system as it is set up when it comes to income taxes IS progressive. I would prefer monkeying around with the system to simplify it first, to see the true rates we are taxing at before we just decide to raise taxes on people who are "not us." re-defining the income tax as all income, for example, and not just wages. This would eliminate the distiction between capital gains, wage and investment income, and would probably allow for a lowering of the rate for all.

Do you believe it is healthy for a society, one which supports democratic institutions, to allow the redistribution of wealth?

The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to take money from one set of people and give it to another. I don't oppose progressive taxation, but it cannot be taken to the extreme. Redistribution of wealth is simply a code word for making the government do the dirty work of envious people who want other peoples stuff.

 

[martybegan]

Where do you stand? And how does it compare to a millionaire?

Check it out:

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2009 and 2010

I probably just bumped myself into the 28% bracket, which is of course, much less than a millionaire.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One can also argue that if goverment stopped needing money to do things it was never intended to do in the first place, everyone would have more money because everyones taxes could be lowered.

The issue becomes that with the current system it never stops at "just raise the taxes back to X time." Sooner or later it has to be raised again and again. This is happening at the state and the city level more than the federal level. Whats worse there is at that level people of a certain income can just move away.

The system as it is set up when it comes to income taxes IS progressive. I would prefer monkeying around with the system to simplify it first, to see the true rates we are taxing at before we just decide to raise taxes on people who are "not us." re-defining the income tax as all income, for example, and not just wages. This would eliminate the distiction between capital gains, wage and investment income, and would probably allow for a lowering of the rate for all.

Do you believe it is healthy for a society, one which supports democratic institutions, to allow the redistribution of wealth?

The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to take money from one set of people and give it to another. I don't oppose progressive taxation, but it cannot be taken to the extreme. Redistribution of wealth is simply a code word for making the government do the dirty work of envious people who want other peoples stuff.

When Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rates he in fact redistributed the wealth of our nation. In one generation the investor class has been able to accumulate a much greater percentage of wealth, creating a huge differential in both wealth and power.

See: Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

What the Republican Party is attempting to do is insane. The consequences for our nation cannot be absolutely infered, but they suggest to me that their tax policy is antithetical to a nation conceived and dedicated to democratic instituions and one upon which a vibrant middle class enjoyed both freedom and security.
If you're in the 28% bracket I cannot understand why you would support such insanity.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

You think I supported government bailout of private business?? Guess again

I do fully support people negotiating whatever compensation they freely can.. I do support companies agreeing to pay what they wish for the persons or skillsets they wish... whether that be guaranteed or tied to performance is of no concern...

I did not support 'stimulus' or 'tarp' or 'bailouts' under neither Bush nor Obama

But the fact remains that it's always the big bad business people that many uber-lefties try and vilify for the amount they freely make.... yet it never comes up about other highly paid people

was this post supposed to make sense? you didn't want the bailouts but you don't mind private citizens profiting tens of millions directly from government money. seriously just start writing your tax payments to wall street, its equivalent in this case

This is on the govt, not the business... these executive salaries/bonuses were ALREADY in place....

The government should have never bailed them out... and even though I did not and do not support that they were bailed out, the government should have had stipulations IN the bailouts...

Idiot

 

[DiamondDave]

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

Athletes/musicians give you something tangible and it's all about supply and demand...and performance. If an athlete starts failing, they get cut. They sure as shit don't get bonuses for failing. And when was the last time the govt bailed out an athlete and musician.

Both gambling and lottery winnings are games of chance, so that analogy doesn't fit.

Both your analogies are a big fat fail....

And leaders of a business give nothing tangible? All business, whether entertainment, is about supply and demand

Because YOU think something is tangible or intangible in your perception, does not make it so

 

[Mr Natural]

One can also argue that if goverment stopped needing money to do things it was never intended to do in the first place, everyone would have more money because everyones taxes could be lowered.

The issue becomes that with the current system it never stops at "just raise the taxes back to X time." Sooner or later it has to be raised again and again. This is happening at the state and the city level more than the federal level. Whats worse there is at that level people of a certain income can just move away.

The system as it is set up when it comes to income taxes IS progressive. I would prefer monkeying around with the system to simplify it first, to see the true rates we are taxing at before we just decide to raise taxes on people who are "not us." re-defining the income tax as all income, for example, and not just wages. This would eliminate the distiction between capital gains, wage and investment income, and would probably allow for a lowering of the rate for all.

Do you believe it is healthy for a society, one which supports democratic institutions, to allow the redistribution of wealth?

The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to take money from one set of people and give it to another. I don't oppose progressive taxation, but it cannot be taken to the extreme. Redistribution of wealth is simply a code word for making the government do the dirty work of envious people who want other peoples stuff.

And you don't think the massive bailouts for Wall Street firms and banks were not a redistribution of wealth?

Where do you think that money came from?

 

[martybegan]

Do you believe it is healthy for a society, one which supports democratic institutions, to allow the redistribution of wealth?

The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to take money from one set of people and give it to another. I don't oppose progressive taxation, but it cannot be taken to the extreme. Redistribution of wealth is simply a code word for making the government do the dirty work of envious people who want other peoples stuff.

When Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rates he in fact redistributed the wealth of our nation. In one generation the investor class has been able to accumulate a much greater percentage of wealth, creating a huge differential in both wealth and power.

See: Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

What the Republican Party is attempting to do is insane. The consequences for our nation cannot be absolutely infered, but they suggest to me that their tax policy is antithetical to a nation conceived and dedicated to democratic instituions and one upon which a vibrant middle class enjoyed both freedom and security.
If you're in the 28% bracket I cannot understand why you would support such insanity.

because I dont covet my neighbors goods. Because I dont buy into class envy. Because I dont beleive that the goverment owns everyones money and wealth, and that the masses get to decide the fate of an individual's assets, and how they get to spend them. Because I beleive that at some point we have to stop adding more money to the goverment, and put it back into the role it was meant to do. Not some arbiter of wealth distribution, but a method of enabling all people to achive as much as possible.

There is always an inherent unfairness about a majority being able to impose its will upon a smaller group of people, without having to suffer the consequences of said will. While again I understand a need for some progressiveness in the tax code, it is an unworkable system where the only hope to keep it going is to constantly increase the percentage of wealth that has to flow through the government. After a while a tipping point is reached, where the assumption becomes it is not our money/wealth/property, but the goverments, and we then get the "privilidge" of keeping whatever the government deems acceptable.

 

[martybegan]

Do you believe it is healthy for a society, one which supports democratic institutions, to allow the redistribution of wealth?

The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to take money from one set of people and give it to another. I don't oppose progressive taxation, but it cannot be taken to the extreme. Redistribution of wealth is simply a code word for making the government do the dirty work of envious people who want other peoples stuff.

And you don't think the massive bailouts for Wall Street firms and banks were not a redistribution of wealth?

Where do you think that money came from?

Arent they paying it back, with interest? Wouldnt the collapse of wall street caused massive economic shock that would have affected everyone in this country? Can you see pass your envy of those with more than you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not to take money from one set of people and give it to another. I don't oppose progressive taxation, but it cannot be taken to the extreme. Redistribution of wealth is simply a code word for making the government do the dirty work of envious people who want other peoples stuff.

And you don't think the massive bailouts for Wall Street firms and banks were not a redistribution of wealth?

Where do you think that money came from?

Arent they paying it back, with interest? Wouldnt the collapse of wall street caused massive economic shock that would have affected everyone in this country? Can you see pass your envy of those with more than you?

Marty, you are stuck on ideology, try being a bit pragmatic. As for paying it back, yes, some are. Are they doing so because they are good citizens, or because they want to be able to pay themselves and their pals huge bonuses without scurtiny?
btw, if the main thrust of the article in you mind was CEO's salaries, it is my opinion you didn't read or comprend the article.
My main thrust was this:

The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

 

[martybegan]

And you don't think the massive bailouts for Wall Street firms and banks were not a redistribution of wealth?

Where do you think that money came from?

Arent they paying it back, with interest? Wouldnt the collapse of wall street caused massive economic shock that would have affected everyone in this country? Can you see pass your envy of those with more than you?

Marty, you are stuck on ideology, try being a bit pragmatic. As for paying it back, yes, some are. Are they doing so because they are good citizens, or because they want to be able to pay themselves and their pals huge bonuses without scurtiny?
btw, if the main thrust of the article in you mind was CEO's salaries, it is my opinion you didn't read or comprend the article.
My main thrust was this:

The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

and if you read the table those percentages really havent changed in years.

If you are so hopped up that other people have more than you, guess what? Man the barricades and start the revolution. I have more respect for people that do it that way then those who think the all saving government will create a wealth equal utopia by taxing the crap out of some other bastard.

What do those percentages really mean? So some other people have mansions. Short of liqudiating the property and giving you a share of it how does taxing them more help you?

 

[Sallow]

and if you read the table those percentages really havent changed in years.

If you are so hopped up that other people have more than you, guess what? Man the barricades and start the revolution. I have more respect for people that do it that way then those who think the all saving government will create a wealth equal utopia by taxing the crap out of some other bastard.

What do those percentages really mean? So some other people have mansions. Short of liqudiating the property and giving you a share of it how does taxing them more help you?

So what we need is revolution after revolution with blood flowing through the streets and guillotines working overtime?

No thanks.

I choose the tweaking government solution every time.

 

[martybegan]

and if you read the table those percentages really havent changed in years.

If you are so hopped up that other people have more than you, guess what? Man the barricades and start the revolution. I have more respect for people that do it that way then those who think the all saving government will create a wealth equal utopia by taxing the crap out of some other bastard.

What do those percentages really mean? So some other people have mansions. Short of liqudiating the property and giving you a share of it how does taxing them more help you?

So what we need is revolution after revolution with blood flowing through the streets and guillotines working overtime?

No thanks.

I choose the tweaking government solution every time.

I'm not saying TO do it, I'm just saying I would have more respect for people who WOULD do it to get someone elses wealth then those who use the government for it.

 

[IHI4eva]

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.

Wow. Absolutely ridiculous!

 

[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 buts that's because folks like me want to spread the wealth around.

God help us.

God gave man a brain, that's all the help you need. Use it, put emotion aside and think. Your anger has been manufactured, and the points you try to make fall flat - because they are not your own.

Okay, genius, I'll bite. Please enlighten me and the rest of the class as to what that finite amount of money totals. Thanks.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, one more thing. The "carried interest" provision in the tax code survived the 'compromise' in extending the Bush Tax cuts. It seems it enables venture capitalists and hedge fund managers to declare much of their multimillion-dollar annual income as capital gains, taxable at a mere 15 percent tax rate, rather than up to 35 percent on ordinary income.
It must be nice to have Congress and the White House in you pocket.

 

[Mr Natural]

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.

Wow. Absolutely ridiculous!

Probably not so ridiculous if you're on the receiving end of that $144 billion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 buts that's because folks like me want to spread the wealth around.

God help us.

God gave man a brain, that's all the help you need. Use it, put emotion aside and think. Your anger has been manufactured, and the points you try to make fall flat - because they are not your own.

Okay, genius, I'll bite. Please enlighten me and the rest of the class as to what that finite amount of money totals. Thanks.

There is no finite amount; a press can continue to print money as long as there is ink. The proper question is, what is the finite amount of ink.