 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Wealth and Income in the US
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Rapparee Date: 15 Apr 07 - 05:47 PM Parade Magazine cannot be considered particularily liberal or conservative -- or particularily intellectual, for that matter. Today's issue (April 15, 2007) is the annual "What People Earn" issue and it raises some issues that I, at one, find disturbing. Some quotes: ...One reason for the widespread pessimism is that most Americans haven't seen the nation's economic boom reflected in their paychecks. Last year's 1.1% average raise was their first real pay increase in a long time. Workers' productivity grew an impressive 18% between 2000 and 2006—but most people's inflation-adjusted weekly wages rose only 1% during that time. This was the first economic expansion since World War II without a sustained pay increase for rank-and-file workers. Typical 2007 raises will be small, experts say. They predict slower economic growth and higher unemployment this year. ...Many Americans feel that government statistics don't match their daily experience. "Inflation seems worse than official reports indicate," says Arden Davis, who made $94,300 teaching geological engineering at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology last year. His view is widely shared. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) says inflation is low, but the cost of necessities like housing, utilities, health insurance and education is rising faster than wages for most Americans. ...Experts are concerned about wage inequality too. "We're in an economy that provides outsized, almost lottery-style gains to certain people in certain professions," says John Challenger, president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a global outplacement firm. He worries that, with college so expensive, graduates are forced to seek higher-salaried jobs to pay off their debts, avoiding critical lower-paying fields like education and social services. Income inequality has a negative impact in well-paid fields too: The extremely lucrative business side of medicine has drawn so much interest, for example, that more than 40 medical schools now offer an M.B.A. degree as well as an M.D. for graduates who want to go into health-care management or to Wall Street, where a doctor can earn millions advising hedge funds on biotechnology investments. Meanwhile, there's a national shortage of doctors in family practice, whose median income is $161,000. It seems to me that if this story is accurate (and I have no reason to think otherwise), the US is facing some interesting times ahead -- in politics, education, work, and nearly every other area. The entire article is here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: mg Date: 15 Apr 07 - 05:53 PM Some of these problems are fixable. $161K is not a bad salary, if the physicians are protected from law suits. We could have (oh goodness, tiered medicine, but better than no medicine at all) medical schools churning out as many family practice doctors as we needed with the right incentives of scholarships, forgiveness of loans, agreements to serve in underserved areas, recruitment of students from non-prosperous backgrounds who were given a straight shot at doctorhood etc....mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Sorcha Date: 15 Apr 07 - 05:56 PM We need more than just doctors. People at the bottom need to be paid more just to keep civilization running. How long would anyone be happy if the garbage didn't get taken away? Etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Barry Finn Date: 15 Apr 07 - 06:17 PM Ya, those bastards at the bottom just keep dragging the rest of us back down there with them. I wish there was something that could be done with them. I'm getting sick & tired of clawing my way up & out only to find out that there are no high paying jobs left when I finially arrive at the top of the shit pile. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 15 Apr 07 - 06:38 PM Workers' productivity grew an impressive 18% between 2000 and 2006.... Due primarilly to employers spending more on technology, which allows the same amount of work to be done with fewer employees. Sure, you're more productive, but your employer can't afford to give you a raise because he's already spent your raise money on a machine so you can do more work for the same amount of money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 15 Apr 07 - 06:39 PM Great things have grown from the shit pile. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 15 Apr 07 - 06:45 PM In my profession I welcome every new technology. Engineers haven't designed anything that doesn't break down or need periodic maintenance. I work as a maintenance mechanic in a state of the art shipyard. My coworkers and I get to work on all those machines that supposedly replace workers. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Midchuck Date: 15 Apr 07 - 07:33 PM I produced a family practice doctor. (Well, Kris helped.) Does that get me forgiven for being a lawyer? Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Sorcha Date: 15 Apr 07 - 08:04 PM As my friend Judith is wont to say, If the Dr's will pay the laywer, the lawyer's wife will pay the Dr's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Rapparee Date: 15 Apr 07 - 08:30 PM Only, Peter, if I can be forgiven for marrying a lawyer (she wasn't when we wed, though -- she was a librarian). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Bobert Date: 15 Apr 07 - 09:01 PM First of all, I'd like to invite anyone interested in wages, and lack there of, to visit the ongoing "poverty" thread... With that said, it is my opinion that what we have in the US is a two-tiered employer system, just as we have a two tiered employee system... We have the mega corporations who are making obsene profits and keeping their stock-holders, mostly rich people, very happy with their double digit returns on their capital investments... I have a major problem with these corporation because of their corrupt business practices and their ability to un-leval the playing field thru campaign contributions to corrupt politicans... This isn't exactly a scret anymore since Jack Abramhoff was arrested... Just how wide spread we probably won't know until after the '08 elections but it is my feeling that it was very widespread.... Then in the lower tier you have smaller companies who supply the larger ones... They are mean and lean... They don't provide health isurance to their workers or pension plans and that is why they they can furnish, ahhh, wiring harnesses to General Motors cheaper than GM can make them themselves... While this does provide employement for millions of workers in the US what it doesn't do is provide much stability for the average worker... This is where the two-tiered employee concept comes into play... What we have is a group of folks, mostly in their late 40's or 50's who have played by the rules and their employers are begrudingly delivering on ***some*** of the promises made in those labor agreements that were hammered out 30 years ago... But in many cases these companies have elected to use the Bankruptcy laws and "reorganizations" to skirt the spirit of these agreements... But bottom line, two teir means this: "Okay, for you older workers, we'll give you some of what we promised but for you younger workers??? Forget it!!! You ain't gettin' jack 'casue we can get Pakistanis to do it for half that..." This is waht it boils down to.... America is at a crossroads... We have the upper 1% living better than ever and every one else, ahhhh, in the crapper... And the federal governemnt has bent over backwards to make this trend happen... Don't believe me??? The number of off-shore tax evasion accounts has doubled in the last 4 years... Over a $100B in taxes per year that rich folks owe (after Bush's tax give away!!!) have been lost due to off-shore tax loopholes that ***only*** the rich can take advantage of!!! This should be criminal... Here you ahve rich folks who were given the largest tax give-away in the histroy of the United Sates and they still think that they shouldn't have to pay taxes... In 2003 the rich hid $490B in the Cayman Islands... Now that was bad enough... Last year that figure was $822B in otherwise taxable income... This is govrenemnt sponsored theft!!! What we need is some common sense here that allows for folks to be compensated for the amount of wealth they create... The rich don't create jack!!! All wealth is created by labor and right now??? Labor is getting screwed... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Rapparee Date: 15 Apr 07 - 09:14 PM In a perfect world, Bobert, the wealthy would put a significant portion of their wealth back into the "pot" so that it could be used to create wealth for others. As Carnegie wrote, "He who dies rich dies disgraced." But that is no longer the case, and why anyone would pursue wealth far, far beyond their needs is beyond me -- unless it is to do good with it. I agree with you about the role of the government. It appears to me that for the last thirty or so years the aim of the govenment, regardless of the Party in power, is to put more money into the hands of the wealthy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: heric Date: 15 Apr 07 - 09:52 PM If workers were 18% less productive in 2000, who was letting them sit around on their asses so much? It's a good thing they have been cracked in to shape. Seems they owe for the back wages paid but not earned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 15 Apr 07 - 10:12 PM That 18% productivity increase is largely illusory. As I pointed out above, it's largely due to increased spending on technology and, while technology may allow a worker to do more, it's expensive. If an employer is paying someone $30,000 per year and invests $5,400 per year in technology to help that employee do his job more efficiently, that employee has to show an 18% productivity increase for the employer to break even. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Peace Date: 16 Apr 07 - 12:28 AM Not really, because the employer then has a capital asset and a tax deduction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Barry Finn Date: 16 Apr 07 - 07:29 AM and he can sell the employee after he's used him up! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: mack/misophist Date: 16 Apr 07 - 10:16 AM Obscene isn't a good enough word for the wage differential in this country. In San Francisco, a shopping complex in a desirable location is being converted into time shares. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, except that the weekly rental is going to be US$50,000. Something is amiss here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Rapparee Date: 16 Apr 07 - 01:53 PM That something is called "greed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Dickey Date: 16 Apr 07 - 11:35 PM Bobert: I am not saying you are wrong but why are tax revenues have been on a precipitous rise for the last two years while the rich folks are hiding their money off shore and avoiding taxes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 07:42 AM "In a perfect world, Bobert, the wealthy would put a significant portion of their wealth back into the "pot" so that it could be used to create wealth for others." Point of interest: The top 5% income brackets paid 50% of the total taxes collected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Rapparee Date: 17 Apr 07 - 08:33 AM BB, is that corporate or personal taxes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 08:43 AM The reprot was in reference to April 15th, so I presume it was personnal income taxes. Take a look at the amount the rich used to put into charity, before taxes. Is it any more than the present charity and taxes that they pay at this time? Of course, since Medicare and Social Security are NOT taxes ( by government edict), they have not been included in those figures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Rapparee Date: 17 Apr 07 - 09:00 AM I don't believe that you have to pay Social Security on incomes over USD 90,000. May I suggest some reading? While I don't agree with everything the author says, some of it does make sense. (Of course, I don't agree with everything anybody says and my opinions are subject to change without notice.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Apr 07 - 09:04 AM "I don't believe that you have to pay Social Security on incomes over USD 90,000." Actually, one has to pay SS on the FIRST $90,000 of income ( with little to no expectation of ever getting any payment back) regardless of what one's income is- I have been chasing that limit for the last 29 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: autolycus Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:51 PM Capitalism - whoever has the most shit when they die -- WINS!! Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Amos Date: 17 Apr 07 - 05:55 PM Dickey: The graph you linked to does not show tax revenues. It shows the budget deficit. Are you assuming the all the budget deficit reduction (which does not include additions to the national debt, as far as I know) is due to increased revenues? I doubt that. Bush _cut_ taxes , remember? And wants those cuts renewed? If they are it will completely suppress any positive trend in the deficit-reduction graph. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Dickey Date: 18 Apr 07 - 12:40 AM Amos: The chart shows income from taxes minus spending. Spending has bot decreased but income has. Regardless of what you say could happen, it reflects an increase in income while bobert is claiming the rich folks are hiding more and more of their money offshoreand avoiding taxes. As usual, MR. no answer Bobert is so smug, he feels he does not have to support his "facts" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Dickey Date: 18 Apr 07 - 12:45 AM THE TOP 1% PAY 35% Maybe liberals are onto something. They keep saying the rich should pay more taxes, and it turns out the rich already are! That's one of the valuable lessons from the IRS's annual study of income tax data, just released for 2004, says the Wall Street Journal. * Americans who earned more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid $178 billion, or an average of $740,000 per filer, in income taxes in 2004. * That's up about one-third from 2002, the year before the Bush tax cuts in marginal income-tax and dividend and capital gains rates. * The wealthiest 1 percent of tax filers paid a remarkable 35 percent of all individual income-tax payments that year. Some will claim that this merely shows that the Bush tax cuts made the rich richer. In fact, the Statistics of Income data reveal that there were more Americans filing taxes in every income category from $50,000 and up in 2004. In other words, Americans across income categories were (and are) making more money thanks to the buoyant economy spurred in part by the tax cut. The 2004 tax and income statistics also show that reported taxable income rose from 2002 to 2004 despite the cuts in tax rates: * Reported taxable income from those in the highest tax bracket rose by 39 percent; dividend income was up 42 percent, and income reported from capital gains nearly doubled (up 98 percent). * As for capital gains tax collections, they were roughly 50 percent higher in 2004 than before the tax cut. * Another chestnut of good news is that small business net income surged 24.4 percent in 2004 from a year earlier. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116658365804155347.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Peace Date: 18 Apr 07 - 01:31 AM From folks who don't guote a right-wing undergrad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: GUEST,pattyClink Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:23 PM Thanks, peace. If income tax collections are 'soaring' maybe it's because the upper middle class is getting nabbed by the AMT, it's certainly not because all classes are prospering. As for the fairness of taxes paid by the mighty, anybody who thinks we are just po'folk bellyaching should attend to the high priest of wealth: buffett on taxes |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Donuel Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:42 PM It is by design that 90% of the population would be homeless after a brief loss of income. This amounts to total control of the masses. It pays the rich to motivate the poor in such a manner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Dickey Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:44 PM According to the New York Times, Corporate income taxes increased 40.8% between 2004 and 2005 while indididual income taxes increased by 17.6% "The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well. Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/business/13deficit.html?ex=1278907200&en=a410f8c74d4700a5&ei=5090 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Amos Date: 18 Apr 07 - 02:58 PM "We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future -- it will mean we are prospering -- but we also hope that the rest of corporate America antes up along with us," said Buffett, who has previously criticized Bush administration tax policy. Tax cuts won by President Bush, amounting to $1.7 trillion over 10 years, have helped push the federal budget deficit to record levels, as have a weak economy and higher spending for defense and domestic security. "Tax breaks for corporations -- and their investors, particularly large ones -- were a major part of the administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives," Buffett said. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." Buffett's personal wealth is closely tied to his company. Forbes magazine last month put Buffett's net worth at $42.9 billion, most of which is in Berkshire stock. His wealth was just behind that of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, whose estimated net worth stood at $46.6 billion. Buffett's letter, which is 21 pages long this year, is highly anticipated by investors. Unlike most shareholder letters seen as heavy with banalities, Buffett's are considered fun to read and sometimes controversial. Last May, Buffett wrote a Washington Post opinion article criticizing a key element of Bush's tax package -- a cut in tax rates on corporate dividends. Buffett urged that any tax cuts should go to lower-income people or others "who both need and will spend the money gained." " From the link above re Warren Buffett on taxes. Quotes are from 2004. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: PoppaGator Date: 18 Apr 07 - 03:02 PM The only reason that statistics can be used to show that the rich are paying "more" taxes is that the rich are getting so much richer so much faster than ever before while everyone else is getting poorer. As 2% of the population continues to gobble up an ever-expanding share of the wealth that we all pitch in to create, it stands to reason that even the minimal amount of tax payment still being extracted from them can be manipulated to seem large, especially in comparison with the piddling bit available from the 98% of us living from paycheck to paycheck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Amos Date: 18 Apr 07 - 03:40 PM I believe a uniform flat tax of ten percent levied evenly without exemptions on any income above, say, 20K./yr would do wonders for the Federal Revenue stream, and it would free up thusands of auditors who could then be turned to detecting waste and abuse in the system. The logic of the sliding scale of tax is absurd -- it asserts that this is how the richer pay a larger share. But a flat percentage already bills the richer more than the poor. In case anyone hasn''t noticed, ten percent of 1.5 million is a helluva lot more than ten per cent of 24,000. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Dickey Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:13 AM "From folks who don't guote a right-wing undergrad." Ad hominem attack underway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Rapparee Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:26 AM I've long been a believer in a flat tax -- 10%, since that's what the churches want you to give -- on all income over a certain amount. It should also be payable in cash (paper money only!) at any federally insured financial institution. No deductions -- the base amount is you deduction. And everyone pays -- churches, charities, and all, although I'd give non-profits which spend at least 85% of their income doing good a higher non-taxable base. (Government agencies would be exempt, because it's stupid to collect taxes on monies raised from taxes.) Simple, easy to figure, fair, and it would never pass for those reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Amos Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:26 AM But just think, Rapaire -- if it could be clearly proven that such a scheme would raise gross revenues it would be a strong argument for it. What would be come of the IRS? Andof the thousands of clever number-twisters who are part ofthe tax industry? All that creative potential!! The IRS folks, as I said, could be transferred to the Fraud, Waste and Abuse function of the OMB. More visibility into the gargantuan mess that is Federal spending. And REDUCED expeditures with no loss of service. It could be scandalolusly effective. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:58 AM Many of us think a flat tax with some exempted income ( 20,000- 30,000) would be the fairest- But the tax laws are too "good" a means of social engineering for EITHER the liberals or conservatives to allow that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Bobert Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:40 PM Well, aside from the $100B the rich ***hide*** (evade) in taxes in off shore accounts there is a disturbing trend in just how much wealth is being accumulated by the upper 10% and even more disturbing on how much is corraled by the upper 1%... In a recnt study by Emanuel Seaz of University of Ca., Bearkley and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, even after the off shore accounts, the upper 10% corrals 44% of pretax income (money) and the upper 1% a whopping 17%... The percentage for the upper 10% is the highest since the 1920's and 30's and brought about the rise of the labor movement... The 17% for the upper 1% is completely off the charts in terms of historical analysis... My own feeling is that this is a result of governemnt being in the hip pocket of the monied class in ways that the country hasn't seen in a long time, if ever... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Dickey Date: 25 Apr 07 - 12:00 AM "..The problem many investors have is of course a lack of information. I would wager to guess that up to 95% of all US based accountants, investment advisors and even most tax attorneys based in North America are very ignorant when it comes to offshore entities. The myth of course is that offshore structures are only for the super wealthy or for criminals. The reality is that many individuals and business owners have used these programs successfully for years to protect their hard-earned assets and reduce their taxes. In addition, through an offshore entity, investors have the opportunity to own a number of well-known mutual funds. An example would include the offshore funds managed by the legendary George Soros, Fidelity Investments, Guiness Flight, Templeton and others. Also, certain real estate investments and bonds (such as US backed Brady Bonds) become available and are also tax-free when the owner is an offshore entity...." http://www.ascotadvisory.com/How_To_Form_An_Offshore_Panama_Company.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Wealth and Income in the US From: Dickey Date: 25 Apr 07 - 12:12 AM WHY THE MARKETS CAN'T FIX THEMSELVES. by George Soros "...During the recent [1990's] boom, corporations used every device at their disposal to boost earnings to satisfy the ever-rising expectations that sustained ever-rising stock prices. Clever financial engineers invented ever-new devices--and when they ran out of legitimate ones, some corporations turned to illegitimate ones. When the market turned, some of these illegitimate practices were exposed. For instance, Enron, like many companies, used special purpose entities (SPEs) to keep debts off its balance sheets. But unlike many other companies, it used its own stock to guarantee the debt of its SPE. When its stock price fell, the scheme unraveled and Enron was pushed into bankruptcy, exposing a number of other financial misdeeds the company had committed. The Enron bankruptcy reinforced the downtrend in the stock market, which led to further bankruptcies and news of further corporate and individual misdeeds. Both this downtrend and the clamor for corrective action gathered momentum in a self-reinforcing fashion--just as reflexivity envisions. There is nothing surprising about this course of events. It has happened many times before. The real surprise is that we are surprised. After all, many of the practices that are now condemned were carried on quite openly. Everybody knew that the best companies, such as General Electric and Microsoft, were massaging the numbers to maintain the appearance of a steady progression of earnings. Indeed, investors put a premium on management's ability to do just that. SPEs could be bought off the shelf, and investment banks maintained structured finance departments to provide custom-made designs. Tyco's management proudly proclaimed that they could generate earnings growth by acquiring companies, some of which could be moved offshore by virtue of Tyco's Bermuda incorporation, and investors put a high multiple on its earnings. Stock options were not only accepted but considered a useful device for boosting shareholders' values since they provided executive compensation without incurring any costs and encouraged management to focus on the stock price above all other considerations...." http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/gs21.html |
