So the rich are defined by income, and not by, say, accumulated wealth? Does this measure influence?My friend found this cnn link that defines the top 1% of household income at ~340K anually.By the way, how rich are the rich 1%? How are they defined?
That is why I said that is how CNN is chosing to define rich. I do not like that measurement, because it does not consider how much of the income is disposable. For instance, Doctors made up a significant portion of the list, but a significant portion of their income is dedicated to insurance and they (and lawyers) have significant student loans. Wealth <> income, but there is a very significant correlation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, don't. It came up in another thread, and merits a thoughtful, informed discussion.
IMO, this is not an astroturf movement (unions are starting to get involved only now) like the Teaparty demonstrations, but a genuine organic movement; a reaction to the overreaching of entrenched power and the rigged game they've created. The police reactions to these demonstrations as opposed to the astroturfed ones gives further weight to my assertion, not less.
Occupy Wall Street has some demands. They're not entirely finalized, and your input is invited, should you wish to comment or vote.
This is so laughably backwords as to be almost a parody. OCW was created by big groups and financiers (like Soros) so it is most definitely "astroturf", complete with advertising for paid "protesters".
As to their demands, They want to impose a "maximum wage". On their list they have the highest annaul salary at $35,000. Another of their demands is that the minimum wage should be raised to $20/hr (which works out to $41,600/yr). So not only are they crazy, but they're bad at math too :)
Or, don't. It came up in another thread, and merits a thoughtful, informed discussion.
IMO, this is not an astroturf movement (unions are starting to get involved only now) like the Teaparty demonstrations, but a genuine organic movement; a reaction to the overreaching of entrenched power and the rigged game they've created. The police reactions to these demonstrations as opposed to the astroturfed ones gives further weight to my assertion, not less.
Occupy Wall Street has some demands. They're not entirely finalized, and your input is invited, should you wish to comment or vote.
This is so laughably backwords as to be almost a parody. OCW was created by big groups and financiers (like Soros) so it is most definitely "astroturf", complete with advertising for paid "protesters".
As to their demands, They want to impose a "maximum wage". On their list they have the highest annaul salary at $35,000. Another of their demands is that the minimum wage should be raised to $20/hr (which works out to $41,600/yr). So not only are they crazy, but they're bad at math too :)
This is so amasingly ill-informed I don't even know where to begin...
This is so amasingly ill-informed I don't even know where to begin...
Well, given how coherent this movement has been, it's tough to nail down demands when the ones that have been cited/posted are then denied/refuted by others within the same movement...
That said, I'd suggest "amazingly" as a good beginning point. ;)
This is so laughably backwords as to be almost a parody. OCW was created by big groups and financiers (like Soros) so it is most definitely "astroturf", complete with advertising for paid "protesters".As to their demands, They want to impose a "maximum wage". On their list they have the highest annaul salary at $35,000. Another of their demands is that the minimum wage should be raised to $20/hr (which works out to $41,600/yr). So not only are they crazy, but they're bad at math too :)
I, too, would love to see your sources.
Sure,, why not? Sometimes people with unusual messages go away when you give them a forum -launched by their own petard in a sense. Not that I want them to just up and leave, min, i just want to have the opportunity to give them a proper listen and dismiss them after having heard all the facts.i still think there is a limit of people running based on party.And if we had to give equal time to..
The Abe Lincoln party
Democrats
The Marihuana Reform party
The Party for Marihuana Reform
The Judian Peoples front
The Peoples front of Judea
Republicans
There are certainly ways to make it work. For example, to be considered a candidate in a presidential campaign and get equal air time for your campaign, perhaps you need to collect 50,000 signatures in each of 15 states. For a senate run, perhaps you need to collect signatures equal to 2% of the number of registered voters in the state. Thresholds can be set to prevent the extremes that would harm the democratic process (i.e. so high only one candidate can meet it, or so low the ballot has hundreds or thousands of names on it). With criteria like that, you wouldn't have to have a major established party to be competitive, and I think that could only be a good thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I suggested, I think it's the investing rich that are the problem. And CEOs of some of the big companies, but they're closer to investing rich than to working rich, since much of their income usually comes from bonuses based on short term company performance.
Huh? Since when did receipt of a short term bonus count as investment?
There really aren't a lot of working rich. As I said above, I'm a lot more worried about the 0.1% than the 1%, but that's not as good a sound bite.
Edit: It should be clear from the "Wall Street" focus of the movement, that they're more concerned with the "investment rich" than the "working rich".
What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway? This seems like the difference between "rich people I disapprove of" and "rich people I approve of". After all, a CEO, even a banking CEO, has a job, so he is working - working rich. And what is fundamentally bad on "investing"? If no one invested, there wouldn't be any industry, no workers, no nothing.
What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway?
One adds something to society while the other moves money from point A and puts slightly less money at point B.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Becasue it's everyone's business what one does with one's money.
Becasue it's everyone's business what one does with one's money.
Everyone's business? Nope. But certainly it is the IRS's business. We've had a tax code that differentiates between capital gains and income for decades.
...unless we're going to go down the "all taxation is theft/invasion of privacy" road -- in which case, I'll just get off the bus right here...
*looks for pull-cord.*
Income vs. capital gains...seems pretty straightforward to me. Perhaps we're over-complicating matters?
When I, at least, talk about the 1%, I am talking about the 1% of americans who are sitting at the top of the distribution of this nation's aggregate wealth. The top 1% of net worth, not the top 1% of income.
What exactly is the difference between an "investment rich" and a "working rich" person anyway?
Read The Great Gatsby. Old money vs. new money. IE: family money vs. income.
People who are truly wealthy don't work.
EDIT: and yes capital gains vs. income.
People who are truly wealthy don't work.
Right...they're "job creators." ;-)
Although I think many people working in the investment industry (who often accumulate vast sums using other people's money, irrespective of whether their clients prosper) are a large part of the problem. It isn't that they're "bad" people -- it's that the incentives are all wrong. Everything is about the next quarter's (or the next months, or the next DAY's) return. Get rich and GET OUT before the house of cards comes down...
People who are truly wealthy don't work.Right...they're "job creators." ;-)
Lol :)
Although I think many people working in the investment industry (who often accumulate vast sums using other people's money, irrespective of whether their clients prosper) are a large part of the problem. It isn't that they're "bad" people -- it's that the incentives are all wrong. Everything is about the next quarter's (or the next months, or the next DAY's) return. Get rich and GET OUT before the house of cards comes down...
I'm not sure if I would call that work or not. I think it's a game to them. I'm not sure if I'd agree they're not bad people either. Maybe I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and call them true neutral?
I'm not sure if I'd agree they're not bad people either. Maybe I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and call them true neutral?
Let me rephrase...I should have said that they're not necessarily bad. :)
Net worth vs. income. Hm...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Net worth vs. income. Hm...
The implication being net worth is built by carefully saving income?
Unfortunately, that very often isn't so, especially in the case of the very rich. Just look at some of the toys:
* Inheritance. See: Paris Hilton, the Walton family, etc.
* IPOs -- many, many people get rich off selling shares of a company that never makes a dime -- that is, a company that destroys wealth. I've never seen anyone even *try* to explain how that is good for the economy...
* For those that do work, deriving the vast majority of compensation from stock, which when sold is a capital gain.
* Commissions (make big money off trades, even if the investor later loses his shorts). See: Mortgage-backed securities.
* Cronyism
* Lobbying
The idea that everyone plays by the same rules is a nice story -- but that's exactly what it is: A story. :(
I would be interested in seeing the average hours spent doing their "job" for some of these "elite" investment brokers and such. I mean if quite a few of them are are putting in 14 hour days, 6 days a week. Yeah, it might be a "game" to them, but I'd have a hard time suggesting that they weren't also working.
Now if they got up at noon, did some online trading for 4 hours, once every three days, and then spent the rest of the day playing video games and doing smack, then sure I can see how they wouldn't be considered working.
|
* Inheritance. See: Paris Hilton, the Walton family, etc.
Inheritance means someone had to work for the money at some point. Or youre a descendent of very successful pirates.
Just sayin'.
I want to be able to decide what to do with my own money.
When I'm old and dead, if I have kids, I want to have the right to give it to them if I want.
I'm starting out with nothing, and 60k in student loan debt. If I have kids, I'll want them to start in a better position. That's pretty reasonable, and if someone tried to take that away from me and I was already old and had been saving up? Don't be surprised if the people trying to rob me get a chest full of buck-shot.
You can't get rid of inheritance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* Inheritance. See: Paris Hilton, the Walton family, etc.Inheritance means someone had to work for the money at some point. Or youre a descendent of very successful pirates.
Just sayin'.
I want to be able to decide what to do with my own money.
When I'm old and dead, if I have kids, I want to have the right to give it to them if I want.I'm starting out with nothing, and 60k in student loan debt. If I have kids, I'll want them to start in a better position. That's pretty reasonable, and if someone tried to take that away from me and I was already old and had been saving up? Don't be surprised if the people trying to rob me get a chest full of buck-shot.
You can't get rid of inheritance.
I agree that inheritance means that someone had to get wealthy at some point. Was it through hard work? Sometimes. Sometimes not. See above. :)
As for inheritance: I agree you can't get rid of it -- but you can sure tax it. Very progressively. As someone recently observed, nobody gets wealthy on their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* Inheritance. See: Paris Hilton, the Walton family, etc.Inheritance means someone had to work for the money at some point. Or youre a descendent of very successful pirates.
Just sayin'.
The latter is the case more often than not. Where there is great wealth, there is great crime.
I want to be able to decide what to do with my own money.
When I'm old and dead, if I have kids, I want to have the right to give it to them if I want.
The estate tax will never, ever be a real concern for you or the rest of us 99% (or 99.9% or whatever).
I'm starting out with nothing, and 60k in student loan debt. If I have kids, I'll want them to start in a better position. That's pretty reasonable, and if someone tried to take that away from me and I was already old and had been saving up? Don't be surprised if the people trying to rob me get a chest full of buck-shot.
You can't get rid of inheritance.
No you can't, nor does anyone want to. But you can tax the hell out of the billions some families leave their children. While you and I spend our lifetimes busting our butts to leave the kids a few hundred thousand dollars (if we're lucky), the Walton kids are each as rich as a small nation, just for being born.
As someone recently observed, nobody gets wealthy on their own.
Some commie, the way I heard it. :P
Hmm. Pretty true I suppose.
Sidenote~
I'm canadian. there is no tax on inheritance in my country.
Canadian? Well, this is all your fault then. ;-)
How is the weather up there? I visited Calgary once -- beautiful area.
|
|
Hmm. Pretty true I suppose.
Sidenote~
I'm canadian. there is no tax on inheritance in my country.
Canadian? Well, this is all your fault then. ;-)
How is the weather up there? I visited Calgary once -- beautiful area.
I live in Ontario. lately (the past week or so) the weather is like 10 degrees and raining. It's pretty crap. That's in celcius btw. lol.
And from what I hear, calgary is a terrible place nowadays. big problem with drugs, and muggings, and violent crimes. They had to cut down the trees along the roads because people were hiding in them and jumping out to attack people as they walked by, and they started finding junkies who froze to death in the trees/bushes in the winter.
When I hear my dad talk about calgary from 15 years ago, it sounds like it was a beautiful city. Its a shame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And from what I hear, calgary is a terrible place nowadays. big problem with drugs, and muggings, and violent crimes. They had to cut down the trees along the roads because people were hiding in them and jumping out to attack people as they walked by, and they started finding junkies who froze to death in the trees/bushes in the winter.
When I hear my dad talk about calgary from 15 years ago, it sounds like it was a beautiful city. Its a shame.
That's horrible! Gah, you did more damage to my fond memories than George Lucas! ;-)
|
|
In addition to the other comments, what do you mean by your kids starting out in a better position? Hopefully, they'll be well past starting out by the time they inherit. You get them started by raising them well, educating them well, maybe making sure they don't have $60K in student loans and maybe helping them get their first jobs, not by leaving them a huge chunk of money when you die and they're hopefully in their 50s or even 60s.
The estate tax is not, and has never been, about giving the kids a better start. It's about preserving and growing dynastic wealth and power.
Heh. I suppose thats true. I wasnt thinking timeline-wise. Maybe I wont have kids until I'm 60.
Okay. Grandkids then. lol.
If I put the effort into saving money instead of blowing it as I get it, why would anyone have a right to tell me what I can do with it?
I dont understand how anyone can accept taxing inheritance.
Does it mean someone might get a free ride? Yeah. that can happen.
But I mean. Say you decide to gift a huge chunk of your money to someone. Just go to their house and hand it to them. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.
Just another POV. I'm against taxing inheritance, even if it means some people are getting a free ride because of something their great-great-great grandfather did.
And in most of the other ways, I agree wwith the concept of OWS. Some people made some retarded decisions, and should be held accountable. Likewise, the legislation that protects people doing those illegal or stupid things by making corporations count as people? I'm against that.
I didnt have any problems with the other arguments. Just the complaint about inheritance.
|
|
Suppose you hire somebody to do something and pay them a chunk of your money to do it. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.
What makes it any different?
To the kids, it's income. If it was taxed as income, far more people would be affected by it than under any recent US estate tax laws. Though it would be less at the highest end.
Hmm.
Well in canada you dont pay an inheritance tax on cash, but for things like stocks and such(anything canada doesnt let you transfer), I believe they're sold, and taxed as income before they go toward inheritance.
For things that are directly transferrable that are not cash? I'm not sure how that works here.
Though I suppose to the kids, its income.
What about to your wife? Say she doesnt work, stay at home parent type thing, and noww youre old and retired. You die, you give the cash to her as inheritance.
Should she be taxed as though she just earned a huge amount of money, even though its the savings shes been living off since you both retired?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I mean. Say you decide to gift a huge chunk of your money to someone. Just go to their house and hand it to them. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.
Actually, the government does say it has a right to that. It counts as "income" for the person receiving it. I guess the concern might be that you could give me a diamond ring as a "gift" and I could give you $5,000 as a "present" and we wouldn't have to pay tax because you didn't sell me the ring.
Honestly though, there are most likely ways around it that I'm sure wealthy people know how (I don't since I'm not wealthy). Things like setting up a corporation or something having the money in that and having the people that are going to inherit be on the "board" or some such. Like I said, I don't know, but I'm sure there is ways. Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.
|
|
I think there are exceptions for couples, largely because they tend to hold things in common. If her name is already on the account, it's not an inheritance, it's not even income.
What about to your wife? Say she doesnt work, stay at home parent type thing, and noww youre old and retired. You die, you give the cash to her as inheritance.Should she be taxed as though she just earned a huge amount of money, even though its the savings shes been living off since you both retired?
True, but lots of couples have some shared accounts, and some individual accounts.
Anyways guys I'm off to work. It's been interesting.
Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.
Even if that is true, it seems to me that an exception (say the first few million in 2011 dollars) would solve the problem.
In any case, no one said the point was to "harm the super rich." You seem to have come up with that.
|
Suppose you hire somebody to do something and pay them a chunk of your money to do it. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.
What makes it any different?
To the kids, it's income. If it was taxed as income, far more people would be affected by it than under any recent US estate tax laws. Though it would be less at the highest end.
Hmm.
Well in canada you dont pay an inheritance tax on cash, but for things like stocks and such(anything canada doesnt let you transfer), I believe they're sold, and taxed as income before they go toward inheritance.
For things that are directly transferrable that are not cash? I'm not sure how that works here.
Though I suppose to the kids, its income.
What about to your wife? Say she doesnt work, stay at home parent type thing, and noww youre old and retired. You die, you give the cash to her as inheritance.
Should she be taxed as though she just earned a huge amount of money, even though its the savings shes been living off since you both retired?
There is no tax on inheritances (although the provinces have a very modest probate fee) - what you are thinking about here is called the "terminal tax return".
Effectively on death you are deemed to have sold all your capital property for its fair market value - if this triggers a capital taxable gain, then the estate has to pay it. (Capital gains are taxed at 1/2 the rate of income).
Avoiding this terminal year is trivial (by design) You can transfer just about everything to your spouse without tax.
Basically this set up allows you to look after your spouse when you die, and ensures that any gain on the capital property will be taxed at some point (capital being taxed only on sale, not on an accrual basis like income).
Farms and fishing property given to children are also tax exempt. There is also a massive small business capital gains exemption you can use.
|
|
Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.Even if that is true, it seems to me that an exception (say the first few million in 2011 dollars) would solve the problem.
In any case, no one said the point was to "harm the super rich." You seem to have come up with that.
Avoiding taxing small business and farms is pretty trivial. We've been doing it since '72 up here, and I imagine you folks have been too.
Not sure where I stand on inheritance taxes. Haven't spent much time thinking about it.
But I mean. Say you decide to gift a huge chunk of your money to someone. Just go to their house and hand it to them. Should the government have a right to take a big chunk of it away? I mean, you worked for it.Actually, the government does say it has a right to that. It counts as "income" for the person receiving it. I guess the concern might be that you could give me a diamond ring as a "gift" and I could give you $5,000 as a "present" and we wouldn't have to pay tax because you didn't sell me the ring.
In the US anyway you're taxed on gifts received above a certain amount.
Like it has been said, inheretence was at one point tax free-a transferrance of accumulated wealth. Shouldn't it be taxed as income for the recipient? Perhaps not, because the rate would be high, and inheretence/death tax rates are lower than income taxes.
Heh. I suppose thats true. I wasnt thinking timeline-wise. Maybe I wont have kids until I'm 60.
Okay. Grandkids then. lol.
If I put the effort into saving money instead of blowing it as I get it, why would anyone have a right to tell me what I can do with it?
I dont understand how anyone can accept taxing inheritance.
Some people are horribly offended by the prospect of people having more money than they have, and this is one way to take it away.
Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.This. If you look into the matter, you will see that some of the biggest proponents of huge inheritance taxes are "big farming" corporations, who stand to make a sizable profit when the original owners of these small farms who haven't yet sold out to them die, and their progeny are forced to sell off the land in a hurry in order to pay the inheritance taxes.
Basically the inheritance tax is more about destroying family farms and small businesses that truly harming the super rich.This. If you look into the matter, you will see that some of the biggest proponents of huge inheritance taxes are "big farming" corporations, who stand to make a sizable profit when the original owners of these small farms who haven't yet sold out to them die, and their progeny are forced to sell off the land in a hurry in order to pay the inheritance taxes.Interesting.
Some people are horribly offended by the prospect of people having more money than they have, and this is one way to take it away.
Clearly this is the only possibility.
*sigh*
Good news, some banks are getting what's coming to them. Now we just need to get the rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people are horribly offended by the prospect of people having more money than they have, and this is one way to take it away.
10-20% of Americans are just sitting at home, stoically refusing to work, because they're jealous of rich children.
-OR-
Propoganda inflates and obfuscates an issue that means nothing whatsoever to almost anyone to such a large degree that nearly everyone in its target audience imagines they are somehow affected by it.