Re: American Presidential Candidates
for me its going to be between Romney and Obama, i can't see myself voting for any of the other candidates. neither of these two may be ideal candidates but unless there is a better alternative thats what it is
Re: American Presidential Candidates
Romney has million stashed in the Caymen Islands. He trasferred lots of assets to his kids without paying taxes. His tax rate is 14%. All of it legal.
He says the poor have a safety net, so not a problem. Symtomatic of what is wrong, Bain Capital has been hired by Americal Airlines to restructure pension plans - AA is required to pay 98 million oer year into the plan - but they paid only 7 million. They are paying Bain Capital $14M per year (I think) to helo rework the agreement. So they choose to pay huge amtto Bain so they can avoid paying into pension plans for pilots and stewardesses etc.
Romney is too hollow, shallow and a money grabbing person for my taste.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
^ what's wrong about transferring money or tax shelters, as long as it is done legally?
and if AMR didn't pay obligations, why do you blame Blain or Romney for that?
Re: American Presidential Candidates
when he tries to steal my money in the name additional tax
Would you like to share your effective tax rate? If not than maybe you can explain how the government is "stealing your money" with additional tax?
And to answer you question on "what's wrong about transferring money or tax shelters, as long as it is done legally?" is if the people 'sheltering' the money get to decide what is legal or not legal.
That is like when professional players get caught taking growth enhancing drugs say 'well, the one I took is legal' ... and totally disregarding the fact that by taking drugs, weather considered legal or illegal, they are cheating & skewing the system & results in their favor.
The question isn't weather or not Romney has legal or illegal possession of wealth .. it is weather the rules he or other multi-millionaires play by are fair to the rest of the society.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
25% not including state, sales & property. What about it? "Stealing" not in the literal sense but right now almost 40% of everything I make goes into taxes.
How much more do I have to pay? I see people refusing to work a Saturday but I do - shouldn't I get to enjoy fruits of my additional labor, more in relation to the other guy who doesn't work Saturday (just as an example).
Oh, I cannot deduct my mortgage interest in effect - because AMT recaptures it.
I cannot deduct college tuition
It feels like I am penalized because I work harder, make more money.
I don't understand what you mean by the next sentence about tax shelters. elaborate what you are saying. As long as I am within the laws, why is it bad if I hold assets elsewhere?
Re: American Presidential Candidates
I assume the 25% is your federal tax rate, which btw is the most typical tax bracket in US. Anyone who's taxable income is $34k to $85k a year pays that rate. (The rest of the taxes depend on where you chose to live and everyone pays those taxes equally)
If you are on the border of $85K and so by working on the weekends takes you to the next tax bracket, your tax rate goes up by only 3% to 28% (up to $175K a year) .. so unless your weekend job is really paying off, I wouldn't consider it "penalizing".
When Obama or anyone else currently talks about "raising taxes" they talk about people making take home incomes of $250K or more, but if that is going to happen is still to be seen. But what will most likely happen is the tax for the very small % of Americans who's income come from "capital gains". So unless your income that you are planning to earn by working extra comes from capital gains, I don't think you have to worry about the government 'stealing' your money.
Last but not least, my statement about 'tax shelters' goes beyond what is legal and what is illegal. It is about what is moral and immoral! If I have the means ($$) to hire lobbyists to pass a legislation that states 'all people who happen to have lived 10 years of their life in Pakistan get special tax treatment where they can shelter their earnings in Karakorum and pay 10% in taxes" ... it will be completely legal and totally unethical.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
25% not including state, sales & property. What about it? "Stealing" not in the literal sense but right now almost 40% of everything I make goes into taxes.
How much more do I have to pay? I see people refusing to work a Saturday but I do - shouldn't I get to enjoy fruits of my additional labor, more in relation to the other guy who doesn't work Saturday (just as an example).
Oh, I cannot deduct my mortgage interest in effect - because AMT recaptures it.
I cannot deduct college tuition
It feels like I am penalized because I work harder, make more money.
I don't understand what you mean by the next sentence about tax shelters. elaborate what you are saying. As long as I am within the laws, why is it bad if I hold assets elsewhere?
Don't buy so much and your sales tax would be down.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
^ what's wrong about transferring money or tax shelters, as long as it is done legally?
and if AMR didn't pay obligations, why do you blame Blain or Romney for that?
As I mentioned, he did not break the law. However, voters can take into account if what he did was reflective of excessive greed.
Bain Capital is an active player in enabling AMR to avoid putting monet into the pension funds for hardworking people. Again, nothing illegal. Receiving $14M for this, while the hardworking workers are getting stiffed - certainly not my idea for leadership.
Of course reasonable people may disagree.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
ahmadjee! You asked for my effective tax rate, not tax bracket; so I gavce you just that (Taxable Income / Tax).
Donno where you live but you cannot be called rich if you make only 250k and live in Ny and a few other places. Obama is not merely talking about capital gains - he is talking about the ‘rich’ many times without using that term. Try living ‘rich’ in NYC if you take home only 250k.
And what difference does it make whether the income comes from wages or capital gains? You do know that you cannot deduct more that $3000 in net capital losses but you will be taxed on ALL of your capital gains! (yeah I can carry the rest of the capital losses forward but that is a different story). Point here - don’t try to see any logic or fairness in tax laws. I understand that and that is why I work harder and smarter to get rich in spite of such unprincipled laws.
But I am not sure if you grasp my main whine, especially since you talk about moral and immoral. So I will emphasize my point from a morality pov.
I studied hard and earned whatever skills & knowledge which makes somebody pay me, say $1000 a day for doing some work. Someone else acquired even better skills/knowledge or results and therefore they get paid $10000 a day. And a third person, took it easy at school, didn’t aspire for complex skills etc - and they get paid say $100 a day. IS there anything immoral about this variation?
Assuming you say no (ie nothing immoral about it), then why should I be taxed at a rate higher than the other guy? The current & past tax brackets have already been doing just that by charging the three of 3 different rates. Now Obama comes along and wants to make this differential even more!
Ofcourse there are people who make lot less or nothing at all due to unfortunate circumstances and I fully agree it is a human and moral dictate that those who are able to must help our fellow human beings (and animals). But let me do that myself!
Especially since if 85% of every charity dollar goes to the needy, hardly 15% of what I pay the government goes to the needy. The rest goes to pay the bureaucrats, politicians and for marines to go get killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
In this recession, house prices and jobs and salaries went up in one metro area while the rest of the country sagged, dropped or cliffed. Washington DC.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
As I mentioned, he did not break the law. However, voters can take into account if what he did was reflective of excessive greed.
Bain Capital is an active player in enabling AMR to avoid putting monet into the pension funds for hardworking people. Again, nothing illegal. Receiving $14M for this, while the hardworking workers are getting stiffed - certainly not my idea for leadership.
Of course reasonable people may disagree.
My point is, yes we should find a solution for ensuring hardworking workers getting stiffed; but that is not Bain's or Romney's fault.
Whether you are a toll collector, a policeman, a teacher or a buerocrat - the problem is prevalent. For example, look at the amount of 'unused vacation cashed' in the last 2 to 3 years of service of many retirees - it spikes because the plans count that towards determining the rate at which the entire service is multiped at to calculate the pension payment! Just a small example.
If you look at the old IBM, GM, Delta Airlines etc retirement provisions, you will notice that they are sustainable if and only if each and every company continues to grow in revenue, profitability endlessly to fund the reverse retirement pyramid!
Lack of such analysis by the companies and the lack of integrity (or gaming the system) by such employees - is that a consultant such as Bain's fault? They are providing a service. It is up to you to hire or not hire them!
Do you know that the pension liability of many many of America's top 100 companies is between 35% and 90% of their....be sitting down....their market cap? That's right. If every share is liquidated at current market price, that is how much will be required to just meet the pension liability.
If you think this through, it'd turn out that the problem is a much bigger and different set of macro issues - unfortunately politicians, CFOs and a brand of economists oversimplify the issue.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
@ahmadjee - you gotta read this one.
Quote one of the paragraphs:
“How could Mr. Ross pay so much? I thought I was the victim of a perfect storm of punitive tax policies, but Mr. Ross’s situation is worse. Like me, he lives and works in New York City, which all but guarantees a high tax rate. Nearly all of his income is earned income and thus fully taxable at top rates. (He said that’s not always the case, but given the recent dire condition of real estate, in 2010 he had few capital gains and his carried interest didn’t yield any income.) Unlike me, he can’t make any itemized deductions, which means his adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million, the level at which New York State eliminates all itemized deductions, except for 50 percent of the value of charitable contributions. Mr. Ross said he gave 11 percent of his adjusted gross income to charity.”
Re: American Presidential Candidates
^ Correct me if I am reading this wrong but the article states that because his (Mr. Ross) income which it seems is above a million dollars a year (correct?) & because he happens to live in NYC, he doesn't get to deduct anything, so including state, property & other gives a effective tax rate of 40-50%.
Currently the federal tax rate of 35% starts around $375K (33% around 175K) ... which btw is much lower than what it used to be. 50% in early Reagan years 39% in Clinton years and since Bush's first term 2003-4 it is down to 35%
And Obama is saying, anyone who makes 250K or above, pays 39%, like in Clinton years (Usually quotes as "letting the Bush taxes expire")
So, you might think it as 'government stealing your money' but I call it a way to reduce the ballooning deficit, cos of wars that I don't like & pork spending that I can't get my government to stop ... but if you are among the 2% of American Households that earn $250K a year, you might vote Romney to keep the status quo.
Actually I would prefer you vote Obama but hire Romney's Tax firm ... cos there are always loopholes.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
"
I studied hard and earned whatever skills & knowledge which makes somebody pay me, say $1000 a day for doing some work. Someone else acquired even better skills/knowledge or results and therefore they get paid $10000 a day. And a third person, took it easy at school, didn't aspire for complex skills etc - and they get paid say $100 a day. IS there anything immoral about this variation?
<<<<<<"
I don't think there is anything immoral in this variance.
But the basic flaw in your argument is that you assume that the three people you mentioned in your post (1000, 10000, 100) all start with the same "opportunity" level.
There is own hard work involved in anyone's personal financial success & there is the available windows of opportunity. I believe that it is the government's job to ensure that everyone gets the same opportunities (not the same wealth) and the variance comes from the choices people make. And we as a society is far away from it.
I live in a nice neighborhood, if I don't make an extra effort, my social circle revolves around people with graduate degrees & wealth. My daughter mingles with kids who talk about spelling bees & science projects. If she makes the right choices she has the "opportunity" to very successful, financially . But I don't think that half the kids her age, living in the same city, have the same opportunities. So if my tax $ go towards leveling the playing field by improving the schools for other kids then I wouldn't mind paying extra.
If by taxing me at a higher rate, a lower income family gets to keep more of what they earn through their hard word, I don't consider it 'penalizing' at all. That is the reason why in all "1st" world countries have a progressive tax rate.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
hardly 15% of what I pay the government goes to the needy <<< <
Calling bull**** on this.
Here is a report that talks about medicare, medicaid & social security administrative cost vs. what reaches beneficiaries. For example for medicaid, it claims only 4% goes to administrative cost.
Don’t have time to read the report? Here is a little graph that summarizes it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/centeronbudget/6684599815/
If that is a ‘liberal’ take on finances, even if they quote CBO (Congressional Budget Office) numbers, it is still no where near close to 85% of waste you claim it to be.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
My point is, yes we should find a solution for ensuring hardworking workers getting stiffed; but that is not Bain's or Romney's fault.
Whether you are a toll collector, a policeman, a teacher or a buerocrat - the problem is prevalent. For example, look at the amount of 'unused vacation cashed' in the last 2 to 3 years of service of many retirees - it spikes because the plans count that towards determining the rate at which the entire service is multiped at to calculate the pension payment! Just a small example.
If you look at the old IBM, GM, Delta Airlines etc retirement provisions, you will notice that they are sustainable if and only if each and every company continues to grow in revenue, profitability endlessly to fund the reverse retirement pyramid!
Lack of such analysis by the companies and the lack of integrity (or gaming the system) by such employees - is that a consultant such as Bain's fault? They are providing a service. It is up to you to hire or not hire them!
Do you know that the pension liability of many many of America's top 100 companies is between 35% and 90% of their....be sitting down....their market cap? That's right. If every share is liquidated at current market price, that is how much will be required to just meet the pension liability.
If you think this through, it'd turn out that the problem is a much bigger and different set of macro issues - unfortunately politicians, CFOs and a brand of economists oversimplify the issue.
I am well aware of pension obligations of various companies. That still does not excuse Amercican Airlines' decision to pay $14M to Bain Capital so they can avoid dpaying 94M to the pension funds. It is just plain immoral and unethical.
The CEO pay : median pay of the working stiff is at an all time high. Union busting tactics, redistricting, making it difficult for minorites to vote are all strategies emplyed by the Republican party, which I find repugnant. Not say the Demorates are angels. I do not care for how the Pbama administration (and the previuos administration) coddled Wall street - as an example, allowing Sachs to get 100 cents on the dollar.
The Tea Party is nothing but Koch brothers hoodwinking the masses into voting against their best interest.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
^ Correct me if I am reading this wrong but the article states that because his (Mr. Ross) income which it seems is above a million dollars a year (correct?) & because he happens to live in NYC, he doesn't get to deduct anything, so including state, property & other gives a effective tax rate of 40-50%.
Currently the federal tax rate of 35% starts around $375K (33% around 175K) ... which btw is much lower than what it used to be. 50% in early Reagan years 39% in Clinton years and since Bush's first term 2003-4 it is down to 35%
And Obama is saying, anyone who makes 250K or above, pays 39%, like in Clinton years (Usually quotes as "letting the Bush taxes expire")
So, you might think it as 'government stealing your money' but I call it a way to reduce the ballooning deficit, cos of wars that I don't like & pork spending that I can't get my government to stop ... but if you are among the 2% of American Households that earn $250K a year, you might vote Romney to keep the status quo.
Actually I would prefer you vote Obama but hire Romney's Tax firm ... cos there are always loopholes.
only partially correct. This is what happens (I am talking from personal experience but in no way unique) -
Whether you live in NYC or elsewhere, what happens is beyond a certain AGI, AMT applies. Regardless of whatever tax deductions you have, it applies a rate and you have to pay it - meaning tuition, mortgage interest, whatever else so called-deductions become meaningless. So in addition to paying a higher rate of tax, you are also paying it on a bigger base.
Now, if you also happen to live in NYC, in calculating the state & local taxes, it disallows many of the deductions allowed in the fed tax.
To buy a decent apartment in NYC it costs a million! Studios go for 750k! across the Hudson in Jersey city, a 1BR goes for 600k!
Ofcourse Mr.Ross is an extreme case - it neither makes my point or yours - simply shows how inconsistent the tax regime is.
Re: American Presidential Candidates
" I studied hard and earned whatever skills & knowledge which makes somebody pay me, say $1000 a day for doing some work. Someone else acquired even better skills/knowledge or results and therefore they get paid $10000 a day. And a third person, took it easy at school, didn't aspire for complex skills etc - and they get paid say $100 a day. IS there anything immoral about this variation? <<<<<<"
I don't think there is anything immoral in this variance.
But the basic flaw in your argument is that you assume that the three people you mentioned in your post (1000, 10000, 100) all start with the same "opportunity" level.
There is own hard work involved in anyone's personal financial success & there is the available windows of opportunity. I believe that it is the government's job to ensure that everyone gets the same opportunities (not the same wealth) and the variance comes from the choices people make. And we as a society is far away from it.
I live in a nice neighborhood, if I don't make an extra effort, my social circle revolves around people with graduate degrees & wealth. My daughter mingles with kids who talk about spelling bees & science projects. If she makes the right choices she has the "opportunity" to very successful, financially . But I don't think that half the kids her age, living in the same city, have the same opportunities. So if my tax $ go towards leveling the playing field by improving the schools for other kids then I wouldn't mind paying extra.
If by taxing me at a higher rate, a lower income family gets to keep more of what they earn through their hard word, I don't consider it 'penalizing' at all. That is the reason why in all "1st" world countries have a progressive tax rate.
If the reason the deficit was incurred and my taxes which are already 'progressively higher' are raised even higher, is to raise funds for schools and opportunity to the under-priveleged, I will have less objection.
But tell me honestly, is that why we have trillions in deficits and incurring more? Is that where my money is going to go?
Re: American Presidential Candidates
I am well aware of pension obligations of various companies. That still does not excuse Amercican Airlines' decision to pay $14M to Bain Capital so they can avoid dpaying 94M to the pension funds. It is just plain immoral and unethical.
The CEO pay : median pay of the working stiff is at an all time high. Union busting tactics, redistricting, making it difficult for minorites to vote are all strategies emplyed by the Republican party, which I find repugnant. Not say the Demorates are angels. I do not care for how the Pbama administration (and the previuos administration) coddled Wall street - as an example, allowing Sachs to get 100 cents on the dollar.
The Tea Party is nothing but Koch brothers hoodwinking the masses into voting against their best interest.
Southie, it may or may not excuse AMR. But what I don't understand is why you project AMRs action on Bain & Romney? Did somebody put a gun to AMR's head that they hire Bain?
Re: American Presidential Candidates
Southie, it may or may not excuse AMR. But what I don't understand is why you project AMRs action on Bain & Romney? Did somebody put a gun to AMR's head that they hire Bain?
Noone put a gun on AMR's head. But in my opinion, a company (Bain) that makes money doing garbage work like this (robbing the working stiff of hard earned pension) is not breaking the law, but is unethical. Since Romney stillgets paid through his Bain Capital investments (I may be using the wrong term), and he is running for President, I do pay attention to at whose expense he makes his money.