Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 48): Some years - this year quite a few will make nothing - zero dollars.

Still getting base salary without the bonus, which is pretty meager compared to what they usually take in

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 48): I'd love to see the real numbers on the folks you mention.

The member I'm thinking of used a front company for years that somehow had tax exempt status, and funneled income through there. Much more complicated than that, but it basically led to tax free income.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 48): 1. Inherit the money/ control of a trust 2. Marry/Divorce the person with the money

3. Found company through IPO, or sale of company.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 41): Um....I hate to be rude but, Nicholas said Sen. Obama said in a speech Sen. Obama that he will go after CEO's. Can somebody please show me the quote where it says Sen. Obama will "go after CEO's" please. Please can somebody freaking do that simple task?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 41): Look here, Nicholas, you couldn't even produce any documentation to back up your claim that Sen. Obama would go after CEO's. NONE. Period. Dot. End of sentence. Do you wish to produce some? Or are you gunna have RJ do all your work for you?

As I have told you a million times he said it in a campaign rally that wasn't quoted. I don't invent this stuff. I saw Hillary say she was going to "take" Exxons record profits on television. It wasn't quoted and was not in print in the news. Does that mean it didn't happen? When everyone knows it did? This "I have to see it in print" tactic is weak pal. If you can't come to grips with what your candidate stands for it just shows your credibility. Your candidate wants to control what people make and how companies do business. Pull off your blindfold, that is socialism.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45): How? According to the bill the shareholders vote is non-binding. Oversight would imply that they will actually have a say in the CEO's pay and benefits package. It's useless feel good legislation. The only point to it can be so at a later date the government could swoop in and say, "we gave you boards and opportunity to limit your CEO's pay, now we're going to do it for you

  

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): It amazes me how you blame the poor for this gap. I see incredible greed, when a CEO makes billions. You see another chance to dump on the pooerst in this nation, and make them the bad guys

What are you talking about? Why are they dumping on the poor? Is A-Rod dumping on the poor when he signs a multi-million dollar contract? I really saw Julia Roberts rushing to give to the poor when she making how much a movie? This is garbage. It's anti GOP propaganda. Let's stop blaming the rich for all our problems please.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): The wealthy have the power, Pope.

Last time I checked, my vote counts exactly the same as some else regardless of their income.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): It amazes me how you blame the poor for this gap. I see incredible greed, when a CEO makes billions. You see another chance to dump on the pooerst in this nation, and make them the bad guys.

When a poor person doesn't take advantage of the resources at their disposal to better themselves, when they don't show up to vote, when they don't take the time to educate themselves about the issues and become part of the process, how is that the fault of the CEO who makes billions? Remember, this guy didn't get paid billions by the company, he built something from scratch and sold it for a profit.

What people like you forget is that when this business got started, he likely had to personally guarantee the debt, that meant that his entire net worth was at risk. His house, his bank account, his furniture, his cars, everything could have disappeared if he made the wrong financial choice.

When you work for a company the worst you can lose is not getting a paycheck. Why shouldn't more risk come with greater reward?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): I know it's the GOP way to deamonize the poor, and protect the wealthy, Pope, but any society that has such a frightening between the most wealthy and the poorest is in trouble. When a small percentage own most of the wealth, there is a problem-a big problem, in any society.

Why is it deamonizing to ask people to assume personal responsibility for their lives? I hold the poor to the same standard I hold the rich. I agree that the gap between the rich and the poor is troubling, but I don't think we need to punish the rich to fix it. What we need is for the poor to stay in school and when they get into the work place make long-term decision to forego current consumption for future financial success. It's a relatively easy formula but surprisingly few people are willing to make the sacrifice.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 48): A member of the Forbes 400 can increase his net-worth significantly - and have no income - living just on savings and dividends.

Dividends ARE income. They are taxed at 15% right now. Which super-rich can defer for many years, placing the real tax rate for them below 10%.

You don't need exotic tax shelters. Stop working for a living. That is how you get a 10% tax rate. Do not work, just collect dividends, interest and capital gains.

Even when you have say $10 million in the bank, you enter the protected class. Your investment income can support a nice lifestyle while only being taxed at 15%, which you can reduce to under 10. It's the new Bush era easy street.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 53): It's the new Bush era easy street.

So people have only been doing this for the past eight years? Or you don't really know what you're talking about so you blame Bush for everything?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 53): Which super-rich can defer for many years, placing the real tax rate for them below 10%.

You don't control when a company pays a dividend. It's taxable when paid. So please tell me how you defer a dividend for many years. You might want to read up on the accumulated earnings tax before you answer.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 53): You don't need exotic tax shelters. Stop working for a living. That is how you get a 10% tax rate. Do not work, just collect dividends, interest and capital gains.

You could be taxed at zero if your entire investment portfolio was in municipal bonds. Alternatively you could earn your entire income from welfare. Also have more kids. But your analysis ignores the effect of AMT.

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 50): The member I'm thinking of used a front company for years that somehow had tax exempt status, and funneled income through there

Okay - the COMPANY had it's own tax status and such. While reports may have listed the company and it's worth as part of what made the person a member of the Fortune 400 - his actual income was much lower.

However, those type deals almost all disappeared in the early 1980's.

Most successful US corporations are paying 20-30% income tax rates right now, even after their shelters and deductions. It's extremely difficult to impossible to have a profit making company tax-exempt - and get away with it. The IRS puts quite a few of those folks in jail every year.

If you make over a million dollars - you will almost certainly be audited every year.

[Edited 2008-03-14 12:09:56]

Quoting Flighty (Reply 53): You don't need exotic tax shelters. Stop working for a living. That is how you get a 10% tax rate. Do not work, just collect dividends, interest and capital gains.

Isn't that the goal we are all hoping to achieve some day?

Yes the super rich have a great head start and can live a lot better than most of us do in retirement.

But I still pay income taxes on my US Navy retirement check every year. I'm lucky enough right now to have a job, and my wife's job, where out total income tax paid is more than the US Navy pays me each year.

But in a few years, my income will drop when I retire, and I'll be getting more money from Uncle Sam than I pay him.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 56): Most successful US corporations are paying 20-30% income tax rates right now, even after their shelters and deductions. It's extremely difficult to impossible to have a profit making company tax-exempt - and get away with it. The IRS puts quite a few of those folks in jail every year.

I think some people aren't aware that US corporations are just about the most highly taxed in the world. And that's unfortunate. We'd have a faster growing, more vibrant economy if tax rates were lower.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45): Which is a reiteration of the second line of the quote from Obama that I provided.

Um, not really. You copied a whole different paragraph then I did, but whatever.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45): Oversight would imply that they will actually have a say in the CEO's pay and benefits package

Not necessarily. Perhaps "oversight" was the wrong choice of words in this context. More like supervision.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 51): As I have told you a million times he said it in a campaign rally that wasn't quoted. I don't invent this stuff.

Again, I find it funny that about every speech Sen. Obama has given is on YouTube or is printed somewhere, yet you cannot seem to find where he said he would go after CEO's. Strange coincidence I guess.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 51): This "I have to see it in print" tactic is weak pal.

So I assume you think the forum rules are a "weak tactic."

When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member's responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.

Dave

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 48): I disagree. Most of the tax shelters are long gone. The main ones remaining is giving to charity and giving money to children/ grandchildren for college funds. Charity is pretty wide open, but giving to family is very limited - under a couple hundred thousand per year maximum.

I disagree. As a high income taxpayer your deduction are phased out. Meaning that you loose up to 80% of your deductions. Therefore, if I donate a $1 of money to a charity, I only get a deduction worth $0.20. So it actually costs me money because my $1 of gross income results in $0.80 of taxable income. I pay federal income tax at a 34% rate so it COSTS me $0.2720 in taxes to earn and donate the $1. Someone please explain to me how that's fair. I literally have to pay money to the government to have the privilege of donating it to a charity.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 48): The two main ways of becoming a new millionaire or billionaire are still the same despite the economy ups and downs: 1. Inherit the money/ control of a trust 2. Marry/Divorce the person with the money

Again I strongly disagree. If you take the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans, the top 8 spots are all people who themselves have made their fortune. It isn't until you get to the Koch brothers at #9, the Walton family at #12 and the Mars family at #19 do you see inheritance figure in.

Globally 7 of the top 10 position are people who are self-made men.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 59): More like supervision.

Oversight or supervision, it's the same, you are implying that the shareholders are going to have some sort of say in the CEO's pay and benefits package when clearly, according to both the quote I provided, and the Senate bill in it's current form, any resolution they pass is non-binding which means it's all for show. The only reason behind this bill can be a set up so later, when things haven't changed, either Senator, or President Obama can step back in and say "we gave you a chance to do the right thing (in their minds!) and you didn't so now we are going to legislate regulation on how much you can pay them. When you hear that phrase, watch your wallet.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 59): When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member's responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.

Ok I will be sure to have a fresh tape in my VCR every time this snake oil salesman start blurting out the talking points. It's ok I heard him say it and millions did as well. It is all he has to offer to get votes. Blame the rich, blame the health insurance companies yet sit on a stage and make nice with Oprah. Who is the biggest example of someone making too much money. Yet he doesn't say she makes more in 10 minutes than most make. Why is that pal? You have admitted he said that. Why wasn't she involved? I will tell you why because he is a hypocrite. It's so easy to blurt out the sound bytes, isn't it?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 58): I think some people aren't aware that US corporations are just about the most highly taxed in the world. And that's unfortunate. We'd have a faster growing, more vibrant economy if tax rates were lower.

That is because they don't want you to know that the richest 5% pay close to 40% in taxes. They just want you to think they are getting rich and crapping on everyone else. Don't buy into it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 61): The only reason behind this bill can be a set up so later, when things haven't changed, either Senator, or President Obama can step back in and say "we gave you a chance to do the right thing (in their minds!) and you didn't so now we are going to legislate regulation on how much you can pay them. When you hear that phrase, watch your wallet.

And you base this hypothesis on what exactly? Do you have evidence Sen. Obama would do that or it is simply conjecture on your part?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 62): Ok I will be sure to have a fresh tape in my VCR every time this snake oil salesman start blurting out the talking points.

Well, I didn't make the rules of the forum. You don't like them, email DM. And, there you go again, resorting to childish name calling.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 62): It's ok I heard him say it and millions did as well

And yet none of those millions have published an article, wrote a blog, nor have they recorded Sen. Obama saying what you claim he did?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 62): Why wasn't she involved?

The rest of your argument lies on the premise that Sen. Obama actually said what you claim he did. Let's assume for a second he did say what you claim he did, which again is possible. Do you want him to include everyone in the top percentile? Do you want him to name names Nicholas? How specific do you want him to get?

Dave

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 47): And your solution is to take it away from the people who earned it legally and give it others?

I don't want to see it "given" to anyone. I'd prefer that instead of big tax breaks for these people, that money went to help fund job training programs for poorer Americans, so they can get themselves out of the cycle of being poor. I'd like to see it used to retrain workers who's jobs were outsourced, so they can get better jobs.

Just handing it to someone does no good. That's a cop-out, but why not take some of that money, and let it help as many as possible, to help them make their lives better. Money well spent, seems to me.

Quoting Pope (Reply 52): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): The wealthy have the power, Pope. Last time I checked, my vote counts exactly the same as some else regardless of their income.

You REALLY believe that? When someone can buy influence and acess with their wealth? You're dreaming, frined, if you really believe that. The wealthy-those who can pay for access and influence-have the true power, not you and me. Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that money is considered free speech.

The power lies with those who have the most money anymore. Not with the common man.

Quoting Pope (Reply 60): Again I strongly disagree. If you take the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans, the top 8 spots are all people who themselves have made their fortune. It isn't until you get to the Koch brothers at #9, the Walton family at #12 and the Mars family at #19 do you see inheritance figure in.

Many of the top end of the field are "self-made", but it doesn't take more than a couple hundred down the list before you start seeing second and third generation, and those who got their start by a divorce/ marriage.

Of course great wealth is somewhat self-reducing as you get to the fourth and subsequent generations.

But I'll go back to my basic point.

The very rich do pay taxes, and pay them at high rates on their INCOME.

But there is a big difference between INCOME and NET WORTH.

The figures like Forbes 400 we see always talk about Net Worth or Total Worth. As noted above - many of these people have almost no earned income, living off trust payments and savings.

Yes they have dividends and interest - and do pay taxes on those.

A man who has $10,000,000 in the bank and pays $85,000 taxes on interest income of $250,000 will be reported in articles like the original one as "Only paying $85,000 on Ten million - less than one percent income tax"

When in reality he is paying 34% of his income in taxes.

[Edited 2008-03-14 15:35:05]

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 63): Well, I didn't make the rules of the forum. You don't like them, email DM. And, there you go again, resorting to childish name calling.

I didn't break the rules of the forum. He said it. Deny all you want.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 63): The rest of your argument lies on the premise that Sen. Obama actually said what you claim he did. Let's assume for a second he did say what you claim he did, which again is possible. Do you want him to include everyone in the top percentile? Do you want him to name names Nicholas? How specific do you want him to get?

No it doesn't, you saw the published material that he said "CEOs make more in 10 mins that most make etc" you admitted that. Now please give me a reason he is referring to CEOs and not athletes, actors or his beloved Oprah? I will tell you why, because he is attacking big business. It's all their fault. It's such crap and you know it but since you have placed your blind faith in him you won't admit it. Yes I want him to include everyone in the top percentile if he is going to attack them and ask why they are making more in 10 mins than people in the lower class. Why is a CEO different than Oprah? Does she deserve to make what she makes and he doesn't? It's lunacy. Pure lunacy.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 66): I didn't break the rules of the forum.

Sure you did. Did you not read the highlighted section I posted for you?

Here the rule is again:

When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member's responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.

You stated a fact, did you not? What's the next line after "When stating facts?" Here it is:

PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION.

You did neither, hence you breaking the forum rules. Again, I didn't make these rules, so if you don't like them, email DM.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 66): No it doesn't

Of course it does. Your whole argument relies on Sen. Obama saying he would go after CEO's.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 66): Now please give me a reason he is referring to CEOs and not athletes, actors or his beloved Oprah? I will tell you why, because he is attacking big business. It's all their fault.

Let's say for a second Sen. Obama said he would go after CEO's. He didn't include athletes, actors, or Oprah because he probably wasn't addressing them.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 66): Yes I want him to include everyone in the top percentile if he is going to attack them and ask why they are making more in 10 mins than people in the lower class.

So you want him to stand up there and name people by name?

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 63): Do you have evidence Sen. Obama would do that or it is simply conjecture on your part?

Complete conjecture, but tell me why such unnecessary legislation is necessary? It accomplishes nothing but set precedent.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 67): Let's say for a second Sen. Obama said he would go after CEO's. He didn't include athletes, actors, or Oprah because he probably wasn't addressing them.

I know he wasn't addressing them, that is what I asked you to explain. Why he would single out a CEO while Oprah stands by his side as a cheerleader and she makes more than most CEOs. So I will ask you for the third time, why? Why is corporate America the bad guy here? What about hedge fund managers, athletes, actors etc. Why are they excluded? You get mad when someone calls BS on your savior when he just blurts out sound bytes that make no sense. I guess it's easy to single out the guys in suits and tell the lower class they make all this money but conveniently exclude Oprah who makes ridiculous money much more than CEOs, the big actors etc. Why because you all love them? Your arguments are so baseless and just simple propaganda. Quit blaming corporate America already. They are not at fault. I just find it hysterical how Exxon becomes a target yet someone who supports the DNC is given a free pass. Just because of her celebrity and star power and ability to get votes.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 67): You did neither, hence you breaking the forum rules. Again, I didn't make these rules, so if you don't like them, email DM

Your funny.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64): The wealthy-those who can pay for access and influence-have the true power, not you and me. Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that money is considered free speech.

I think you should read the chapter in Freakeconomics that discusses the role money has on elections. By the way, ask Senator Clinton how much money has to do with true political power. Elections are determined by those who show up.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 68): Complete conjecture, but tell me why such unnecessary legislation is necessary? It accomplishes nothing but set precedent.

Cool, thanks for your honesty  . Again, I don't necessaraly agree with it. I don't agree that the word supervision necessarly implies "that the shareholders are going to have some sort of say in the CEO's pay and benefits package."

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 69): I know he wasn't addressing them, that is what I asked you to explain.

See, that's exactly my point. He wasn't talking about sports stars, or Oprah, he was talking about CEO's (assuming the quote you claim he made is accurate). It would be off topic to include sports stars. But, without context, it's hard for me to comment.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 69): Why he would single out a CEO while Oprah stands by his side as a cheerleader and she makes more than most CEOs.

Obviously Oprah approves of Sen. Obama's economic plan if she supports him. And please don't say she doesn't know his stances. That would be the predictable thing you can and will probably say, but have at it.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 69): Your arguments are so baseless and just simple propaganda.

   My arguments are baseless? This coming from a guy that bases his arguments on a quote that he can't source.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 69): Quit blaming corporate America already.

Where exactly, Nicholas, did I do that?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 69): I just find it hysterical how Exxon becomes a target yet someone who supports the DNC is given a free pass. Just because of her celebrity and star power and ability to get votes.

Easy buddy, slow down. How did Exxon come into play here?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 69): Your funny.

Why? Because you know you broke a forum rule? I guess that's funny, pretty amazing it is.

Have a good night, gentleman.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 71): See, that's exactly my point. He wasn't talking about sports stars, or Oprah, he was talking about CEO's (assuming the quote you claim he made is accurate). It would be off topic to include sports stars. But, without context, it's hard for me to comment.

You do such a great job of dancing around a simple question. Most likely because you can't admit he is a hypocrite and will rile up an audience by bringing up the big bad CEOs. Come on pal, if you are going to vilify the upper percentile of earners you can't just pick and choose and exclude the the ones who are getting you votes and endorsing you. This is the 4th time I will give you the chance to answer why he is pigeon holing corporate America and ignoring Hollywood.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 71): Obviously Oprah approves of Sen. Obama's economic plan if she supports him. And please don't say she doesn't know his stances. That would be the predictable thing you can and will probably say, but have at it.

I have no idea what you are talking about.    I know she knows his stances. I asked you why Obama will say to someone that makes little money that a CEO makes more in ten minutes than they do in a year or in their lifetime. Yet standing right next to him is Oprah who makes more in one show than most of them make in a year. Can you stay on topic please?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 71): Where exactly, Nicholas, did I do that?

Your supporting a person who does.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 71): Easy buddy, slow down. How did Exxon come into play here?

Hillary went after Exxon and said she would "take" their profits. I know it's not Obama but they are both quite the same in their views on big business. Not to mention Oprah was a Hillary supporter before Obama came along.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 71): Why? Because you know you broke a forum rule? I guess that's funny, pretty amazing it is.

No rule broken cuz, keep telling yourself that.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 71): I don't agree that the word supervision necessarly implies "that the shareholders are going to have some sort of say in the CEO's pay and benefits package."

What does the word "supervison" mean then?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 72): You do such a great job of dancing around a simple question.

Uh, what part of my answer isn't sufficient for you? I answered your question. Further, unless you give me some context about the quote, I'm never going to meet your answer standards. Since all I have to work with is "Obama said he would go after CEO's," there's not much there to go off of. I did the best I could in answering your question with the limited resources I have.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 72): Come on pal, if you are going to vilify the upper percentile of earners you can't just pick and choose and exclude the the ones who are getting you votes and endorsing you.

Are you talking to me or Sen. Obama? What do you not get about it not fitting into his speech? Honestly, I don't know how to make it more clear.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 72): This is the 4th time I will give you the chance to answer why he is pigeon holing corporate America and ignoring Hollywood.

Dude, I answered your question. It's in plain English for you to read. Also, a number of Hollywood actors are backing Sen. Obama. Which means that they know his Economic plan. Which means they are okay with it. So why do you have a problem with it if they don't?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 72): I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sigh. Okay. You say Sen. Obama will go after CEO's. You stated that Oprah makes more then CEO's. So logic would deduct that (even if he didn't specifically state "CEO's and you too Oprah" like you seem to want him to have said) if he will go after CEO's, whom are in the top income bracket, he would go after Oprah too, since she is in the top income bracket as well. Obviously she is okay with this, because she knows Sen. Obama's economic plan. So if she is okay with Sen. Obama's plan, then why aren't you okay with it?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 72): Yet standing right next to him is Oprah who makes more in one show than most of them make in a year. Can you stay on topic please?

Let me see if I'm getting this right. So when Sen. Obama made this claim he would go after CEO's Oprah was standing right next to him?

Anyway, how am I going off topic? Who brought Oprah into this conversation? You did. My response pertained to your quote totally.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 72): Your supporting a person who does.

And what does Sen. Obama blame corporate America for?

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 72): Hillary went after Exxon and said she would "take" their profits. I know it's not Obama but they are both quite the same in their views on big business

There you said it, IT'S NOT OBAMA. So why are you even talking about it? And you tell me to keep on topic.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 72): No rule broken cuz, keep telling yourself that.

It's getting frustrating Nicholas, and I don't know how much clearer the rule can be. Let's try this again and see if you get it. Did you or did you not state a fact?

Here the rule is again:

When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member's responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation.

You stated a fact, did you not? What's the next line after "When stating facts?" Here it is:

PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION.

You did neither, hence you breaking the forum rules.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 73): What does the word "supervison" mean then?

In this context, I see it as simply as how the legislation states, i.e. "But at the very least, shareholders would have had the opportunity to voice their opinions about whether the pay package is appropriate."

So even though the vote is non-binding shareholders would get to voice their opinion. Again, I can't say I totally agree with this legislation, so I do see your point.

Have a good one.

Dave

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64): I'd prefer that instead of big tax breaks for these people, that money went to help fund job training programs for poorer Americans, so they can get themselves out of the cycle of being poor.

In my job I routinely encounter homeless people. Doing this has made me even more willing to just throw them to the dogs for various reasons.

1. Many are drug addicted, and CHOOSE not to seek free help

2. Many have diagnosed mental problems, and CHOOSE not to take their medication- which they can get for free through government assistance or any number of local or national charities if they want it

3. Many have undiagnosed mental problems, and CHOOSE to not seek free help- which they can get for free through existing government programs or litterally hundreds of local and national charities.

4. Think panhandlers are poor? They ALWAYS have money for booze and cigarettes. If they saved their money, and maybe bought food they could be off the streets in a few weeks and in government assisted housing using programs that already exist and have funding.

5. Think people on welfare don't get enough help? Ask a city cop about the last trailer or housing project apartment he went into. He will tell you it probably had a 60in plasma TV and better cable than he has at home- but the kids hadn't eaten in a week.

6. Almost every homeless person I have encountered (hundreds) has family that once cared about them. However, the bum cared more about his booze, meth, crack, heroin, etc than he did about his family or getting help. In a few cases with our frequent flyers we have tried to find said family, and been successful. However, the family only wants them back if they agree to get help. 99 out of 100 bums don't want the help, they would rather stay on the drugs. With our Diamond, platinum elite frequent flyer club member we actually convinced her father to come get her and force her to get help: That lasted about a month and she was back.

If you doubt any of the charities exist just ask a cop or an ER nurse. They have access volumes of printed information on state, local, and national charities with phone numbers and everything else on how to get help IF SOMEONE WANTS IT. Someone just has to decide they want to stop living off handouts and take the help. We have handfulls of the brochures in the trunks of our patrol cars and we always offer them- and get turned down.

This country does more for poor people than most developed nations and that is why we have so many poor people. They can get by just fine without having to do a damn thing and taking our handouts. So what do you want to do? Punish the people who do work.

Anyone who thinks we need to put more money into social welfare needs to spend a week on midnight shift in the slums with either the police or the paramedics. The free housing, the free food, the low level jobs, the education assistance it is all already out there. Someone just has to WANT to go get it. They never do go get it- it is far less work to sleep under a bridge, drink Mogden David 20/20 and hold up a sign at an intersection all day.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 74): Uh, what part of my answer isn't sufficient for you? I answered your question. Further, unless you give me some context about the quote, I'm never going to meet your answer standards. Since all I have to work with is "Obama said he would go after CEO's," there's not much there to go off of. I did the best I could in answering your question with the limited resources I have.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 74): Are you talking to me or Sen. Obama? What do you not get about it not fitting into his speech? Honestly, I don't know how to make it more clear

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 74): Dude, I answered your question. It's in plain English for you to read. Also, a number of Hollywood actors are backing Sen. Obama. Which means that they know his Economic plan. Which means they are okay with it. So why do you have a problem with it if they don't?

Ok it's plain to see you are refusing to answer the question. Which is not a surprise since just about everything that comes out of your candidate's mouth makes no sense I wouldn't be able to explain it either suffice to say it's just empty rhetoric. As I said like most Obama supporters you have jumped on the bandwagon simply because he can rile up a campaign rally crowd with sound bytes and talking points that can't stand up to scrutiny. Both Hillary and Obama have made it very clear they at least have some disdain for big business. This or they just said it to get votes. Which wouldn't surprise me. Fact is Obama has made reference to CEOs and their big salaries. Yet still gives Oprah a pass. Her making multi millions a year is ok, since she has become a cheerleader for him and will get him votes. What does it matter that Hollywood understands his plan? They love it since it means he is going to attack corporate America and leave them to make 15 million a picture. It's such propaganda and it's so obvious. I mean if CEOs make up a small part of the upper percentile why use them in an example? What about Hedge funds managers, athletes, actors, talk show hosts? Who work much less hours and time and make much more money? I'll tell you why, because his words are usually chosen on the fly and with little thought. Not to mention corporate America is always the easy target. It's always their fault the lower class can't get work or health care. It's such crap. Typical left wing anti capitalism crap and it won't fly. Not in the long run.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64): I don't want to see it "given" to anyone. I'd prefer that instead of big tax breaks for these people, that money went to help fund job training programs for poorer Americans, so they can get themselves out of the cycle of being poor. I'd like to see it used to retrain workers who's jobs were outsourced, so they can get better jobs

Why were the jobs outsourced? If we take away more tax breaks more will leave the country. Businesses don't leave the US because they want to, they leave because they can't afford to operate. Same principle as many people are fleeing NY now because Hillary and her chums have done such a good job you need to make 60-70K a year just to get by and that is not even thinking of owning a house. Some of the highest property taxes, car insurance etc. You have to let the people keep more of what they earn. Not take it away.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 76): Businesses don't leave the US because they want to, they leave because they can't afford to operate. Same principle as many people are fleeing NY now because Hillary and her chums have done such a good job you need to make 60-70K a year just to get by and that is not even thinking of owning a house. Some of the highest property taxes, car insurance etc. You have to let the people keep more of what they earn. Not take it away.

Everyone should remember what Hillary said a few years ago - "we're going to have to take things away from you for the common good."

I realize that there are some in the private sector that won't do the right thing absent the government loking over their shoulder. But to expect the US government - the same outfit that has brought you massive deficit spending and $500 toilet seats - to do a better job managing this wealth is simply insane.

Quoting Pope (Reply 55): . So please tell me how you defer a dividend for many years. You might want to read up on the accumulated earnings tax before you answer.

You're right, dividends are taxable as current income. I screwed up on that. Many shareholders prefer not to get dividends, as a result. This allows them to hopefully receive their value from increased share value, which can be collected at the mentioned 15% tax rate. The two concepts are connected in that way, at least.

Quoting Pope (Reply 55): You could be taxed at zero if your entire investment portfolio was in municipal bonds.

Well, kinda. You pay a tax in a sense to that municipality, in the form of a lower interest rate.

Quoting Pope (Reply 55): Alternatively you could earn your entire income from welfare. Also have more kids. But your analysis ignores the effect of AMT.

You can't earn $4 million a year from welfare.

The Alternative Minimum Tax does not apply to this discussion. A person with $4 million in mature capital gains income (normal for your average fat cat) and nothing else, has a tax bill of $296,013, which is 14.80%. This can be deferred by a good accountant. But you probably knew that. Personally, I think it is remarkable! Not bad because the stock market usually goes up very reliably, ensuring an inflation-adjusted source of income.

There are a lot of devices to funnel interest, dividend, commodity or other gains into equity gains which enjoy the low rate. A stake in a hedge fund is a great way to do so. That is how we see hedge fund managers (like Schwartzman) paying well under 15%, which they do.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 78): Well, kinda. You pay a tax in a sense to that municipality, in the form of a lower interest rate.

Sorry but that's not a tax. Perhaps it's an opportunity cost but it by no means fits the definition of a tax.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 78): The Alternative Minimum Tax does not apply to this discussion.

Why not? Most people completely ignore AMT in their personal tax analysis and end up with a big surprise when April 15 comes around.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 78): This can be deferred by a good accountant. But you probably knew that.

I know this very well as I started as tax consultant. But as I said above, the deferral mechanisms which exist (usually by accelerating deductions or depreciation) are precisely the things AMT disqualifies. Therefore, you can't argue that the income can be deferred by a good accountant and not examine the role of AMT.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 78): Not bad because the stock market usually goes up very reliably, ensuring an inflation-adjusted source of income.

That certainly has not been the case for the last six months.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 76): Ok it's plain to see you are refusing to answer the question.

   Are you really that dense? Seriously Nicholas, let's get some perspecive here. Your whole argument is based on a quote that could or could not exist. The only thing you tell me is that Sen. Obama said "he would go after CEO's." Nothing else. No context at all. Then you ask me a question based on your half assed quote and after I give you an answer you say I haven't answered your question. Now that is what's reality here.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 76): Which is not a surprise since just about everything that comes out of your candidate's mouth makes no sense I wouldn't be able to explain it either suffice to say it's just empty rhetoric.

   Makes no sense? Like what exactly? What's more then likely happening here is it that you choose to not understand his positions. It's because you wear your politics on your sleeve.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 76): Yet still gives Oprah a pass. Her making multi millions a year is ok, since she has become a cheerleader for him and will get him votes.

Again, Oprah is obviously okay with Sen. Obama's economic plan.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 76): I mean if CEOs make up a small part of the upper percentile why use them in an example? What about Hedge funds managers, athletes, actors, talk show hosts

Why not? Why name every single profession, and every single person there is? That would waste everyone's time. "I'm going after CEO's, oh yeah, and you too Oprah, oh yeah and you too Johnny at XYZ company, and you too Bob, and Jerry, and Tom, and Jack, and Jill, and Timmy, and Sarah, and Sally, and Jessica, and William, and Derick, and what's his name, and what's her name, and, uh, hang on here as I name every single person in the upper income bracket."

See how ridiculous that sounds? Probably not to you, though.

Have a good one,

Dave