SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: mph who wrote (180637)1/15/2004 10:20:21 PM
From: Alighieri  Respond to of 1572161
 
Taxing such a person into oblivion would change nothing except make some potential Democratic voters happy because a rich guy got punished.

It's about balancing the checkbook...

Al



To: mph who wrote (180637)1/15/2004 10:36:03 PM
From: Amy J  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572161
 
mph, RE: "The whole Dem class warfare tactic completely sickens me."

My take home pay is 49%. Yet, I'm going to be the first person to say that it's absolutely ridiculous FICA caps out at something like $80k. If anything, it shouldn't start until around $25k. It's much easier to pay FICA on an amount after $80k than it is on an amount under $80k. The gov't has their taxation backwards.

Regards,
Amy J



To: mph who wrote (180637)1/15/2004 11:11:15 PM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572161
 
The problem is Bush rewards idle wealth and punishes hard work. That is un-American. Long ago it led to the monopolists, Rockefellars, Mellons, Carnegies and most people struggling in lifes of indentured serviture to the big corporations. We cannot go back there. #1 reason why Bush has to be ousted. Also, someone has to pay off the Bush debts. You know he never will. He likes spending other peoples' money. He is a rich idle brat himself.



To: mph who wrote (180637)1/16/2004 8:18:51 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572161
 
Very Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger, Data Show

The 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in the year 2000, more than double their share just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. But their tax burden plummeted over the period.

The data, in a report that the I.R.S. released last night, shows that the average income of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers was almost $174 million in 2000. That was nearly quadruple the $46.8 million average in 1992. The minimum income to qualify for the list was $86.8 million in 2000, more than triple the minimum income of $24.4 million of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers in 1992.

While the sharp growth in incomes over that period coincided with the stock market bubble, other factors appear to account for much of the increase. A cut in capital gains tax rates in 1997 to 20 percent from 28 percent encouraged long-term holders of assets, like privately owned businesses, to sell them, and big increases in executive compensation thrust corporate chiefs into the ranks of the nation's aristocracy.

argmax.com



To: mph who wrote (180637)1/16/2004 8:21:35 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572161
 
Top 400 are doing well…

The IRS has just released two reports on the status of the wealthiest Americans. The report on the incomes of the highest 400 income tax filers shows a dramatic rise in their income levels.

The average income of the 400 wealthiest US taxpayers was $173.9 million in 2000. This was three times average income in 1992. On average, they paid 22.4% of their income in taxes. With recent tax changes, their average tax burden is likely to be even smaller.

According to the New York Times, "Had President Bush's latest tax cuts been in effect in 2000, the average tax bill for the top 400 would have been about $30.4 million — a savings of $8.3 million, or more than a fifth, according to an analysis of the I.R.S. data by The New York Times. That would have resulted in an average tax rate of 17.5 percent."

What is “average” income?

When talking about tax issues, policymakers often talk in terms of a “typical American” or a “typical family.”

For example the White House website claims, “In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003.” But is “average” the correct measure? For example, since the 184,000 tax filers making more than $1 million per year will receive over $93,000 from the latest tax cut, this means there are many, many more who will have to receive less in order to get to the $1,126 average. In fact, there are more than 116.5 million, or 84 percent of the total, who will get less than the average.

A better measure of the “typical American” is the median, not the average. (The median is the amount for which half of the distribution is greater than the median, and half is less than the median.) In the example above, the median taxpayer will receive a tax cut of about $217.

Here are some characteristics of the income distribution from the US Census Bureau.

There were 109,297 households in 2001
The median household income was $42,228
The average household income was $58,208
The median non-family household income was $25,635
Per capita income in the US was $22,851
The top 20% of income earners receive 50% of total US income, while the lowest 20% receive only 3.5%

Household income thresholds, by quintiles (20% blocks):

Bottom Quintile: Income Range: $0 - 17,970; Share of Total Income: 3.5%
Second Quintile: Income Range: $17,970 - $33,314; Share of Total Income: 8.7%
Middle Quintile: Income Range: $33,314 - $53,000; Share of Total Income: 14.6%
Fourth Quintile: Income Range: $53,000 - $83,500; Share of Total Income: 23.0%
Top Quintile: Income Range: $83,500 and up; Share of Total Income: 50.2%

ombwatch.org



To: mph who wrote (180637)1/16/2004 8:26:14 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1572161
 
News


America's rich get richer

After two years of declines, the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans see their nest eggs grow.

September 19, 2003: 1:17 PM EDT


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - America's rich must be breathing a sigh of relief.

After two years of declining wealth, the aggregate net worth of the wealthiest 400 U.S. citizens climbed 10 percent in the past year to $955 billion, thanks largely to a recovering stock market, according to the annual list released by Forbes magazine.

Topping this year's list are the usual suspects: Bill Gates, worth $46 billion, Warren Buffett at $36 billion, and Paul Allen at $22 billion.

With the rally in tech stocks, Internet players made the biggest moves on the list. Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos added more than $3 billion to his net worth, Yahoo! executives David Filo and Jerry Yang nearly tripled their wealth.

eBay execs Meg Whitman and Pierre Omidyar saw their net worth jump nearly 50 percent.

Steve Jobs jumped 44 places to $2.3 billion with the help of his Pixar film "Finding Nemo."


Bill Gates, right, and Warren Buffett have a total wealth of $82 billion.
The wealth also runs in tight circles. Among the top 25 richest, 12 are related, with members of the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame taking spots 4 through 8.

Some recent newsmakers also appeared on the list. Kenneth Langone, a director of the New York Stock Exchange who adamantly defended now-resigned Richard Grasso, appeared on the list at 314 with $820 million.

Notable dropouts from the list include World Wrestling Entertainment's Vince McMahon and Global Crossing's Gary Winnick.

Those taking their spots included Wall Street high-rollers Steve Cohen, who runs the SAC Capital hedge fund, and Ken Griffin, who runs the Citadel Investment Group hedge fund.




Incidentally, Griffin is the second-youngest member on the list at 34 years old and a value of $650 million.

The youngest is Daniel Morton Ziff, at age 31, with an inheritance of $1.2 billion from the Ziff-Davis publishing fortune.


money.cnn.com



To: mph who wrote (180637)1/16/2004 8:31:45 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1572161
 
State's poor are getting poorer: Gap with rich is growing, study says

By Dale Kasler and Clint Swett

Bee Staff Writers (Published Feb. 9, 1999)

The gap between California's rich and poor has continued to widen in spite of the state's robust economic recovery, according to a report by the Public Policy Institute of California. The growing disparity in wealth is being fueled largely by immigration and a drop-off in wages paid to those at the bottom of the educational ladder, the report said. "It's not about the rich getting richer, it's about the poor getting poorer," said economist Deborah Reed, who wrote the report. "For people with less than a college degree, wages have really deteriorated."

The report, to be released today, is a follow-up to a study in 1996 by the San Francisco-based institute that suggested income inequality was growing at a faster pace in California than the rest of the nation. The new report extends the study to take in 1995-97.

The new report shows a slight narrowing of the gap in 1997 -- "a little bit of (income) growth at the bottom," Reed said -- but otherwise indicates that the income gap has been growing despite California's latest economic boom.

The top 10 percent of wage earners have more than recovered the ground they lost during the recession, she said. But despite some recent gains, the bottom 10 percent are still earning less than they did (in inflation-adjusted dollars) before the recession, she said.

While Reed said she expected a widening gap during a recession, she was taken aback by the lack of progress among the poor during a recovery. "The state's poor have been losing income ground steadily, in good economic seasons and bad, since the late 1960s," the report said. Among those feeling left behind in the recovery is Kaleen Kasten of Marysville. She said she, her husband and two sons live on about $17,000 a year her husband earns at the Beale Air Force Base commissary and at the Army National Guard. "We just can't make it on that," said Kasten, who supplements her family's income by occasionally selling art work.

Kasten's plight isn't unusual, said Lee Pliscou, a lawyer with the non-profit California Rural Legal Assistance. "There's no doubt the economy is helping a number of folks, but there's a substantial core group of people unhelped by the upswing in the economy," he said. "Our office is filled with them every day."

The Public Policy Institute study stops at 1997 data, and recent unemployment statistics did show that the economic recovery is starting to pay dividends for some groups that tend to lag the rest of the country economically. Unemployment rates for Latinos and African Americans, though still higher than the national average, fell last month to the lowest rate on record, according to the U.S. Labor Department. S

Still, economists aren't sure whether those recent gains are doing much to erase the gap between rich and poor. Many of the new hires "presumably would not be high wage," said economist Tom Lieser of UCLA. The income gap is continuing to widen more quickly in California than the U.S. average, the Public Policy study said. Thirty years ago the top 25 percent of male wage earners made not quite twice as much as those in the bottom 25 percent, the study said. That was true for California as well as the rest of the nation.

In 1997, those at the top of the California pay scale earned almost 3 times as much as those at the bottom, while for the U.S. the discrepancy was about 21/2 times. Reed said immigration accounts for much of this difference. Newcomers often lack the education and job skills to get a high-paying job, she said. Not only that, they often compete with people already living in California for the menial jobs, which "drives down the wages of the natives," she said. Immigrants' share of the work force grew to 36 percent in 1997 from 29 percent 10 years ago, the report said. Reed said disparities in education play a larger role than they used to in creating a society of haves and have-nots.


In 1969 a college-educated male earned 50 percent more than a male without a college degree; in 1997 the degree was worth a 70 percent increase in pay, the study said. The differential becomes even more pronounced among those without high school degrees, Reed said. "The study points to education and training being more important than ever," Reed said. That's particularly true for immigrants, she said. T

he institute's report was consistent with other findings, said UCLA's Lieser. "We've noted that California was good at attracting greater-than-average numbers of people at both ends of the educational spectrum," Lieser said. "It's a magnet for all kinds of people; we're in a growth mode again." He said an economic boom can actually exacerbate the situation. While something like 70 percent of newcomers to the Bay Area have college degrees, a growing economy also attracts "a lot of people taking entry-level jobs," he said. A

t the same time, a significant chunk of the middle class has disappeared, he said. The recession wiped out 200,000 middle- and upper-middle-class aerospace jobs in Southern California, which in turn destroyed thousands of middle-income positions in real estate and other services that depended on aerospace, he said. Despite the recovery, aerospace hasn't come back, and neither have those service jobs, he said.

Bee staff writer Loretta Kalb contributed to this story.

americanpatrol.org