# OKCpedia > Businesses & Employers >  GE may move its HQ after Connecticut passed state corporate  tax increases.

## ou48A

The odds are good that GE moves to Texas or Florida or someplace with better weather and a more pro-business environment,".

Oklahoma needs to move toward getting in this ball game and develop its own more pro-business environment. Maybe we dont land a GE but would help our existing business grow and help with the relocations of smaller corporations to our state that could grow.

But this is what high taxes do.. They drive away the creation of wealth and all its benefits.

GE Stock Declining on Possible Headquarters Move After Connecticut Approves Tax Hike - TheStreet

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Shares of General Electric (GE - Get Report) are falling 0.06% to $27.25 on reports that the company may explore moving its headquarters after Connecticut passed a budget that includes $1.2 billion in tax increases for some of the state's biggest corporations, Reuters reported.

On Wednesday, lawmakers approved a $40 billion biannual budget, CNBC.com reported. The budget would increase business taxes by around $500 million over two years, Reuters pointed out. The measures, extend a *20% surcharge on corporate tax*, and introduce a tax on group-wide income even if it originates out of state.

CEO Jeff Immelt sent an email yesterday to GE's Connecticut employees saying that he had asked the team to examine the company's options to *relocate the headquarters to a state with a "more pro-business environment,"* according to Reuters. He claimed *GE's state taxes have increased five times since 2011.*

"I believe we should pay our fair share and that all of us should give back to our communities. But, we can compare Connecticut with other states where small and large businesses have a better environment to thrive and compete," Immelt wrote in the email, CNBC.com noted.

*GE currently has about 5,700 employees in Connecticut.
*

----------


## bchris02

I agree.  I wish OKC could be in the game for just a small percentage of these huge corporate relocations currently flooding into Dallas, Houston, and Austin.  For a small market like OKC, just landing one or two of them would be a complete game changer.

----------


## Anonymous.

OKC needs to go full frontal and show GE all the goods. What could it hurt?

----------


## Just the facts

How much more pro-business can OKC possibly be?

----------


## Jersey Boss

Press Release: General Electric's Ten Year Tax Rate Only Two Percent | Tax Justice Blog

General Electric Paid Only Two Percent Federal Income Tax Rate Over the Past Decade, Citizens for Tax Justice Analysis Finds; Actual Payments Were Probably Lower

Washington, DC – General Electric’s (GE) annual SEC 10-K filing for 2011 (filed February 24, 2012) reveals that the company paid at most two percent of its $80.2 billion in U.S. pretax profits in federal income taxes over the last 10 years.

Following revelations in March 2011 that GE paid no federal income taxes in 2010 and in fact enjoyed $3.3 billion in net tax benefits, GE told AFP (3/29/2011), “GE did not pay US federal taxes last year because we did not owe any.” But don’t worry, GE told Dow Jones Newswires (3/28/2011), “our 2011 tax rate is slated to return to more normal levels with GE Capital’s recovery.”

As it turns out, however, in 2011 GE’s effective federal income tax rate was only 11.3 percent, less than a third the official 35 percent corporate tax rate.

----------


## Jersey Boss

Imagination at Work? GE Once Again Pays Less Than 1% in Federal Taxes | Tax Justice Blog 3-3-2015

----------


## Just the facts

Is attracting a tax parasite the best thing for Oklahoma to be going after?

----------


## Jersey Boss

Cry me a river. It would be nice if these so called "corporations are people" paid in taxes what real people do.

----------


## Just the facts

> Cry me a river. It would be nice if these so called "corporations are people" paid in taxes what real people do.


Maybe we could have no state income tax if corporations were paying the actual effective rate they should be paying.

----------


## gopokes88

Lol shares are falling .06% on news. That's just bad reporting. 

You could put together a MASSIVE tax package to get GE and still make money. 

GE has revenue of 147 billion. That's 14 times the size of Devon. It is a massive company. We'd probably have to build another terminal at the airport simply to handle their air traffic alone. 

Good news is because the shareholders meeting was here okc is on their radar. If they don't come here it won't be because of a lack of exposure. If they moved to Dallas (most likely) or Austin (probably second option) they are still close and we could still continue to get more jobs here. 

Bad news. They aren't going anywhere. It's a threat so Conn writes them a loophole and exempts them. 

Oh and stop whining about GE taking every tax advantage they can find. (Unless of course you leave off some tax deductible items to pay a little more cause you're such a great guy). It's ultimately the governments responsibility to write the tax code, not GE's.

----------


## Jersey Boss

Calling out the hypocrisy of GE claiming they are over taxed is not whining.  Sorry, I don't have a battery of lawyers exercising "free speech" for me by campaigning for tax breaks while whining , dining, and contributing to super pacs.

----------


## ou48A

> How much more pro-business can OKC possibly be?


Oklahoma could improve its corporate business environment by huge amounts…. and there is no doubt about this…….

On something like this Oklahoma really isn’t even competitive and IMHO it’s in large part  due to the fact that we do not provide across the board funding for the higher education sciences at competitive levels… 

Oklahoma has way too many duplicate and near worthless degree programs that should be shut down with the funding switched to degree programs such as engineering that corporations like GE want.

----------


## dankrutka

> Oklahoma could improve its corporate business environment by huge amounts…. and there is no doubt about this…….
> 
> On something like this Oklahoma really isn’t even competitive and IMHO it’s in large part  due to the fact that we do not provide across the board funding for the higher education sciences at competitive levels… 
> 
> Oklahoma has way too many duplicate and near worthless degree programs that should be shut down with the funding switched to degree programs such as engineering that corporations like GE want.


Which degree programs should be shut down?

----------


## Just the facts

This just in for those who think the State will make back the incentive money - GE is moving because they don't want to pay taxes.  If they wanted to pay taxes they would just stay in CT.

----------


## Snowman

> This just in for those who think the State will make back the incentive money - GE is moving because they don't want to pay taxes.  If they wanted to pay taxes they would just stay in CT.


If I remember correctly they have been  a perennial top five on ability to structure their business in such a way to pay practically no tax, I am guessing the issue may be the laws are now closing some loopholes previously available.

----------


## David

Even if GE as a company manages to work its tax situation very favorably for itself, I suspect that the amount of personal income tax and sales tax paid by their employees is not insignificant in the slightest. Not to mention the amount of income such a population would be spending in an area simply to live there.

----------


## Snowman

> Even if GE as a company manages to work its tax situation very favorably for itself, I suspect that the amount of personal income tax and sales tax paid by their employees is not insignificant in the slightest. Not to mention the amount of income such a population would be spending in an area simply to live there.


It does, which is why most mid to large relocation get some level of subsidy, possibly even why they are letting the word get out to solicit offers. Though it is not uncommon for the employee numbers to come in well under (or at least the low end) of projected job numbers. Plus if governments are not careful some parts may either be relocated or departments downsized long before the subsidies end.

A recent article that comes to mind was a Seattle writer was talking about how poorly Seattle's recent deal with Boeing was, grudgingly praising some of our deals, I can not remember if he outright mentioned how some of our claw-back measures were but they certainly would have helped in parts of the worst part of their deal. I think our proximity to Texas kind of forced Oklahoma's hand on going in aggressively early on incentives and having done that learned some painful experiences on how to at least put in some reasonable protection measures for when deals go bad.

----------


## mugofbeer

> Even if GE as a company manages to work its tax situation very favorably for itself, I suspect that the amount of personal income tax and sales tax paid by their employees is not insignificant in the slightest. Not to mention the amount of income such a population would be spending in an area simply to live there.


I worked in Greenwich and Stamford,CT and had a lot of GE Execs for clients.  Believe me, the state of CT makes billions in personal taxes off these folks.  Also, i will say, GE and its employees are highly woven into Fairfield county and have been for decades.  If the HQ is moved, it will just be the sign and a few token employees.  More likely there will be little future growth i  CT and more ops set up elsewhere like GE is doing here and Boeing is doing.  OKCs job is to show we can handle things that arent oil and gas related.

----------


## gopokes88

> Calling out the hypocrisy of GE claiming they are over taxed is not whining.  Sorry, I don't have a battery of lawyers exercising "free speech" for me by campaigning for tax breaks while whining , dining, and contributing to super pacs.


See what your doing right there, most would call that whining because you don't have the same advantages they do. You are holding the wrong people responsible. It's the government who writes the tax code, not GE. GE just takes advantage as I'm sure you do on your taxes. Sure the amounts are different but you have the exact same attitude they do. Since you aren't the tax morality god you don't get to decide when a corp or person has too much money and shouldn't use the tax code to their advantage. In a way you're the real hypocrite. 

Of course you won't hold the government responsible for their complete incompetatance. that goes against the liberal dogma that the government has a clue what it's doing and a force good.

----------


## Just the facts

I seriously doubt the State of Connecticut is making billion off employee taxes.  They only have 5,700 employees in the State and you can bet you backside that the high paid corporate executives have done everything in their power to structured their compensation to avoid as much taxation as possible.

----------


## Jersey Boss

> See what your doing right there, most would call that whining because you don't have the same advantages they do. You are holding the wrong people responsible. It's the government who writes the tax code, not GE. GE just takes advantage as I'm sure you do on your taxes. Sure the amounts are different but you have the exact same attitude they do. Since you aren't the tax morality god you don't get to decide when a corp or person has too much money and shouldn't use the tax code to their advantage. In a way you're the real hypocrite. 
> 
> Of course you won't hold the government responsible for their complete incompetatance. that goes against the liberal dogma that the government has a clue what it's doing and a force good.


What you are doing is deftly changing the argument that GE is full of it when claiming to be overtaxed.  When it is shown that GE is engaged in hypocritical whining about being overtaxed, you become a corporate apologist  claiming "you would do it to if you had their advantages".  What I would do or would not do, does not shield GE from being called out for a hypocritical argument. Instead of calling me a whiner, refute the claim that GE is in fact not avoiding taxes is in fact paying more than they should and as a consequence must flee their oppressors.

----------


## Jim Kyle

> Instead of calling me a whiner, refute the claim that GE is in fact not avoiding taxes is in fact paying more than they should and as a consequence must flee their oppressors.


Their complaint is *not* about the tax rate they have been paying in the past; it's about a 20% surcharge added to *all* corporate taxes. To be fair, should such a surcharge be required, it should be on *all taxes*, not just those of corporations. "Corporate persons" should be treated the same as "organic persons" under the laws of the land; otherwise "equality" becomes more of a farce than is the current definition of personhood.

----------


## mugofbeer

OK.  Billions is too high.  But those 5700 earn far more than any OK corp pays.  Between higher income taxes, far higher property taxes and relative sales taxes, they are well into hundreds of millions.  There is definitely a tight link to the area so i dont see them moving significant numbers.

----------


## TU 'cane

OKC just has to be aggressive, that's all the Chamber can do for both OKC and Tulsa. 

Education, politics, yes, those play heavily into companies decisions, but we can try and change those on local levels. But as for trying to actively draw the companies themselves, city leadership MUST step up. 

I wish OKC would keep on the aerospace draw as it's a growing industry again. That could really propel OKC forward even further. 

We'll see what the GE research facility does. I'm hoping a lot.

----------


## Just the facts

What GE does is lobby Congress to grant the industries they operate in favorable tax status.  In many of their product markets they operate in an almost tax-free environment .   Take solar pannels and wind turbines as an example.  They get federal subsidies to make them, their customers get tax credits to buy them, and they get Congress to mandate the use of their output.  And if that isn't enough handouts they come to places like OKC and ask for million more in taxpayer money.  

Meanwhile back at the farm, their executives get high 8 figure incomes and Wall Street makes billions.  I've concluded if we did close all these tax loopholes most companies would go out of business.  Now we know why we are $17 trillion in debt.

----------


## SoonerDave

> Cry me a river. It would be nice if these so called "corporations are people" paid in taxes what real people do.


Wonder how much $ in payroll, health insurance, and employee savings they inject into the economy?

Just curious.

----------


## gopokes88

> What you are doing is deftly changing the argument that GE is full of it when claiming to be overtaxed.  When it is shown that GE is engaged in hypocritical whining about being overtaxed, you become a corporate apologist  claiming "you would do it to if you had their advantages".  What I would do or would not do, does not shield GE from being called out for a hypocritical argument. Instead of calling me a whiner, refute the claim that GE is in fact not avoiding taxes is in fact paying more than they should and as a consequence must flee their oppressors.


GE is a company. Paying $1 in taxes is being overtaxed in their eyes. They are very good at what they do and guess what? It results in them not having to pay a huge tax burden. They cry poor, lobby, and hire expensive lawyers to find loop holes. Do you have like 0 experience with business people? This is what we do. 

You are complaining that a massive company with revenues in the hundreds of billions is behaving exactly like a massive company behaves. Do you scream and yell at your dog for barking? No he's a dog that's what he does. GE avoids taxes because that's what they do. That's what every company and individual on the face of the earth does. You do it too. So yes, it hypocritical to complain GE avoids taxes when you do it as well. Some of the most liberal people I know hire republican tax accountants. Why? Because no one wants to pay more then they have to. GE is just brilliant at doing it.

The real fault lies with the government. They have the power to tax and if they want more tax revenue they should exercise said power if they want more money. Asking GE to pay more is ludicrous.

----------


## Just the facts

That last paragraph is exactly what Connecticut did.  Like it or not, Oklahoma is going to have do it pretty soon as well.

----------


## zookeeper

> GE is a company. Paying $1 in taxes is being overtaxed in their eyes. They are very good at what they do and guess what? It results in them not having to pay a huge tax burden. They cry poor, lobby, and hire expensive lawyers to find loop holes. Do you have like 0 experience with business people? This is what we do. 
> 
> You are complaining that a massive company with revenues in the hundreds of billions is behaving exactly like a massive company behaves. Do you scream and yell at your dog for barking? No he's a dog that's what he does. GE avoids taxes because that's what they do. That's what every company and individual on the face of the earth does. You do it too. So yes, it hypocritical to complain GE avoids taxes when you do it as well. Some of the most liberal people I know hire republican tax accountants. Why? Because no one wants to pay more then they have to. GE is just brilliant at doing it.
> 
> *The real fault lies with the government. They have the power to tax and if they want more tax revenue they should exercise said power if they want more money. Asking GE to pay more is ludicrous.*


What did Connecticut do to cause the uproar? Exactly what you said they should do. Also, your views on business (while thinking others are naive) are, frankly, way off the mark. Research corporate charters and get back with me. You are young. A lot of your type thinking is spilling out of business schools from conservative universities. It's not capitalism at all, it's corporatocracy. And there's a big difference.




> Wonder how much $ in payroll, health insurance, and employee savings they inject into the economy?
> 
> Just curious.


I don't know and it really doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the issue of this thread. My charity work, all the spending I do during any given year, and what a great citizen I am has nothing to do with what I owe in taxes. Nothing. To confuse the issue is the only answer to this kind of corporate thuggery ala GE in Connecticut. Before someone says that "thuggery" is incendiary, etc. - nope - it's exactly what it is.

----------


## ou48A

Rather they land GE or not Texas is still getting it done right because they simply choose to do what is necessary   to build the opportunity  and the wealth that improve the lives of their citizens in good way! We need to move in that direction too in Oklahoma.

 Texas shows us what it takes to be truly competitive in today’s business environment.

Please read the entire article on the link.

Report: Texas looking to lasso General Electric's headquarters - Dallas Business Journal

It appears Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has thrown the Lone Star state's hat into the ring as a suitor for the headquarters of Connecticut-based General Electric, according to a report by Hearst Connecticut Media Group.

The news group obtained a one-page letter Abbott reportedly sent to General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt promising the company a smaller tax bill and lots of economic incentives.

In the letter, *Abbott said he was sure governors throughout the United States were writing similar letters to Immelt*  after he spoke openly about his displeasure with *Connecticut's proposed $700 million increase in taxes on businesses* over the next two years.

*"But how many of my colleagues just passed a total relief tax package of $3.8 billion like we did last week in Texas,"*

----------


## Just the facts

The funding short fall and excessive debt compiled by Texas and its State agencies is well documented ($328 billion and counting).  When that tree falls it is going to make one serious thud and Texas will have to do what Connecticut just did - raise taxes on those not paying any.

----------


## gopokes88

> What did Connecticut do to cause the uproar? Exactly what you said they should do. Also, your views on business (while thinking others are naive) are, frankly, way off the mark. Research corporate charters and get back with me. You are young. A lot of your type thinking is spilling out of business schools from conservative universities. It's not capitalism at all, it's corporatocracy. And there's a big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know and it really doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the issue of this thread. My charity work, all the spending I do during any given year, and what a great citizen I am has nothing to do with what I owe in taxes. Nothing. To confuse the issue is the only answer to this kind of corporate thuggery ala GE in Connecticut. Before someone says that "thuggery" is incendiary, etc. - nope - it's exactly what it is.


They raised taxes and GE threatened to leave. Once again, that's pretty predictable behavior. When states have to compete with each other for companies, having a lower tax rate is attractive. (It is not the only factor, and sometimes isn't even a factor) So maybe a state with 3.5 million people should try to figure out a way to spend less then $20,000,000,000. That's almost 3X the size of Oklahoma's state government with a slightly smaller population. 

Oh so instead of attacking the message, attack the messenger. Good work Saul Alinsky. 

I never once mentioned capitalism. In a pure capitalistic libertarian utopia, large companies aren't allowed to hire a lobbyist to get congress to rewrite the tax code for them. That's not the world we live in though. And since it's legal, GE is going to do it. None of this behavior is shocking. Companies like to avoid taxes, it's what they do it's who they are. They aren't thugs they are behaving exactly like they're supposed too and always have. 

If the government wants more revenue they can raise taxes, close loopholes, and limit deductions.

----------


## zookeeper

> They raised taxes and GE threatened to leave. Once again, that's pretty predictable behavior. When states have to compete with each other for companies, having a lower tax rate is attractive. (It is not the only factor, and sometimes isn't even a factor) So maybe a state with 3.5 million people should try to figure out a way to spend less then $20,000,000,000. That's almost 3X the size of Oklahoma's state government with a slightly smaller population. 
> 
> *Oh so instead of attacking the message, attack the messenger. Good work Saul Alinsky.* 
> 
> I never once mentioned capitalism. In a pure capitalistic libertarian utopia, large companies aren't allowed to hire a lobbyist to get congress to rewrite the tax code for them. That's not the world we live in though. And since it's legal, GE is going to do it. None of this behavior is shocking. Companies like to avoid taxes, it's what they do it's who they are. They aren't thugs they are behaving exactly like they're supposed too and always have. 
> 
> If the government wants more revenue they can raise taxes, close loopholes, and limit deductions.


I wasn't attacking you in a personal way, simply the fact you are young and we all know that conservative universities are,* in fact*, teaching what we considered "John Bircher" type economics in the 60's and 70's. Call it what you want. Maybe "unbridled capitalism," but I said it because of your posts that approve of corporations doing *whatever* they have to do to make (more) money. "That's the law - if they don't like it change it." That attitude right there is corporate power swinging its power and pushing the envelope, almost begging or baiting for more regulation. Then they have more to blame on their regulators.  It's an old game, but it's become mainstream and your posts reflect that ultra pro-corporate attitude. Avoiding taxes is not "what they do." You DO realize that still, today, in 2015 the corporate charter, issued by the states, is the legal document that *allows* them to operate as a corporation. It's not a right - it's a responsibility that includes being a good corporate citizen.  The language in those are at odds with your thinking and it's time to put the brakes on the corporatocracy run wild. 

By the way, you wrote: _"Oh so instead of attacking the message, attack the messenger. Good work Saul Alinsky."_ That IS a personal attack. I didn't compare you to any people with controversial lives. Think what I could do.

----------


## ou48A

> The funding short fall and excessive debt compiled by Texas and its State agencies is well documented ($328 billion and counting).  When that tree falls it is going to make one serious thud and Texas will have to do what Connecticut just did - raise taxes on those not paying any.


Their high growth rates and increasing severance tax will help Texas pay down its debt….. But Texas is trying to do something that you and many others here have screamed about all the time ….. _Diversify its economy_ …. Doing so requires effort and smart debt….They are showing us how it’s done in today's world…We should be paying close attention.
With such cheap interest rates what they are doing will pay off many times over in the coming decades.

----------


## ou48A

> They raised taxes and GE threatened to leave. Once again, that's pretty predictable behavior. When states have to compete with each other for companies, having a lower tax rate is attractive. (It is not the only factor, and sometimes isn't even a factor) So maybe a state with 3.5 million people should try to figure out a way to spend less then $20,000,000,000. That's almost 3X the size of Oklahoma's state government with a slightly smaller population. 
> 
> Oh so instead of attacking the message, attack the messenger. Good work Saul Alinsky. 
> 
> I never once mentioned capitalism. In a pure capitalistic libertarian utopia, large companies aren't allowed to hire a lobbyist to get congress to rewrite the tax code for them. That's not the world we live in though. And since it's legal, GE is going to do it. None of this behavior is shocking. *Companies like to avoid taxes, it's what they do it's who they are. They aren't thugs they are behaving exactly like they're supposed too and always have.* 
> 
> If the government wants more revenue they can raise taxes, close loopholes, and limit deductions.


Companies do like to avoid taxes but there is something else in play…. CEO’s and other high ranking officials like avoiding state income taxes…. It makes their decision to move a lot easier.

I have a sister in law who once worked on economic development in the north Texas area and helped recruit and broker deals to bring large corporations to the Dallas area. XOM was one of her success. But from talking to her in depth it’s pretty clear that we don’t do enough in Oklahoma to be attractive to corporations and their new high wage jobs.  

It starts IMHO with the lack of resources that we spend at our universities on educating people in the various sciences. If we don’t invest in our own intellectual capital it just moves elsewhere on its own!

----------


## zookeeper

> Their high growth rates and increasing severance tax will help Texas pay down its debt….. But Texas is trying to do something that you and many others here have screamed about all the time ….. _Diversify its economy_ …. Doing so requires effort and smart debt….They are showing us how it’s done in today's world…We should be paying close attention.
> *With such cheap interest rates what they are doing will pay off many times over in the coming decades.*


Tell that to our legislators. All they want to do is cut, cut, and cut some more.

----------


## Just the facts

> Their high growth rates and increasing severance tax will help Texas pay down its debt….. But Texas is trying to do something that you and many others here have screamed about all the time ….. _Diversify its economy_ …. Doing so requires effort and smart debt….They are showing us how it’s done in today's world…We should be paying close attention.
> With such cheap interest rates what they are doing will pay off many times over in the coming decades.


So you are under the assumption that at some point Texas will have all of their infrastructure in place and will be swimming in so much tax money that they can not only meet all their funding needs at that time, but also run a $320 million surplus to pay off their debt?  That sounds like the logic used by compulsive gamblers (and the Federal government)

----------


## mugofbeer

> So you are under the assumption that at some point Texas will have all of their infrastructure in place and will be swimming in so much tax money that they can not only meet all their funding needs at that time, but also run a $320 million surplus to pay off their debt?  That sounds like the logic used by compulsive gamblers (and the Federal government)


You assume this is a no growth situation with Texas.  They borrowed billions at virtually zero interest to invest in infrastructure which was a brilliant move.  The big 4 cities of Texas have announces tens of thousands of new jobs.  Just look at Plano-Frisco alone in N. Texas.  A total transformation is about to happen.  Toyota, State Farm, Lincoln National and Fed Ex all have announced multi-thousand hiring expansions.  Ft. Worth has large announcements, there is a whole thread about Austin Hi Tech boom and Houston will come on again shortly - especially if oil exports are approved.  Debt is not to be feared when it spurs private investment, such as in Texas.  Debt is an evil ticking time bomb when it is thrown at politically correct causes and economically unfeasible pies-in-sky fantasies and not used to spur reasonable investment the way the Fed has done it.  30 years from now, Durant and Ardmore may be outer exurbs of Dallas-Fort Worth.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> You assume this is a no growth situation with Texas.  They borrowed billions at virtually zero interest to invest in infrastructure which was a brilliant move.  The big 4 cities of Texas have announces tens of thousands of new jobs.  Just look at Plano-Frisco alone in N. Texas.  A total transformation is about to happen.  Toyota, State Farm, Lincoln National and Fed Ex all have announced multi-thousand hiring expansions.  Ft. Worth has large announcements, there is a whole thread about Austin Hi Tech boom and Houston will come on again shortly - especially if oil exports are approved.  Debt is not to be feared when it spurs private investment, such as in Texas.  Debt is an evil ticking time bomb when it is thrown at politically correct causes and economically unfeasible pies-in-sky fantasies and not used to spur reasonable investment the way the Fed has done it.  30 years from now, Durant and Ardmore may be outer exurbs of Dallas-Fort Worth.


+1. Also note Facebook is opening a data center in Fortworth.

----------


## mugofbeer

> GE is a company. Paying $1 in taxes is being overtaxed in their eyes. They are very good at what they do and guess what? It results in them not having to pay a huge tax burden. They cry poor, lobby, and hire expensive lawyers to find loop holes. Do you have like 0 experience with business people? This is what we do. 
> 
> You are complaining that a massive company with revenues in the hundreds of billions is behaving exactly like a massive company behaves. Do you scream and yell at your dog for barking? No he's a dog that's what he does. GE avoids taxes because that's what they do. That's what every company and individual on the face of the earth does. You do it too. So yes, it hypocritical to complain GE avoids taxes when you do it as well. Some of the most liberal people I know hire republican tax accountants. Why? Because no one wants to pay more then they have to. GE is just brilliant at doing it.
> 
> The real fault lies with the government. They have the power to tax and if they want more tax revenue they should exercise said power if they want more money. Asking GE to pay more is ludicrous.


What you say here is spot on.  The fiduciary responsibility of a publicly traded company is to reasonably maximize profits.  If CT raises their state tax rate to, say, 5%, while TX has 0%, then the board of directors must explore a move.  Businesses aren't in business to pay taxes (research corporate charters).  GoPokes is also spot on with his observation that CTs state budget is approximately 3x that of OK though our populations are comperable and despite OK being 14x the size of CT.  While i wish OK spent more on higher quality education and roads, perhaps CT needs to do some significant cutting.  Even when the Federal Government tries to raise corporate tax rates,  corporations can simply move overseas.  GE simply manages taxes the way individuals do.  They minimize them.

----------


## Just the facts

Yes, but thanks to the incentives, those jobs aren't producing taxes to pay off the debt they borrowed to create the job.  You know, it's not like Texas just started doing this.  They have been doing it for 30 years and they have a bigger debt than ever.  When does they payoff come?

All that awesome growth is fueled by debt, and they aren't collecting the taxes necessary to pay it off.  At some point they will have to start taxing these companies and then what?  Answer, GE moves to Arizona and Texas is left holding the bag - just like a lot companies do in Oklahoma just as soon as Quality Jobs money goes away.

----------


## Just the facts

I'll just leave this here for anyone who wants to read it.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/03...=all&referrer=

----------


## zookeeper

> What you say here is spot on.  The fiduciary responsibility of a publicly traded company is to reasonably maximize profits.  If CT raises their state tax rate to, say, 5%, while TX has 0%, then the board of directors must explore a move.  Businesses aren't in business to pay taxes (research corporate charters).  GoPokes is also spot on with his observation that CTs state budget is approximately 3x that of OK though our populations are comperable and despite OK being 14x the size of CT.  While i wish OK spent more on higher quality education and roads, perhaps CT needs to do some significant cutting.  Even when the Federal Government tries to raise corporate tax rates,  corporations can simply move overseas.  GE simply manages taxes the way individuals do.  They minimize them.


, 

*This may come as a surprise to you, Mug, but this "fiduciary duty" or "responsibility to shareholders" we always hear about? It's a myth. There is no such thing.*

*Maximizing Shareholder Value: The Goal That Changed Corporate America - The Washington Post

*"The belief that shareholders come first is not codified by statute.   Rather, it was introduced by a handful of free-market academics in the   1970s and then picked up by business leaders and the media until it   became an oft-repeated mantra in the corporate world."

*The Shareholder Wealth Maximization Myth - Truth On The Market

*"The only constraint on board decision making is a pair of duties  the  duty of care and the duty of loyalty. The duty of care requires  boards to be well informed and to make deliberate decisions after  careful consideration of the issues. Importantly, board members are  entitled to rely on experts and corporate officers for their  information, can easily comply with duty of care obligations by spending  shareholder money on lawyers and process, and, in any event, are  routinely indemnified against damages for any breaches of this duty. The  duty of loyalty self evidently requires board members to put the  interests of the corporation ahead of their own personal interest."


*The Cult of Shareholder Value Has Wrecked American Business - The Washington Post*

"There are no statutes that put the shareholder at the top of the corporate priority list...Nor does the law require, as many believe, that executives and directors owe a special fiduciary duty to shareholders."


*Article by Connecticut School of Law Professor at Medium

*"The specific fiduciary duties of corporate directors, like much of the law, are not written down in any statute..."


*Mug, There are answers for everything you and gopokes88 have written. But, I'll just start with the above so we can move along.*

----------


## Just the facts

Zookeeper-  have you read Impulse Society?  If not, add it to your reading list.  Sadly, the same group of people chanting "Take our country back" turn around and support the very activity that is breaking it apart - and they don't even see it.

----------


## zookeeper

> Zookeeper-  have you read Impulse Society?  If not, add it to your reading list.  Sadly, the same group of people chanting "Take our country back" turn around and support the very activity that is breaking it apart - and they don't even see it.


On the list! Thanks, as always.

----------


## Spartan

GE will probably move their HQ somewhere that provides them the quality workforce of CT with slightly lower taxes. They already have a MAJOR presence in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Louisville.

The GE Lighting HQ in East Cleve is stunning... Though Cincinnati would make a lot of sense for them.

----------


## mugofbeer

To JTF - providing a 3 year old article from a newspaper in a state that is losing jobs to Texas is hardly proof of anything.  Did you honestly tell me that the people taking the thousands of jobs arent paying taxes -- and therefore arent helping to service the debt load?  What planet have you gone to?  The COMPANIES are getting the tax breaks, not the employees.  The employees are spending money and paying some of the highest sales taxes in the country.  They are building and buying houses and paying property taxes 3x what i pay in CO.  i can dispute a NYT article because all you have to do is use your eyes and see the prosperity there.  There is a fraction of the normal housing inventory for sale.  There are billion dollar construction and development projects across the state - most of which DO  pay property taxes.  Construction cranes are all over DFW for privately financed development and RE-development abounds in the large cities.  At the same time, the cost of living remains low compared to most of the country.  You can deny it all you want, but all you have to do is use your eyes.  Is TX perfect? No.  They could have spent more money on education.  Most of their school financing problems come from state law embeded in their constitution and the simple fact TX is physically enormous.  Working in the financial biz, i can tell you no one seems to have a problem with the quality and safety of their bonds.  I'll believe the markets far more easily than a NYTiimes writer.

----------


## mugofbeer

To Zookeeper:  you can find articles to say anything.  Sure there are poorly run companies.  The average life of a company that hits the stock market is about 4 years.  Companies who are well run rise to the top.  Whether it is written in statute or not, a company won't thrive the way GE has by "getting along."  Their BOD has generally done a fair job but has been guilty of holding assets in industries that are no longer providing high growth.  They are actively shedding divisions that dont contribute enough to the bottom line such as financial and home appliances.   If they dont react, they stagnate and GE was starting to stagnate.  Again' you can provide all the articles you want but all you have to do is use your own eyes and use common sense to see this is a prudent move.  Clearly dozens of other firms see it the same way.

----------


## zookeeper

> To Zookeeper: * you can find articles to say anything.*   Sure there are poorly run companies.  The average life of a company  that hits the stock market is about 4 years.  Companies who are well run  rise to the top.  Whether it is written in statute or not, a company  won't thrive the way GE has by "getting along."  Their BOD has generally  done a fair job but has been guilty of holding assets in industries  that are no longer providing high growth.  They are actively shedding  divisions that dont contribute enough to the bottom line such as  financial and home appliances.   If they dont react, they stagnate and  GE was starting to stagnate.  Again' you can provide all the articles  you want but all you have to do is use your own eyes and use common  sense to see this is a prudent move.  Clearly dozens of other firms see  it the same way.


What? You stated in your earlier post, passing along the "fiduciary responsibility" myth:_
"The fiduciary responsibility of a publicly traded company is to  reasonably maximize profits.  If CT raises their state tax rate to, say,  5%, while TX has 0%, then the board of directors must explore a move._"
That's  all I responded to. To show that the "fiduciary duty" myth is a canard  used to explain inexplicable behavior. Your response is to say you can  find articles that can say anything? Those links clearly laid out the  history of how the "fiduciary responsibility" myth got started and how  it's not codified or any way laid out as a legal "responsibility." *You can't find articles in the Washington Post that say anything, Mug.* That's absurd on its face and what's more_ - you know that._ *What is the purpose of research and study if there is no fact to refute fiction? No truth to prove a falsity?*  Your response is to simply say I can find an article that can say  anything? You said that corporations have a "fiduciary responsibility"  to maximize profits. That's not true. Of course it matters if it's in  statutes. The argument keeps getting put forward as an excuse how these  poor corporations can't help it, they HAVE to do this and that because  they have this fiduciary responsibility.....*it's not true!* 

Reasoning  with blind supporters of the corporatocracy is incredibly frustrating. You said you are in the financial industry, which makes you a part of the pushing paper to make more money to get more fake paper to sell at a ridiculous interest rates (when you get it almost free), on and on. Your industry is part of the problem and has no place at the table to discuss righting this ship of state that *finance capital has caused*. They claim that the law forces them to do these things and then when  shown there isn't actually a law, they do exactly what you did. Change  the subject. In your case, you claim that somehow there is no real truth  and the articles I posted are suspect because "you can find articles  that say anything." There's a term for that: Intellectual dishonesty. Something easily learned in the financial industry.

----------


## Just the facts

> To JTF - providing a 3 year old article from a newspaper in a state that is losing jobs to Texas is hardly proof of anything.  Did you honestly tell me that the people taking the thousands of jobs arent paying taxes -- and therefore arent helping to service the debt load?  What planet have you gone to?  The COMPANIES are getting the tax breaks, not the employees.  The employees are spending money and paying some of the highest sales taxes in the country.  They are building and buying houses and paying property taxes 3x what i pay in CO.  i can dispute a NYT article because all you have to do is use your eyes and see the prosperity there.  There is a fraction of the normal housing inventory for sale.  There are billion dollar construction and development projects across the state - most of which DO  pay property taxes.  Construction cranes are all over DFW for privately financed development and RE-development abounds in the large cities.  At the same time, the cost of living remains low compared to most of the country.  You can deny it all you want, but all you have to do is use your eyes.  Is TX perfect? No.  They could have spent more money on education.  Most of their school financing problems come from state law embeded in their constitution and the simple fact TX is physically enormous.  Working in the financial biz, i can tell you no one seems to have a problem with the quality and safety of their bonds.  I'll believe the markets far more easily than a NYTiimes writer.


Not only is the State rebating the companies taxes, *they are also rebating the EMPLOYEE'S taxes*.  That is why the size of the rebate is directly related to the payroll dollar amount.  Now yes, there will be sales tax collections when employees spend their checks but the fact is from the State and Local government perspective, they are rebating more than they are collecting while still have to provide services to the employees.  If incentives are the way to go why doesn't Oklahoma just eliminate business income taxes period across the board for every employer?  Just think of the growth that would generate.

Quality Jobs Program - Oklahoma Department of Commerce




> This incentive targets manufacturers and certain service industries that have a new payroll investment of $2.5 million or more to receive a quarterly cash payment of *up to 5 percent of new taxable payroll*. A lower payroll threshold is available for certain food processing and research and development projects, or as a result of locating in targeted areas. Qualifying wage requirements would be the lower of the average county wage or the state index wage. Companies that have 10 percent of their workforce as veterans qualify for a higher 6 percent net benefit rate.





> Oklahoma’s 21st Century Quality Jobs offers incentives to businesses with a highly skilled, knowledge-based workforce. For qualifying companies, this unique incentive would pay businesses cash back, *up to 10 percent of payroll*, for up to ten years for the creation of 10 jobs with high average wage of $94,000 annually or higher, depending on county.





> Effective July 1, 2011, Oklahoma aerospace companies hiring engineers receive *a tax credit equal to 10% of the compensation paid to an engineer* during the first five years of his or her employment depending on the date of hire if the engineer graduated from an Oklahoma college, or* a tax credit equal to 5% of the compensation paid to the engineer* during the first five years of his or her employment depending on the date of hire if the engineer graduated from a college outside Oklahoma. *The maximum credit is $12,500 per qualified employee per year*.
> 
> In addition, effective July 1, 2011 Oklahoma aerospace companies may receive a tax credit in the amount of 50% of the tuition reimbursed to a new engineer graduate for the first four years of his or her employment depending on the date of hire. The* tax credit is limited to 50% of the average annual tuition paid by an engineer* at a qualified program at a public university in Oklahoma.
> 
> Also, effective July 1, 2011 engineers hired by an Oklahoma aerospace company may also receive an individual tax credit of up to $5,000 per year for a period of 5 years depending on the date of hire

----------


## Zorba

I used to work for GE Aviation in Cincinnati. They would move their engineering offices every 15 years when their current set of incentives ran out, leaving behind massive empty office buildings. When I left they were building a new set of buildings in West Chester, to pay for the incentives being given to GE, the city passed a 1% local income tax. So GE employees (and everyone else working in West Chester) got to pay directly for GE's tax breaks.  They did the same thing with their manufacturing, get huge deals from city/states to open a facility, as soon as the benefits dried up, move it all somewhere else. 

GE also employees about 1000 tax attorneys to manipulate the tax laws as much as possible, not to mention all of their lobbies.

----------


## Zorba

> Not only is the State rebating the companies taxes, *they are also rebating the EMPLOYEE'S taxes*.


Yup, I haven't paid state income tax since I moved back to Oklahoma in 2009. To restart the 5 year period all you have to do is leave the aviation industry for a few months and go back. The law takes up less than 1 sheet of paper, and has no restrictions on using it multiple times. It also does not require you to be a resident of the state of Oklahoma, there are a lot of people that commute from Wichita and pay no income tax.

----------


## TU 'cane

I know this is about GE, but some previous comments have briefly mentioned OKC and OK diversifying. I thought I'd drop this here. I certainly hope they are successful in their endeavors to keep Oklahoma on the map for aerospace: 

Oklahoma Delegation Courts Aerospace Industry At Paris Air Show
Posted: Jun 15, 2015 11:49 AM CST Updated: Jun 15, 2015 12:01 PM CST
Dee Duren, NewsOn6.com

"PARIS, France -

Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett is in Paris alongside Governor Mary Fallin in an effort to bring more aerospace industry to the state.

Both are part of the Oklahoma delegation at the Paris Air Show. The International aerospace show runs from June 15 to 21, bring together leaders in the aviation industry and showcasing the latest technology.

Fallin said the delegation is pitching the Sooner Sate as the "number one place for aerospace." She said the state has a skilled workforce, a great location and one of the lowest costs of doing business in the country."

Oklahoma Delegation Courts Aerospace Industry At Paris Air Show - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

----------


## Just the facts

So with those last 3 items, why do we have to offer incentives?  We should be attracting companies that expand the taxbase, not mooch off of it.

----------


## Jim Kyle

> So with those last 3 items, why do we have to offer incentives?


Why? Simple: far too many big businesses these days are run by the MBAs who worship nothing but this quarter's bottom line, and have little or no interest in long-term planning. To them, incentives are the be-all and end-all of site selection.

----------


## Just the facts

> Why? Simple: far too many big businesses these days are run by the MBAs who worship nothing but this quarter's bottom line, and have little or no interest in long-term planning. To them, incentives are the be-all and end-all of site selection.


Exactly, so why buy into that non-sense.  Is temporary growth worth the debt and inevitable collapse?  I would rather just tell them go screw up someone elses finances.  My luck they will end up going to Florida anyhow.

----------


## Dubya61

> *This may come as a surprise to you, Mug, but this "fiduciary duty" or "responsibility to shareholders" we always hear about? It's a myth. There is no such thing.*
> ...


I call shenanigans.
Every business exists to make money.
Who do they make money for?  The owner.  If the owner is a generous and kind soul, he will not hog all the money, but that speaks only to the nature of the owner.
Who is the owner of GE?  Shareholders.
Whether you call it a fiduciary responsibility or something else, a good business maximizes profits.  What they do with those profits ... not my monkeys or circus, unless I'm a shareholder.

----------


## Jersey Boss

> I call shenanigans.
> Every business exists to make money.
> Who do they make money for?  The owner.  If the owner is a generous and kind soul, he will not hog all the money, but that speaks only to the nature of the owner.
> Who is the owner of GE?  Shareholders.
> Whether you call it a fiduciary responsibility or something else, a good business maximizes profits.  What they do with those profits ... not my monkeys or circus, unless I'm a shareholder.


In theory that is true, just like in theory Senators and Congressmen/women represent the voters and not the paid lobbyists that take them on junkets, concerts, golf outings, etc. 


General Electric Lets a Little Democracy into its Boardroom | Center for Effective Government
_Shareholders, in theory, own and control a corporation, but this control has always been limited because American corporations have no real elections for their boards. Candidates for directors are put forth by the board itself, and shareholders are ritualistically presented with a slate of directors equal to the number of seats to be filled. They can vote “no” for any candidate, but given there are only as many candidates as there are seats on the board, even a candidate failing to win a majority of votes still is placed on the board.

Over the last decade, a growing number of institutional investors have pressed to change the way directors are elected. They asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to adopt new measures of what was called “proxy access” – the right of shareholders with a large enough stake in the company to nominate directors directly to the proxy ballot.

In August 2010, the SEC adopted such a measure, allowing shareholders or groups of shareholders owning three percent of a company’s stock continuously for more than three years to nominate alternative directors for shareholders to consider when they vote.

The move angered the nation’s CEOs. The Business Roundtable, a powerful lobbying organization representing prominent CEOs, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, sued the SEC to block the measure. They won, and the measure was struck down in 2011._
_GE entered the fray last fall, when one of its shareholders, Kevin Mahar, introduced a shareholder proposal asking the company to broaden the role of shareholders by adopting proxy access.

Under SEC rules, any shareholder who has owned $2,000 worth of stock for more than one year has the right to introduce a proposal asking the company to report on a specific business practice or to change some policy. The SEC considers these votes advisory, not binding, and as such, even when resolutions receive a majority of shareholder’s votes, companies are not legally obligated to follow shareholder direction on issues like disclosing their political contributions or reporting on the effects of climate change._

So unless you have at least 2, 000 worth of stock, held for at least a year, you dear shareholder,"owner", have nothing. Even then the vote or wishes is not binding.

----------


## Dubya61

> In theory that is true, just like in theory Senators and Congressmen/women represent the voters and not the paid lobbyists that take them on junkets, concerts, golf outings, etc. 
> 
> 
> General Electric Lets a Little Democracy into its Boardroom | Center for Effective Government
> _Shareholders, in theory, own and control a corporation, but this control has always been limited because American corporations have no real elections for their boards. Candidates for directors are put forth by the board itself, and shareholders are ritualistically presented with a slate of directors equal to the number of seats to be filled. They can vote “no” for any candidate, but given there are only as many candidates as there are seats on the board, even a candidate failing to win a majority of votes still is placed on the board.
> 
> Over the last decade, a growing number of institutional investors have pressed to change the way directors are elected. They asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to adopt new measures of what was called “proxy access” – the right of shareholders with a large enough stake in the company to nominate directors directly to the proxy ballot.
> 
> In August 2010, the SEC adopted such a measure, allowing shareholders or groups of shareholders owning three percent of a company’s stock continuously for more than three years to nominate alternative directors for shareholders to consider when they vote.
> ...


Theory or no, it's still true in practice, as well.  If you have 1 owner or more (shareholders), your job as a business entity is to make money (for that / those owners) and make it big.

----------


## Just the facts

Let me ask for those who think a corporation's primary objective is making money?  Who/what should be making money - the corporation or the shareholders?  Should it be profit at all costs?

----------


## zookeeper

> Let me ask for those who think a corporation's primary objective is making money?  Who/what should be making money - the corporation or the shareholders?  Should it be profit at all costs?


Bingo. All fiduciary responsibility is to the *corporation* NOT to the stockholders as many today would have you believe. And no, they're not the same thing.

 The corporation is legally viable under a corporate charter issued by the states. This is a key. Many haven't yet grasped the connection.

----------


## OU Adonis

When/who was the last major corporate HQ that OKC landed?

----------


## Bellaboo

> When/who was the last major corporate HQ that OKC landed?


Even though it was a subsidiary of OG&E, I'd say Enable Midstream. It could have gone with Centerpoint to Houston.

----------


## OU Adonis

> Even though it was a subsidiary of OG&E, I'd say Enable Midstream. It could have gone with Centerpoint to Houston.


True.. although they had some sort of ties here.  How about I rephrase it... What was the last major HQ relocation that had no previous ties to OKC/Oklahoma?

----------


## HOT ROD

SandRidge <- Raita Energy

----------


## gopokes88

Vote Rand Paul for tax fairness. 

GOP?s Rand Paul Calls For 14.5% Flat Tax - WSJ

----------


## Bellaboo

> True.. although they had some sort of ties here.  How about I rephrase it... What was the last major HQ relocation that had no previous ties to OKC/Oklahoma?


Not really an HQ relocation, but the largest single influx of high paying jobs would have to be Boeing. Between 900 and 1,100 in a 4 year span.

----------


## Just the facts

> SandRidge <- Raita Energy


I was going to say that, but Tom Ward bought them with the specific intent to relocate them to OKC.  It's not like the City went out and recruited them.

Didn't some company move here from Tulsa about 5 years ago?

----------


## Bellaboo

> I was going to say that, but Tom Ward bought them with the specific intent to relocate them to OKC.  It's not like the City went out and recruited them.
> 
> Didn't some company move here from Tulsa about 5 years ago?


Blue Knight Midstream, and Flogistix (sp?) moved here from Texas 3 years ago.

How about General Electric Global Research...  lol

----------


## Just the facts

Not sure about Blue Knight, but Flogistics was a Tom Ward type deal where the CEO already lived in OKC.

----------


## ou48A

> Vote Rand Paul for tax fairness. 
> 
> GOP?s Rand Paul Calls For 14.5% Flat Tax - WSJ


With a phase in time period I like that idea a lot …. It would simplify the tax codes and make our economy more efficient…. A lot of tax attorneys and accountants would need to find other work.

----------


## Jersey Boss

Very Interesting that folks are having a hard time on this one and even more telling is the companies mentioned are not on the radar screen of most people.

----------


## Just the facts

I would add Continental Oil, but Hamm already lived in OKC as well.

If we want to make the game even harder,  what was thr last non-O&G company that is/was publicly traded?

----------


## Bellaboo

> I would add Continental Oil, but Hamm already lived in OKC as well.
> 
> If we want to make the game even harder,  what was thr last non-O&G company that is/was publicly traded?


He lived here but commuted to Enid for a year or so until CLR moved. I'm not so sure that his marital status didn't contribute to his move to NH.  ?

----------


## Dubya61

> Bingo. All fiduciary responsibility is to the *corporation* NOT to the stockholders as many today would have you believe. And no, they're not the same thing.
> 
>  The corporation is legally viable under a corporate charter issued by the states. This is a key. Many haven't yet grasped the connection.


OK, but why is the corporation making money?  I agree that in today's environment, the shareholder(s) is a sort of absentee owner, but the tail wags the dog pretty damned hard, sometimes.  Look at Carl Icahn and tell me he has no say in how the corporation works.

----------


## Just the facts

Carl Ichan represents everything that is wrong with Wall Street.  The Stock Market was created so companies could raise debt-free capital for R&D and/or expansion.  It has now turned 180 degrees where R&D cut and layoffs/store closings boost stock prices.  The day traders, and now HFT, don't give a crap about anything more than 7 days out (or miliseconds out for HFT). All Carl Ichan is, is a glorified chop shop operator.  Your car is worth 5x more in parts than it is as an operating vehicle - but for some reason you don't unlock that 'value'. That is where Carl comes along.  He doesn't care if you have to walk after he chops your car up.  He unlocks the value in your car and then finds someone elses car.

----------


## Bunty

Just abolish the federal corporate income tax and be through with tax giveaways.    Make up for lost revenue by raising income taxes of millionaires.   I don't care if tax accountants have to be laid off.

----------


## zookeeper

> Vote Rand Paul for tax fairness. 
> 
> GOP?s Rand Paul Calls For 14.5% Flat Tax - WSJ


The Flat Tax is the most unfair tax proposal there is. A middle class family pays the same rate as Donald Trump and the 1% - who have as much wealth as the rest of the country (99%) put together? The Flat Tax is a huge giveaway to the rich. That this makes sense to people is just shocking. Only In America.

----------


## Jersey Boss

> Just abolish the federal corporate income tax and be through with tax giveaways.    Make up for lost revenue by raising income taxes of millionaires.   I don't care if tax accountants have to be laid off.


You realize that most millionaires are not wage earners and are not subject to the same rates of taxations that wage earners are.

----------


## zookeeper

> You realize that most millionaires are not wage earners and are not subject to the same rates of taxations that wage earners are.


Exactly right. I have seen proposals that included a Flat Tax rate, elimination of the inheritance tax (which only applies to estates over 1 or 2 million dollars anyway) --- *and* elimination of capital gains. Imagine that gift to the rich. The consolidation of wealth is happening at a frightening pace and is not about the rich versus the poor. It's about the very, very, very rich *and everyone else*. They buy our elections, run our corporations, manage our banking system, decide who can and cannot keep their homes, own our elected officials and run roughshod over people who actually work for a living (as opposed to pushing paper). Just say no to the New American Oligarchy.

----------


## Just the facts

I support a wealth tax.  Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that.  Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.

----------


## zookeeper

> *I support a wealth tax.*  Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that.  Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.


Me too.

----------


## Urbanized

I just don't understand the rationale behind requiring people who are more successful to pay a higher percentage of their income (which as a general rule they absolutely do, loophole bandits notwithstanding). Someone should pay a higher percentage of their income just because they have more money than me? Class envy is an ugly thing.

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'? | Pew Research Center

----------


## Jersey Boss

I don't understand the rationale of why someone who is under 18 years of age pays sales taxes. Nor do I understand why residents of the District of Columbia pay income taxes w/o representation. I guess I have an issue with your terminology of "punished".  Paying taxes is a responsibility not a punishment. Why is the poor guy punished with jail for stealing 50 bucks from a retailer and the rich guy who manipulated hedge funds which resulted in many losing their pensions is fined,  while not admitting wrongdoing?

----------


## Jersey Boss

> I support a wealth tax.  Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that.  Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.


Second the motion.

----------


## zookeeper

> I just don't understand the rationale behind requiring people who are more successful to pay a higher percentage of their income (which as a general rule they absolutely do, loophole bandits notwithstanding). Someone should pay a higher percentage of their income just because they have more money than me? Class envy is an ugly thing.
> 
> High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'? | Pew Research Center



Thank you, Urbanized, for proving my (and others) point. 
Most on the right have stopped using this "look who pays the taxes" excuse. Because it simply proves the point of concentration of wealth.
This isn't really that difficult...
If all the money is being made by _the few_ - *who will be paying most of the taxes? 
*Simple, really.

----------


## Just the facts

The risk to society by wealth concentration is far greater than the 'injustice' perpatrated on a few extremely wealthy.  It's not wealthy or class envy - it's the sustainabilty of the Republic at stake.

----------


## Urbanized

NM. Pointless conversation.

----------


## Just the facts

For those who are intetested, I recommend The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek.

----------


## Zorba

> I just don't understand the rationale behind requiring people who are more successful to pay a higher percentage of their income (which as a general rule they absolutely do, loophole bandits notwithstanding). Someone should pay a higher percentage of their income just because they have more money than me? Class envy is an ugly thing.
> 
> High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be 'fair'? | Pew Research Center


Because the people that make the most, generally benefit the most from government services, infrastructure and spending. 

Also your chart is pure propaganda since it does not also show the percentage of income for each bracket. That vital piece of information was left off very intentionally.

----------


## Urbanized

As you wish, here are tax rates by bracket, courtesy 2015 Tax Brackets | Tax Foundation 

Table 1. 2015 Taxable Income Brackets and Rates

Rate
Single Filers
Married Joint Filers
Head of Household Filers

10%
$0 to $9,225
$0 to $18,450
$0 to $13,150

15%
$9,225 to $37,450
$18,450 to $74,900
$13,150 to $50,200

25%
$37,450 to $90,750
$74,900 to $151,200
$50,200 to $129,600

28%
$90,750 to $189,300
$151,200 to $230,450
$129,600 to $209,850

33%
$189,300 to $411,500
$230,450 to $411,500
$209,850 to $411,500

35%
$411,500 to $413,200
$411,500 to $464,850
$411,500 to $439,000

39.6%
$413,200+
$464,850+
$439,000+

Obviously many wealthy people can avoid much of this through loopholes, which in many cases I would support closing. But saying that rich people account for more of our taxes simply because of wealth concentration? That's the real propaganda. They also account for more because they pay at a much higher rate, in general. The fact that so many people are super-OK with this (and crying for even more flesh) is kind of gross.

That link and chart that I previously posted are from the Pew Reseach Center, not Forbes or Fox News. Pew is not in the propaganda business. Just because something clashes with your own worldview doesn't mean that it's "propaganda." In many cases it just means that you are so invested in your narrow opinion that you are unwilling to consider information that doesn't line up with it, factual or not. That's why this discussion is a waste of my time. Out.

----------


## Just the facts

What do you want to Urbanized? We have a $17 trillion debt and annual deficits between $400 billion and $1.2 trillion.  Where do we get the money?  Should we be giving tax credits/breaks/rebates to ANY companies?

Do you think the uber-wealthy even care about the debt the rest of us will have to pay off -maybe with our lives?  The answer is, no they don't because they buy the tax-free debt.  And what does the government do with the money?  Answer, they turn around and spend it on products made by uber-wealthy.  And what does the uber-wealthy do with the profits? They buy stocks, more government debt, and reduce their business costs by off-shoring jobs, iincreasing automation, and coming to broke states like Oklahoma asking for handouts.  THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE GE BUSINESS MODEL.

Now if you are okay with that then great,  but I am not okay with it.

----------


## hoya

> 


I did it to one side on the gun thread, it's only fair I do it to the other side here.

I look at that chart and I see a problem.  As we go up the chart, we see a gradual increase in the amount of total tax dollars paid, which we would expect with an increasing amount of wealth.  We see a hiccup with the $200,000 to 249,999 group where they're paying a much lower amount of total tax dollars (about 1/4) as the group above them..  This may be explained by the large drop in population of that group -- you're going from 11.2% of the population to 1.4% of the population.  So they're 1/8 the population of the group above them, but they're paying 1/4 the taxes.  This basically makes sense -- since they're making roughly twice the amount of money as the $100,000 to $199,999 group, they're paying twice the taxes, per person.  So that makes sense.

But now we get to the problem.  The $250,000 and up group are 2.4% of the population, but are paying 48.9% of the total taxes.  Now you were good to point out the tax rates everyone is paying.  Assuming everyone is "head of household", most of the $200-250K group are going to be taxed at 33% (the cutoff is $209.850, so there will be some taxed at the lower 28%, but we're just spitballing here so it's okay).  Those in the $250K+ category will be taxed at 33%, 35%, or 39.6%, depending on exactly how much money they make.

Now _that_ group is 2.4% of the population.  They are paying nearly half of the total income taxes.  But while their tax rate is higher, it's not astronomically so.  Somebody earning $500,000 a year is paying 39.6%, whereas someone earning $250,000 a year is paying 33%.  Since the population of that group is 58% larger (2.4 vs l.4) than the income bracket before them, we would expect them to pay more money.  Since they are paying at a higher tax rate, we would expect them to pay more money.  But they aren't paying so high a tax rate, and they aren't so large a group population-wise, that we would expect them to pay 49% of total income taxes -- not unless their income was crazy crazy high.  

In other words, the chart you posted doesn't make sense unless the rich are REALLY rich -- they don't have a big enough population and aren't taxed at that much higher an amount to account for why they are paying so much more in total dollars.  The only explanation is that each of them has gobs and gobs of money.  Some back-of-the-napkin calculations show that each of those guys would have to be making about a million dollars a year of taxable income for the chart to make sense.  But we know not all of them are millionaires.  There's a big group of people who are earning between $250,000 and $999,999 a year, and their income is not substantial enough to explain that 48.9% amount.  In other words, all the people making between $250K and $999K are _dragging down_ the average.  That means the people who are earning a million-plus dollars a year must be earning a whole lot more than that, enough to make up for all the slackers earning $300,000 a year who aren't pulling their own weight.

----------


## TU 'cane

> The Flat Tax is the most unfair tax proposal there is. A middle class family pays the same rate as Donald Trump and the 1% - who have as much wealth as the rest of the country (99%) put together? *The Flat Tax is a huge giveaway to the rich. That this makes sense to people is just shocking.* Only In America.


The reason it's been pushed by the typical GOPer (I say this in all generality because I haven't seen any push from the Dems in favor of this...) for years is because it would actually be the fairest deal to the Middle Class, not the poor, and not *exactly* the rich, either. I know, that's extremely hard to swallow. But keep in mind, I'm meaning Middle Class, and more particularly "Upper" Middle Class, the ones who are generally able to start small businesses. We'll say for argument's sake those are the ones making $100-250,000 + yearly.

While your statement does contain some truth, I would have to counter that poor people, or just common people like us don't buy $1,000,000 yachts and cars ($145,000 in taxes right off the top at, for example, Rand Paul's 14.5% flat rate), relative to a bi-weekly or monthly grocery bill of $200 - $29 in taxes, for the rest of us. Of which we're probably paying more NOW with sales tax + additional income taxes. In fact, $17.16 in sales tax alone is paid on a typical grocery bill of $200 at Tulsa's sales tax rate of 8.584%. 
That's where the fair tax makes it's greatest argument, in my opinion. 

Now, to add to that...




> Exactly right. I have seen proposals that included a Flat Tax rate, elimination of the inheritance tax (which only applies to estates over 1 or 2 million dollars anyway) --- *and* elimination of capital gains. Imagine that gift to the rich. The consolidation of wealth is happening at a frightening pace and is not about the rich versus the poor. It's about the very, very, very rich *and everyone else*. They buy our elections, run our corporations, manage our banking system, decide who can and cannot keep their homes, own our elected officials and run roughshod over people who actually work for a living (as opposed to pushing paper). Just say no to the New American Oligarchy.





> I support a wealth tax.  Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that.  Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.


In all honesty, I do believe, Fair Tax or not, that those making over $1,000,000 need at minimum a 10% income tax, no loopholes, plus I think this could have potential for bi-partisan compromise (hopefully it's at least tri-partisan by the time this is ever taken seriously). I'm not one for class warfare, however, the gap between the classes is only widening and the wealthy are getting wealthier while the poor are getting poorer. Reason? Tax holes and inflation, to name just a couple key components. The whole system is broken (like many things) and filled with so much sh*t, that at the end of the day, we, the common people, get screwed.

Edit: I've modified this post a couple times, changing a couple details and removing parts of the original.

----------


## onthestrip

> I just don't understand the rationale behind requiring people who are more successful to pay a higher percentage of their income (which as a general rule they absolutely do, loophole bandits notwithstanding). Someone should pay a higher percentage of their income just because they have more money than me? *Class envy is an ugly thing.*


Big gaps in income inequality is even an uglier thing.

The rich pay the same rate as the poor. They just start paying a little more over certain amounts. And I dont know why its a surprise that the very top earners pay so much of the income taxes as a whole. There is huge concentrations of wealth between so few of people. And the poor could pay more of a % of that total income tax amount if they rich paid them more. Raise wages and we collect more taxes from them while also lessening the amount of government assistance doled out. Its a win win for everyone except the very top earners.

----------


## Just the facts

> The whole system is broken (like many things) and filled with so much sh*t, that at the end of the day, we, the common people, get screwed.


I am still sticking by my 2020 prediction so we won't really have to worry about it much longer.  Personally, I wouldn't mind reverting to City-State Republics as the primary form of government.

----------


## Stew

> I support a wealth tax.  Every year everyone fills out a networth statement and we pay taxes on that.  Either that or the Fair Tax coupled with a stock/commodities purchase tax.


Good luck on that one,

----------


## Just the facts

> Good luck on that one,


Trust me, I am under no illusion that we will see any other tax code than what we have right now.  We are all-in on the progress trap.

----------


## OU Adonis

The rich also pay a hell of a lot more in sales taxes and excise taxes.   They already pay their fair share (Loopholes withstanding).

Keep taxing them more and they will offshore more like the corporations have done.

----------


## zookeeper

> The rich also pay a hell of a lot more in sales taxes and excise taxes.   They already pay their fair share (Loopholes withstanding).
> 
> Keep taxing them more and they will offshore more like the corporations have done.


About your little picture: It's funny. Some of the the most powerful nations in the world economically are based on democratic socialism or social democracy. But, a lot of people around here have no clue what democratic socialism is. Obviously you don't. But forget socialism. It's sad that you consider the ultra, ultra wealthy paying a fairer share "socialism!" Sounds good on a bumpersticker though.

The 1%, Adonis, that owns more than the other 99% put together (do you not see that as grotesque and immoral?), in NO WAY pay their "fair share." The high-end investor class makes money from money from money that makes more money, while people who work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week can't even afford the basic necessities. Your rich, you speak so highly of, sound like fair-weather patriots if you think they'll offshore if asked to pay a fairer percentage of their* unearned* income. And yes, you read that right, nobody can "earn" the huge sums of wealth accumulated by the 1%. And actually, you probably won't believe this, because it sounds so fantastic, but we're really talking about the *upper 1/10th of the 1%*.

----------


## BoulderSooner

They already pay more than their fair share.      As you have said the socialism is strong in this thread.   Even from the "conservative" Kerry

----------


## onthestrip

Its hard to say the ultra wealthy already pay their fair share when its the head of a household that makes $40,000/year ends up paying more to taxes as a percentage of their income than the one percenters. 

And its not as if the lower and middle class wouldnt love the opportunity to pay more in taxes, its that their employers arent paying them better wages.

----------


## Bellaboo

> Its hard to say the ultra wealthy already pay their fair share when its the head of a household that makes $40,000/year ends up paying more to taxes as a percentage of their income than the one percenters. 
> 
> And its not as if the lower and middle class wouldnt love the opportunity to pay more in taxes*, its that their employers arent paying them better wages.*




Maybe they should work for themselves ? I always contended if a person was going to really bust their butt, they should be self employed instead of working for the other guy.

----------


## TU 'cane

Many of us are missing the elephant in the room in regard to this discussion. 
It's not even so much about the employers and the wages they pay. I've always contended that I can complain and I can request higher pay, but ultimately, if I'm not happy, I need to move on. I'm not forced to work here or there for this or that wage. 

But, what I was referring to, is the rate of inflation. 
Inflation is what causes us to lose our buying power, what was worth $20 in the 1980s, just for example, is $40 or more now. This a major reason why people are poorer and why the income gap is widening. Inflation doesn't hit the rich like it hits the middle and lower classes of society.

----------


## onthestrip

> [/B]
> 
> Maybe they should work for themselves ? I always contended if a person was going to really bust their butt, they should be self employed instead of working for the other guy.


Sure, they can go work on their own, even though it is so much easier said than done (takes money, time and resources that one doesnt have). But that still doesnt do anything about the low paying job that still exists and will be filled by another head of the household who can barely provide for his family at that amount.

Its the same for people who argue against minimum wage increases. Theres some uninformed person saying the low wage employee should get more skills/more education/find a better job. OK, but its not like the min wage job will go away. It will still exist and it will be filled by another who cant work enough hours to provide for themselves or family, thus relying on govt assistance.

----------


## Just the facts

This jusy in - the people we are talking about, the 0.1%, didn't get in that bracket via capitalism.  They got there by manipulating the government and exploiting the people.  Why is anyone Okay with that?

----------


## Just the facts

I hate the word 'inflation' because it is a word used to trick the populace.  Since the inception of the federal reserve, the US dollar has lost 94% of its value.   That is deflation.

The Fed has a mandate to maintain 2% inflation every year.  Imagine if people really knew that meant the Fed attempts to devalue the money already earned by 2%.

----------


## Motley

But JTF, isn't the opposite even worse?  If you have "deflation," supply outstrips demand and leads to layoffs and a dead economy.  Doesn't a low inflation mean higher demand and increased productivity and opportunity for employment?

----------


## Urbanized

> This jusy in - the people we are talking about, the 0.1%, didn't get in that bracket via capitalism.  They got there by manipulating the government and exploiting the people.  Why is anyone Okay with that?


Really? What a general statement THAT is. I look at this list and see the American dream; a ton of people literally self-made - several of them started businesses in their own friggin garages fercryingoutloud - and some first-generation descendants of the same type of self-made entrepreneurs: The Richest People in America List - Forbes 

But anyway, I get it; if someone has lots of money surely they didn't do anything to deserve such good fortune.

----------


## Just the facts

Come on Urbanized.  Bill Gates didn't make billions off his garage startup.  He made it on Wall Street.

----------


## gopokes88

> Really? What a general statement THAT is. I look at this list and see the American dream; a ton of people literally self-made - several of them started businesses in their own friggin garages fercryingoutloud - and some first-generation descendants of the same type of self-made entrepreneurs: The Richest People in America List - Forbes 
> 
> But anyway, I get it; if someone has lots of money surely they didn't do anything to deserve such good fortune.


900 of the 1300 worlds billionaires were created in the last 20 years. People move up and down in income classes constantly. That's something that is never reported on. People are moving up and down in classes. The recession took out a lot of people and the recovery made a different set of people rise in income. 

Sure there is a very very tiny portion of society that will live and die then pass on to their kids a silver spoon, but it's such an insanely small percentage. This notion that the elite stays the elite is a farce. 

Billionaire boom may be ending 

Jtf is a conservative in name only evidenced by the fact he subscribes to very little of what conservatives believe. 

Oh and read an economics book, low inflation is good for an economy. If a currency stagnates and starts to deflate it quickly stops being $20 and starts being a piece of paper with a 2 and a 0 on it. 

Something the millienials have embraced that the older generation hasn't is entrepnuership. You used to be able to work for a company your whole life, probably join a union, and be setup with a nice retirement. That's not how it works anymore. The economy has advanced past that. It will never go back without serious pain. We're a technologically advanced global economy now. If you want to go back to those days, go move to Greece. Market forces will inflict unimaginable amounts of pain on economies that try to fight it. 

2 ways to win in today's world. 
1. Education. Doctor, accountant, IT, engineer, lawyer (although that bubble is bursting). 
2. Own something. On every transaction there's a side that makes money and a side that loses money. Whether you start a company, own rent homes or buy stocks, be on the side that makes money off the transaction, don't always be the consumer. 

That's it. Those are the ways to do it in a modern economy.

----------


## gopokes88

https://www.aei.org/publication/trac...come-mobility/ 
That's what I was looking for. This isn't the hunger games. People move up and down frequently.

Jamie dimon is the poster boy for the elite. His grandfather? Greek immigrant.

----------


## Just the facts

> Sure there is a very very tiny portion of society that will live and die then pass on to their kids a silver spoon, but it's such an insanely small percentage. This notion that the elite stays the elite is a farce.


That insanely small percentage are the people we are talking about.

----------


## zookeeper

> Really? What a general statement THAT is. I look at this list and see the American dream; a ton of people literally self-made - several of them started businesses in their own friggin garages fercryingoutloud - and some first-generation descendants of the same type of self-made entrepreneurs: The Richest People in America List - Forbes 
> 
> But anyway, I get it; if someone has lots of money surely they didn't do anything to deserve such good fortune.


It's interesting you would support the corporatocracy that these millionaires and billionaires have given us. They manipulate the tax code and pay a far less percentage of taxes than most small businesses. Wall Street over Main Street. Your water taxi business, for example, is not what anybody here has a problem with. Nobody is condemning "success" - we are condemning EXCESS which hurts you and other small businesses right along with everyone else.

----------


## Just the facts

> It's interesting you would support the corporatocracy that these millionaires and billionaires have given us. They manipulate the tax code and pay a far less percentage of taxes than most small businesses. Wall Street over Main Street. Your water taxi business, for example, is not what anybody here has a problem with. Nobody is condemning "success" - we are condemning EXCESS which hurts you and other small businesses right along with everyone else.


For every penny GE benefits from the tax code, the water taxi and every other small business has to make up for it.

----------


## Just the facts

> But JTF, isn't the opposite even worse?  If you have "deflation," supply outstrips demand and leads to layoffs and a dead economy.  Doesn't a low inflation mean higher demand and increased productivity and opportunity for employment?


What is inflating and what is deflating? If I get paid today and put that money in a savings account it deflates.  So why should I save money if it constantly loses value?  The answer is - I shouldn't save, and neither should anyone else.  However, we have a debt based currency and the only way new money is created is through new loans.  However,  loans are limited by the amount of money in savings accounts.  See the problem?  We have an unsustainable currency system (and it is one that I think will collapse in the next 5 years)....but that is a different subject.

----------


## Jim Kyle

> They got there by manipulating the government and exploiting the people.


I think many, if not most, of them got there by skillful selection of grandparents or perhaps great-grandparents -- Hunt, Rockefeller, Morgan, Kennedy, Hutton, and so on come to mind.

----------


## hoya

Billionaires lobby to protect themselves.  They lobby to protect their businesses, to pay lower taxes.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

The problem is that what is good for the billionaire is not necessarily what is good for the country.

If it is okay for the billionaire to lobby to protect their own interests, then it must be fine for the rest of us to lobby against those interests.  Sometimes we will disagree with the very rich.

--

I don't hate the rich.  I don't want to see the government rob them just because they are successful, to try and redistribute the wealth.  I am not a Communist.  But when I see a billionaire is paying a much lower percentage of the money he makes than I pay, then I have a problem.  The very rich have managed to shift their investments to pay as little as possible, and they've been very good at it.  I don't blame them for this -- I would do the same thing.  But I'm not a socialist just for wanting to close those loopholes.

----------


## Just the facts

That is where we differ, I do blame them.  They simultaneously avoid taxes and help create excessive government spending.  They really are having their cake and eating it to.

----------


## Bellaboo

There's not a soul out there that can't live the American dream. Everyone on this board can go buy GRDA bonds (or others), which are state and federal tax free. It's open to all, just do it. Who's holding you back other than yourself. I've worked as many as three jobs at once over the years and have done fairly well. As my almost 92 year old mother says - It's not what you earn, it's what you save. A persons lifestyle may be the problem, my tax accountant says he does a lot of taxes for doctors who make 400,000.00 a year, but their problem is they'll spend 410,000.00 in doing so. Wake up folks.

----------


## zookeeper

> *There's not a soul out there that can't live the American dream. Everyone on this board can go buy GRDA bonds (or others), which are state and federal tax free. It's open to all, just do it. Who's holding you back other than yourself. I've worked as many as three jobs at once over the years and have done fairly well. As my almost 92 year old mother says - It's not what you earn, it's what you save. A persons lifestyle may be the problem, my tax accountant says he does a lot of taxes for doctors who make 400,000.00 a year, but their problem is they'll spend 410,000.00 in doing so. Wake up folks.*


Help me understand....is this your proposal to stop the concentration of ALL the wealth in our country rising to the top 1/10th of 1%?

- Buy Grand River Muni Bonds
- Work three jobs
- Remembering it's not what we earn, it's what we save.
(God bless your wonderful mother, I'm sure she's the best - but you have to earn enough to be able to save enough to make a difference.)
- If you make $400,000.00 a year, don't spend $410,000

Bellaboo, I appreciate your sentiment with the above. But it addresses _nothing_ we are talking about.

----------


## Bellaboo

> Help me understand....is this your proposal to stop the concentration of ALL the wealth in our country rising to the top 1/10th of 1%?
> 
> - Buy Grand River Muni Bonds
> - Work three jobs
> *- Remembering it's not what we earn, it's what we save.
> (God bless your wonderful mother, I'm sure she's the best - but you have to earn enough to be able to save enough to make a difference.)*
> - If you make $400,000.00 a year, don't spend $410,000
> 
> Bellaboo, I appreciate your sentiment with the above. But it addresses _nothing_ we are talking about.


My mother was a school teacher, my dad died in 1980 and she remarried to a man that was in the lower tier of income. He just turned 92. I'm the trustee on their accounts. They have in excess of a million dollars in their estates. 

What I'm trying to say is to not get too excited about something you and I are not going to control (someone else's wealth). Instead of complaining about their wealth, build your own, it can be done.

----------


## TU 'cane

> I hate the word 'inflation' because it is a word used to trick the populace.  *Since the inception of the federal reserve, the US dollar has lost 94% of its value.*   That is deflation.
> 
> The Fed has a mandate to maintain 2% inflation every year.  Imagine if people really knew that meant the Fed attempts to devalue the money already earned by 2%.


For argument's sake: 

"Inflation refers to a general increase in the price of goods and services. This occurs when demand for these items grows faster than the supply. The result is more money chasing fewer goods, and therefore prices increase."

Inflation, Deflation and Stagflation - CFP | Investopedia

In our case, supply hasn't outgrown demand, or even vice versa, no, no. The *supply of money pumped into the economy* by the Fed is what has led to inflation. Thus, that is where we see "too much money chasing too few goods." Or even excess money supply chasing a relatively normal amount of goods as determined by the market. The dollar loses value and that translates to goods and services becoming more expensive while our wages remain the same.

There is no word trickery here. 




> What is inflating and what is deflating? If I get paid today and put that money in a savings account it deflates.  So why should I save money if it constantly loses value?  The answer is - I shouldn't save, and neither should anyone else.  However, we have a debt based currency and the only way new money is created is through new loans.  However,  loans are limited by the amount of money in savings accounts.  See the problem?  We have an unsustainable currency system (and it is one that I think will collapse in the next 5 years)....but that is a different subject.


I take it you are fan of Keynes? Have you taken Mr. Krugman's advice and broken all your windows? After all, it's in your best interest, and mine, for all of us to break our windows. This creates jobs and services to be provided by the glass manufacturers and all subsequent relations to the process. 
Economies grow with savings, not *excess* spending. A consumer economy becomes one dimensional, that's what the U.S. has become, when our only goal is to spend more, save less. 

And I'm being light hearted here, this is just a conversation we're having. 




> Billionaires lobby to protect themselves.  They lobby to protect their businesses, to pay lower taxes.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
> 
> The problem is that what is good for the billionaire is not necessarily what is good for the country.
> 
> If it is okay for the billionaire to lobby to protect their own interests, then it must be fine for the rest of us to lobby against those interests.  Sometimes we will disagree with the very rich.


Indeed, I would agree there is nothing inherently wrong with anyone, common person, rich person, or business lobbying for lower taxes. I find nothing wrong with that at all. 
My personal issue, however, is when the corporations gain a complete foot hold within the political sphere of influence that leaves the common man without a voice. And before anyone argues that latter part, I've seen and experienced it myself, just try contacting Senators Inhofe, Coburn (back when he was in office), or now Lankford on certain issues and read their responses. 
What I basically see between the lines in some of their responses is "this lobby/corporation has thrown money at me and has spoken with me here in D.C. and I have become convinced by their motives. I'm going to give you some fluff about following the Constitution and past precedent. Sorry, citizen, you'll have to keep paying your share, while we figure out how to get them to pay less here or there." 

Again, while some of my language may instigate the class warfare mantra, I'm not really intending for it to. I'm simply saying that the current system is one of Cronyism/Corporatism, and it's clear where you and I are on this totem pole.

--




> I don't hate the rich.  I don't want to see the government rob them just because they are successful, to try and redistribute the wealth.  I am not a Communist.  But when I see a billionaire is paying a much lower percentage of the money he makes than I pay, then I have a problem.  The very rich have managed to shift their investments to pay as little as possible, and they've been very good at it.  I don't blame them for this -- I would do the same thing.  But I'm not a socialist just for wanting to close those loopholes.


This is a state of mind some of us are in, as indicated by my response above. A catch-22 of sorts?
I don't want the government to rob anyone, especially me. But when I see what is happening in D.C. and who has the upper hand in negotiations and policy making, it's the corporations... It's the wealthy, it's not us, the common citizens. That's where I have my problem.

----------


## ou48A

> There's not a soul out there that can't live the American dream. Everyone on this board can go buy GRDA bonds (or others), which are state and federal tax free. It's open to all, just do it. Who's holding you back other than yourself. I've worked as many as three jobs at once over the years and have done fairly well. As my almost 92 year old mother says - It's not what you earn, it's what you save. A persons lifestyle may be the problem, my tax accountant says he does a lot of taxes for doctors who make 400,000.00 a year, but their problem is they'll spend 410,000.00 in doing so. Wake up folks.


^Thats exactly correct. Congratulations to your mother for her life time of discipline. She has no doubt passed wise advice on to you. 
People who do not waste money and live well below their means in spite of the fact they do not make lot money via their employment, with wise investments over time can save / earn in well in excess of a million dollars but it requires a type discipline over long periods of time that we dont see enough of today.

People who live frugally over a lifetime should not be punished for the life style they have chosen There successes should be commended and not demonized for having too much!

It is what you save and a persons lifestyle is usually at the root of most personal money problems.

----------


## hoya

> ^That’s exactly correct…. Congratulations to your mother for her life time of discipline. She has no doubt passed wise advice on to you. 
> People who do not waste money and live well below their means in spite of the fact they do not make lot money via their employment, with wise investments over time can save / earn in well in excess of a million dollars… but it requires a type discipline over long periods of time that we don’t see enough of today.
> 
> People who live frugally over a lifetime should not be punished for the life style they have chosen… There successes should be commended and not demonized for having too much!
> 
> It is what you save and a person’s lifestyle is usually at the root of most personal money problems.


No one is upset at the person who lives frugally and invests their money wisely.  I don't know how you could read this thread and come away with that idea.  That's like adding 2 and 2 together and getting 9.

No one is upset over the person who has "a million dollars".  My 85 year old grandma has about that, from her lifetime of cutting coupons and pinching pennies.  The concern is that people who have far, far more than that have influenced the system to the point that they pay little to no taxes.  Warren Buffet even said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary did.

Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4, 2013

Are rich people going to be devastated if you increased capital gains taxes on everything over a million dollars to 40%?  Of course not.  Should _how_ they make their money cause them to pay less taxes simply because it didn't come from a salary at a job?  Of course not.  When our government is running a $500 billion deficit every year, does it make sense to tax the wealthiest people less than the middle class?  Of course not.

Again, I don't hate the rich at all.  If I was in their shoes, I would do the exact same thing.  But I have the ability to admit that, and also to recognize that functioning that way is not the healthiest way to run a country.

----------


## Bellaboo

> No one is upset at the person who lives frugally and invests their money wisely.  I don't know how you could read this thread and come away with that idea.  That's like adding 2 and 2 together and getting 9.
> 
> No one is upset over the person who has "a million dollars".  My 85 year old grandma has about that, from her lifetime of cutting coupons and pinching pennies.  The concern is that people who have far, far more than that have influenced the system to the point that they pay little to no taxes. * Warren Buffet even said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary did.
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4, 2013*
> Are rich people going to be devastated if you increased capital gains taxes on everything over a million dollars to 40%?  Of course not.  Should _how_ they make their money cause them to pay less taxes simply because it didn't come from a salary at a job?  Of course not.  When our government is running a $500 billion deficit every year, does it make sense to tax the wealthiest people less than the middle class?  Of course not.
> 
> Again, I don't hate the rich at all.  If I was in their shoes, I would do the exact same thing.  But I have the ability to admit that, and also to recognize that functioning that way is not the healthiest way to run a country.


If Warren feels that bad about it, he can take his checkbook out and send some more $ in to the Feds - they won't refuse it. I also follow Warren, and at one time he quoted that it's not his fault, it's the tax code. He has enough money and power to lobby and have it changed, if he really wanted to.

Warren though unless he's changed lately still lives in the house he bought in the late 1950's IIRC and also drives a 10 year old car. He is frugal himself.

----------


## ou48A

> No one is upset at the person who lives frugally and invests their money wisely.  I don't know how you could read this thread and come away with that idea.  That's like adding 2 and 2 together and getting 9.
> 
> No one is upset over the person who has "a million dollars".  My 85 year old grandma has about that, from her lifetime of cutting coupons and pinching pennies.  The concern is that people who have far, far more than that have influenced the system to the point that they pay little to no taxes.  Warren Buffet even said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary did.
> 
> Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary - Mar. 4, 2013
> 
> Are rich people going to be devastated if you increased capital gains taxes on everything over a million dollars to 40%?  Of course not.  Should _how_ they make their money cause them to pay less taxes simply because it didn't come from a salary at a job?  Of course not.  When our government is running a $500 billion deficit every year, does it make sense to tax the wealthiest people less than the middle class?  Of course not.
> 
> Again, I don't hate the rich at all.  If I was in their shoes, I would do the exact same thing.  But I have the ability to admit that, and also to recognize that functioning that way is not the healthiest way to run a country.



There are many in this nation who vilifie any person with a million dollars no matter how they came by it… People who engage in class warfare of any type are always out of ideas that have successful outcomes and are not fit to lead anything but a parade of agitation that appeals to no one but the gullible.

----------


## hoya

> If Warren feels that bad about it, he can take his checkbook out and send some more $ in to the Feds - they won't refuse it. I also follow Warren, and at one time he quoted that it's not his fault, it's the tax code. He has enough money and power to lobby and have it changed, if he really wanted to.
> 
> Warren though unless he's changed lately still lives in the house he bought in the late 1950's IIRC and also drives a 10 year old car. He is frugal himself.


Oh, yeah he doesn't feel bad enough to do that.

But it sure would be nice if my tax rates depended on what I felt like paying.





> There are many in this nation who vilifie any person with a million dollars no matter how they came by it… People who engage in class warfare of any type are always out of ideas that have successful outcomes and are not fit to lead anything but a parade of agitation that appeals to no one but the gullible.


You seem like you are very familiar with agitation.  Perhaps you should breathe deeply and count to ten.

I believe that as the divide between the fabulously wealthy and the rest of us grows ever greater, social instability will follow.  We're a long way from the French Revolution and putting the rich to the guillotine, but a lot of people are angry about the influence of money in politics.  How many more bank bailouts does the public have in them before they decide major change is needed?

----------


## Bellaboo

Does anyone honestly think that if the super rich lost their money that much would change in the next 20 years ?

That your life would be greatly affected ?

----------


## ou48A

> Does anyone honestly think that if the super rich lost their money that much would change in the next 20 years ?
> 
> That your life would be greatly affected ?


New innovation would be seriously impacted…. if the rich lost their money.
It’s the rich most of all who put forth their venture capital on new ideas that can improve the quality of life…. The government and large corporations do important research... but their work was often born from a bright idea by some individual who needed the venture capital to advance the idea at its being. All three branches are important and are dependent on each other to some degree.…..
 Venture capital is something Oklahoma needs a huge amount more of. It might be the signal biggest missing ingredient on improving the quality of life of Oklahomans over several decades.
Who knows how not having as many advancements could impact our lives?

----------


## Jersey Boss

> There are many in this nation who vilifie any person with a million dollars no matter how they came by it… People who engage in* class warfare* of any type are always out of ideas that have successful outcomes and are not fit to lead anything but a parade of agitation that appeals to no one but the gullible.


Your politically charged rhetoric is comical, maybe you ought to throw in a few proletariats' or bourgeoisie. The income inequality gap that has been steadily getting wider since the 1970's is proof enough that the uber wealthy are engaged in and promoting the class warfare that you allege. I don't begrudge anybody their wealth,  but I begrudge the system that allows and encourages only those of the monied class from having meaningful input into the political process through unlimited political contributions and junkets.

----------


## ou48A

> Your politically charged rhetoric is comical, maybe you ought to throw in a few proletariats' or bourgeoisie. The income inequality gap that has been steadily getting wider since the 1970's is proof enough that the uber wealthy are engaged in and promoting the class warfare that you allege. I don't begrudge anybody their wealth,  but I begrudge the system that allows and encourages only those of the monied class from having meaningful input into the political process through unlimited political contributions and junkets.


That’s just goofy IMHO^
 The system still doesn’t “begrudge” the individual from achieving high success and great wealth. It’s still very much up to each individual to achieve it. 



What is truly and honesty comical and almost criminal at the same time is an entire group of people have been persuaded that great self-created wealth and success is not possible for the individual and that most of us cannot accumulate wealth at rates far higher than the average person  just by having a decent job, by being smart and discipline over a life time.

----------


## hoya

> That’s just goofy IMHO^
>  The system still doesn’t “begrudge” the individual from achieving high success and great wealth. It’s still very much up to each individual to achieve it. 
> 
> 
> 
> What is truly and honesty comical and *almost criminal at the same time* is an entire group of people have been persuaded that great self-created wealth and success is not possible for the individual


Don't be ridiculous.




> and that most of us cannot accumulate wealth at rates far higher than the average person  just by having a decent job, by being smart and discipline over a life time.


Actually that's 100% impossible.  "Most of us" can't achieve far higher wealth than "an average person", by definition.  Unless you've got a very exclusive definition of "us".

----------


## Bellaboo

> Your politically charged rhetoric is comical, maybe you ought to throw in a few proletariats' or bourgeoisie. The income inequality gap that has been steadily getting wider since the 1970's is proof enough that the uber wealthy are engaged in and promoting the class warfare that you allege. I don't begrudge anybody their wealth, * but I begrudge the system that allows and encourages only those of the monied class from having meaningful input into the political process through unlimited* political contributions and junkets.


If this was the total case, you wouldn't have 25 year old Facebook founders becoming instant billionaires. Some of you people (not you Jersey) are acting like we don't have real opportunity anymore..

----------


## ou48A

> Actually that's 100% impossible.  "Most of us" can't achieve far higher wealth than "an average person", by definition.  Unless you've got a very exclusive definition of "us".


You very wrong about that! 
Virtually all of us can easily achieve a million dollars or more of net worth on even a teacher’s like salary... if you’re smart enough and have the necessary disciple that’s required… But we know most don’t have the required financial discipline…. but I have seen to many personal examples to very easily say that you’re just flat out very wrong!

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Does anyone honestly think that if the super rich lost their money that much would change in the next 20 years ?
> 
> That your life would be greatly affected ?


So if I make 20 grand.  And think those that make 100 grand are "rich".  Can we raise the taxes on them also?

----------


## Bellaboo

> So if I make 20 grand.  And think those that make 100 grand are "rich".  Can we raise the taxes on them also?


Did you know that 'rich' starts somewhere around 50 grand ? 

I paid 25 k to the Feds one year and that was painful.....

----------


## hoya

> You very wrong about that! 
> Virtually all of us can easily achieve a million dollars or more of net worth on even a teacher’s like salary... if you’re smart enough and have the necessary disciple that’s required… But we know most don’t have the required financial discipline…. but I have seen to many personal examples to very easily say that you’re just flat out very wrong!


"Most" people can't be "above average".  That's what average means.

"Some" people absolutely have the ability to work and save, and when they are old and gray they can have a lot of money saved up.  I'm not talking about those people.  I'm talking about people whose wealth vastly outstrips the ones you are talking about.

----------


## hoya

> If this was the total case, you wouldn't have 25 year old Facebook founders becoming instant billionaires. Some of you people (not you Jersey) are acting like we don't have real opportunity anymore..


I've never said that opportunities don't exist.  But you also have to realize that most of the Facebook founders came from families that were already wealthy.  So yeah, if you're a 20 year old at Harvard, and your dad is a millionaire, or your buddy's dad is a millionaire, you've got a great opportunity to get ahead in the world.

----------


## trousers

It's only class warfare when the poor people do it.

----------


## ctchandler

> "Most" people can't be "above average".  That's what average means.


Hoyasooner,
Have you not heard of Lake Wobegone, ""Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.".
C. T.

----------


## Jim Kyle

Or, for that matter, the stated goal of LBJ's Great Society: To bring everyone above the average.

----------


## Stew

Eh, a million dollars is a long ways from being rich unless you got a great pension plan behind you. A million bucks will buy you a reasonable retirement age and middle class retirement. But, not rich in the least.

----------


## Just the facts

Why are people who 'make millions' being used as an example by anyone in this debate.  That is not the group we are talking about.  Also, no one is advocating taking all their money away.  If Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,  and the Koch brothers can't afford to eat while paying the same effective tax rate as me then they must suck, because I eat and make a fraction of what they do.

----------


## mugofbeer

Hey, i'm pretty conservative but even i agree the truly wealthy should pay at a higher tax rate.  I also belive a lot of tax deductions should be eliminated for those making well into 6 figures.  Saying someone who makes $20k/yr should pay the same tax rate as someone making $200k is absurd..

----------


## Urbanized

> ...Saying someone who makes $20k/yr should pay the same tax rate as someone making $200k is absurd..


Well, they don't in case anyone is wondering. In most cases those making $200K pay more than twice the AGI tax rate of those making $20K. Put another way, they make 10X the money, but pay more than 20X the taxes. From IRS Announces 2015 Tax Brackets, Standard Deduction Amounts And More - Forbes :

Individual taxpayers



Individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses



Individuals filing separate returns

----------


## hoya

> Well, they don't in case anyone is wondering. In most cases those making $200K pay more than twice the AGI tax rate of those making $20K. Put another way, they make 10X the money, but pay more than 20X the taxes. From IRS Announces 2015 Tax Brackets, Standard Deduction Amounts And More - Forbes :


What you ignore, of course, is that the people who are truly wealthy aren't making it in the form of taxable income.  They're making it in investments and pay a far lower rate.

----------


## Just the facts

Urbanized-  you need to get a different chart.  Find one where the top bracket starts at $100 million per year.  You keep lumping in the upper reaches of the middle class with the uber rich.  We aren't talking about people who make $500K a year, or even $5 million.

If one's job is "investor" why shouldn't they pay the same tax rate as other people with jobs?

----------


## Rover

> If one's job is "investor" why shouldn't they pay the same tax rate as other people with jobs?


They do pay the same rates.   You must not earn much or have investments.  You sure do hate the rich.  Damn those people for being more successful and having more than you. Trying to figure out whether you are a Tea Partier, a socialist, or just mad at everyone who does better than you.

----------


## zookeeper

This thread is almost comical. The top 1/10 of 1% who own a hugely disproportionate amount of our wealth, must truly laugh at people like some of these posters that try to throw in a successful person making executive wages with those of the investor class and the hoarders of wealth. They really don't need to be held up as virtues of "success." *They are killing our republic!* I think more than a few of you made one too many trips to the old Enterprise Square museum and bought all that propaganda.

The simplicity of thinking, that sounds like an 8th grade economics class taught by material provided by WalMart and the United States Chamber of Commerce, is mind boggling. The obscene statistics are everywhere, yet you bring up how we are merely envious, or need to open up a passbook savings account, set a little aside each paycheck, maybe take an extra job (or two) and we can be part of that "successful" oligarchy, too!

You take a million people in this city - and statistically - the one tenth of one percent is 100 people owning more than the 999,900 put together (wealth - not income). Of course, we can't do that in a literal way in our city - but that should bring it home. Though, we could pretty much come up with a list of close to 100 if pressed.

----------


## Bellaboo

> This thread is almost comical*. The top 1/10 of 1% who own a hugely disproportionate amount of our wealth*, must truly laugh at people like some of these posters that try to throw in a successful person making executive wages with those of the investor class and the hoarders of wealth. They really don't need to be held up as virtues of "success." *They are killing our republic!* I think more than a few of you made one too many trips to the old Enterprise Square museum and bought all that propaganda.
> 
> The simplicity of thinking, that sounds like an 8th grade economics class taught by material provided by WalMart and the United States Chamber of Commerce, is mind boggling. The obscene statistics are everywhere, yet you bring up how we are merely envious, or need to open up a passbook savings account, set a little aside each paycheck, maybe take an extra job (or two) and we can be part of that "successful" oligarchy, too!
> 
> You take a million people in this city - and statistically - the one tenth of one percent is 100 people owning more than the 999,900 put together (wealth - not income). Of course, we can't do that in a literal way in our city - but that should bring it home. Though, we could pretty much come up a list of close to 100 if pressed.


You must be talking about China.... lol

----------


## Just the facts

Let's do this:  OKC Population - 610,613.  OKC Per Capita Income - $25,629:  Total Earning of every man. woman, and child in OKC =  $15,649,400,577  In case you are having trouble, that is $15.6 billion
Net Worth of Harold Hamm: $11.4 billion (and keep in mind Harold Hamm's income is also in the per capita number which skews it up).

Now granted that is net-worth vs. income but it wouldn't surprise me if the collective net-worth of the bottom 600,000 is very close to $0.

So back to GE - They have annual revenue of $150 billion.  So when they come to OKC asking for a handout what percentage of that handout should be paid by HH?

----------


## Urbanized

hoya, JTF, zookeeper, I'm not "ignoring" anything, and I don't "need a new chart." If you had bothered to actually READ what I posted instead of making kneejerk argumentative posts, you would see that I was very specifically responding to mugofbeer's post - WHICH I QUOTED - that was making comments regarding tax rates for people making $20k vs people making $200K. Twist and spin all you want, but for the post I was responding to my numbers are unimpeachable.

----------


## Bellaboo

> Let's do this:  OKC Population - 610,613.  OKC Per Capita Income - $25,629:  Total Earning of every man. woman, and child in OKC =  $15,649,400,577  In case you are having trouble, that is $15.6 billion
> *Net Worth of Harold Hamm: $11.4 billion (and keep in mind Harold Hamm's income is also in the per capita number which skews it up).*
> Now granted that is net-worth vs. income but it wouldn't surprise me if the collective net-worth of the bottom 600,000 is very close to $0.
> 
> So back to GE - They have annual revenue of $150 billion.  So when they come to OKC asking for a handout what percentage of that handout should be paid by HH?


Let's look at reality here - Harold Hamm's net worth lost almost $5 Billion since last fall. Does that skew it going down ?

----------


## Just the facts

So last year HH alone had more money than the other 610,612 people earned collectively?

----------


## Just the facts

HH losing $5 billion in net worth would have no impact on per capita income, unless he gave himself a raise to make up for it.

Alas, I am saddened and dismayed that there is so much support today for a return to the medieval fudal system.

----------


## BoulderSooner

I am amazed at the love of socialism and the supporters of wealth redistribution in his thread.

----------


## Just the facts

> I am amazed at the love of socialism and the supporters of wealth redistribution in his thread.


So in your mind there are just two economic options, your version of capitalism and socialism? That's it, no other choices to pick from?

Ever heard of Austrian Economics?

----------


## Jeepnokc

> So last year HH alone had more money than the other 610,612 people earned collectively?


Why does it matter and why do you care that he made that much money?  There isn't anything wrong with making money.  In building his empire....how many jobs has he created and how many families make a living due to their breadwinner being employed there?  What would we be doing with all the empty space in their building?  There will always be a rainmaker and worker bees.  Yes he makes an obscene amount of money but in doing so, he has positively affected the economy by creating jobs.

----------


## TU 'cane

> So in your mind there are just two economic options, your version of capitalism and socialism? That's it, no other choices to pick from?
> 
> Ever heard of Austrian Economics?


The Austrian school is not well represented here, nor on many online forums, which I find very shameful. 




> Why does it matter and why do you care that he made that much money?  There isn't anything wrong with making money.  In building his empire....how many jobs has he created and how many families make a living due to their breadwinner being employed there?  What would we be doing with all the empty space in their building?  There will always be a rainmaker and worker bees.  Yes he makes an obscene amount of money but in doing so, he has positively affected the economy by creating jobs.


This is why I was trying to be careful with my statements made previously. 
Because at the end of the day, I won't make a villain out of someone for making money, not gonna happen from me. 
HOWEVER, going back to my points before, when that person, or persons, start manipulating or literally buying off our elected representatives and begin crafting public policies, that's when I begin to have issues, for many reasons obvious.

That's also why I made a simple example that if we could have a flat sales tax for all, with no income tax for those making less than $1 million, and a flat rate of 10% for those who are, I think that could be agreeable grounds for many. Of course, this is just thinking for ways of compromise as what I truly believe would never be instituted... Hint, I follow the Austrian School.

----------


## Just the facts

Influence public policy?   You mean like HH trying to hand select the head of the Oklahoma Geological Survey so he could cover up the connection between well injections and earthquakes?

----------


## Just the facts

> Why does it matter and why do you care that he made that much money?  There isn't anything wrong with making money.  In building his empire....how many jobs has he created and how many families make a living due to their breadwinner being employed there?  What would we be doing with all the empty space in their building?  There will always be a rainmaker and worker bees.  Yes he makes an obscene amount of money but in doing so, he has positively affected the economy by creating jobs.


He can make all the money he wants, I'm just saying that based on his wealth compared to everyone else in OKC, he should be paying a much larger share of the tax burden than he is.  Wouldn't you agree?

----------


## onthestrip

> I am amazed at the love of socialism and the supporters of wealth redistribution in his thread.


Im also amazed at how poorly we rank compared to other developed countries in categories like educational achievement, infant mortality rates, economic mobility, and other things that are tied to high income inequality.

----------


## Just the facts

Maybe those babies just need to pull themselves up by their bootie straps. [/Sarc]

I can see our entire society slipping into a Spartan type society.  Thank goodness 2020 happens before that.

----------


## hoya

> hoya, JTF, zookeeper, I'm not "ignoring" anything, and I don't "need a new chart." If you had bothered to actually READ what I posted instead of making kneejerk argumentative posts, you would see that I was very specifically responding to mugofbeer's post - WHICH I QUOTED - that was making comments regarding tax rates for people making $20k vs people making $200K. Twist and spin all you want, but for the post I was responding to my numbers are unimpeachable.


Okay, forgive me then.  For some reason I thought your post was supposed to be in some way relevant to the discussion of taxes on billionaires.  I did not think we were supposed to read it for the very limited purpose of only comparing income taxes on people making between $20K and $200K.  You know, because none of us were really talking about that.

----------


## Urbanized

Well, that's what mugofbeer was talking about. I quoted the post. Go back and read it again.

----------

