Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
because capitol gains are taxed more than once. The money that is made by the corp is taxed, and then the proceeds of those earnings are taxed when they are paid to shareholders.
Everything is taxed at some point, that doesn't justify that it can't be tax at another point... I looked at it this way... that corporation is not you, the money in the corporation does not belong to you... it is taxed while the corporation has that money... it is taxed again when you have that money... you didn't get double taxed... the money is double taxed but you weren't... for instance, I paid the clerk at the store $20 and the store takes that money and pays taxes on it... then the store takes that money and pays the vendor that money... the vendor takes that money is taxed on it again... the vendor is not excused from taxes because it was taxed before... the relationship between shareholders and the corporation is a business relationship much like the store and vendor...
Another example of the problem with the tax structure, Exxon CEO Tillerson gets $17.9 M in stock, $6.8 M in salary. One year from today he can turn around and sell his stock and be taxed at only 15%,similar situation for the Chevron CEO. Meanwhile middle class americans are paying higher rates on salary.
Why he should get that amount is another story, the investors contested the amount.
"The CEO of U.S. rival Chevron Corp, John Watson, collected a total of $24.7 million in 2011, his second year in the job. .........
....
Tillerson's pay package included stock awards valued at $17.9 million and bonus and salary totaling $6.8 million. Watson received $5.6 million in salary and non-equity incentives, and the rest in stock, options, pension and deferred compensation."
Exxon awarded CEO total pay of $34.9 million in 2011 - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/exxon-awarded-ceo-total-pay-34-9-million-000743009.html - broken link)
if the company turned a profit, dont you think he deserved his pay?
also, dont mention the price of gas in that equation, as the states and federal goverment get more from a gallon of gas than the company makes on that gallon of gas, and both the state and feds did nothing at all to make that same gallon of gas.
if the company turned a profit, dont you think he deserved his pay?
also, dont mention the price of gas in that equation, as the states and federal goverment get more from a gallon of gas than the company makes on that gallon of gas, and both the state and feds did nothing at all to make that same gallon of gas.
The level of executive compensation is totally out of control, there are some good CEO's but overall the board of trustees and compensation committees rarely challenge. Look at the companies that have failed or went under and still rewarded their executives handsomely, look at BP.
I am sure there are some decisions to be made but overall how difficult is it to make a profit on oil. Paying the CEO over 1000 times the salary of top notch Petroleum Engineers and Geologists is obscene.
As I have said elsewhere I think all income from all sources from tag sales to drug profits to capital gains should be subject to income tax after a deductable set at the 90th percentile. Giving someone 20 million dollars worth of stock is the same as giving him 20 million dollars. It is a transfer of wealth and increases in wealth are income. It should be taxed as such.
In 2011 the Obamas paid $162k for an effective rate 20.5%, which is higher than the average Joes detailed in previous post.
You're welcome.
My mistake I was really looking at millionaires that do not actually work, in a sense it was suppose to be a trick question because the majority of their money is made through captial gains
Stock option $17.9 mil. Hold it for a year, pay 15% capital gain tax. 15% of $17,900,000 is $2,685,000 Someone a few posts back wrote 'middle class taxpayers pay far more' Really? Taxable income of $60,000 is single person $11,131 [18.5%] What's more- $2,685,000 or $11,131?
The class envy thing is getting worn out.
The argument against raising Capital Gains taxes is that could unintended consequences that effect the stock market, where investors will remove their cash from the market and put it somewhere else with lower tax rates. Plus some conservatives have made the argument that there are a number of senior citizens who are retirees that depend on Capital gains to supplement their income which would ultimately effect their sustainability as well.
Now personally I'm all for an increase, a mariginal one if anything. But there is an estimate that an increase in CG taxes would amount to in the amount of roughly 50 billion a year in revenue for the feds, however when you owe more than 10 trillion in the deficit, 50 billion a year isn't really doing anything. Plus we aren't exactly how efficiently that money will be spent in the first place.
if you are talking about the 1940s to the late 1970s when the cap gains tax was 50%, your argument that they should be raised today is bogus. why? because back then the US was THE place to invest. we had the strongest economy, we did the vast majority of the manufacturing for the world, and we had the best overall business environment, despite the higher taxes. when reagan cut taxes, our economy boomed after the carter recession. when kennedy cut taxes our economy boomed, when clinton raised taxes, our economy slowed until the tech bubble picked up the slack. but when it burst, the economy tanked.
So what has happened in the last ten years of lower taxes for the rich? The "trickle down theory does not work regardless how many times that you try to used it
who is trying to dismantle the safety nets? in fact NO ONE is. what the republicans are trying to do is reform those safety nets, get rid of the waste and fraud, and make it so that they will be around for years to come.
The republicans have tried in the past to make Social Security and Wall st go hand in hand (bush), and now they are talking about severe cuts to Medicare and other social safety nets. Have you actually read the ran paul budget?
the reason the rich keep getting richer is because they do the things they need to do to make money. they work far more hours than the average person does, when they spend money it is to buy the things that will make them money, unlike the majority of people. for instance the average person works about 45-50 hours per week. the average rich person works more like 100-120 hours per week. the average person buy things like big screen tvs, new cars, etc. things that they want. the average rich person on the other hand will buy the things they need to make money. for instance instead of buying a big screen tv, the rich person will buy 50 of them to sell at a profit to others.
I did not know that bankers, corporate raiders, or any of the other millionaires who put in so much hard work considering they are the ones responsible for the financial crisis in the first place
its not that the poor are lazy, per say, but they are lazy compared to the rich people.
Is this why our middle class is slowly disappearing because they appear to be lazy compared to a CEO who destroys a company and leaves with a golden parachute woth millions?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
