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.
A well slanted article.
The only reason this 'total compensation' is higher is because the Unions negotiated benefits such as healthcare and a living wage for their members, and the averages for the general population are skewed by the many millions of low wage no benefits slave labor working poor who drag down the numbers for everyone.
This actually supports my position if you look beneath the obvious spin.
The decline in wages and benefits is drastically evident if you look at all of the available data and compare, not just cherry pick the little bits and pieces which support your own view.
Another fine example of lying by omission, a common tactic in politics.
Those 'overpaid" government employees are the last true representation of the middle class in America. When they are gone, the dissolution will be unstoppable. Why do you resent this group living a comfortable lifestyle while defending the super rich who are reducing your standard of living through policy manipulation?
Last edited by The Maleman; 02-01-2015 at 09:24 AM..
Reason: add text
Oh, and the hours worked are less on average because those same unions negotiated vacation and sick leave for their members, another benefit which is rapidly disappearing from the workplace.
You people who defend the policy of less for everyone (except you) are the heart of the problem. You are the enablers. I engage you only because you are also the ones who can fix it if you just gather the political will to do so.
Which upsets you more:
1. The rich people and corporations using money to try to get their way.
2. Politicians who sell their votes and betray the citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
3. Non rich people joining together to influence politics with ultimately more money than rich people.
Sometimes it is useful to look at actual data. Here are some. Notice the legend about which political parties the donors support:
You must realize also that there are a lot of people in the high income bracket that did nothing to be there outside of being born into the right family. I'm sure you do lol.
It bothers me when people assume rich people all got there by their own hard work. It usually takes money to make more money. This is why the rich stay rich and why their kids become rich as well, and also why it's so hard for most anyone else that wasn't born into all those advantages to break their way into the upper 1%.
Studies show that within a few generations, all inherited wealth is gone -- it has been divided & redivided among heirs & beneficiaries, and much has been pished away by those who don't know how to manage money.
Sometimes it is useful to look at actual data. Here are some. Notice the legend about which political parties the donors support:
More deflection.
If the money is so heavily in favor of the Democrats, it would suggest that the Republicans are winning on issues, which is no doubt what you intended to imply from this post.
The real issue here is the tremendous amount of money being funneled into political campaigns. The nature of man being what it is, this is inevitably an indicator of corruption.
If the money were taken out of politics, if the partisanship was broken, all contributions placed under the authority of a single fund from which equal amounts were disbursed to all candidates, do you envision that the amounts of contributions would decrease?
If personal gain from the holding of a political office were legislated to be treason, would that affect the issues the politicians campaign upon?
If lobbying of politicians was outlawed, do you think there could still be manipulation of the legislative system by special interests?
Do you think that the best policy for America should be that which provides the greatest benefit for the majority?
Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?
There you go. Or are you claiming that forbes link is lying?
Please re-read my post; it discusses the distinction between financial statements and tax books.
The author of the Forbes article is a journalist with no training in forensic accounting or tax accounting. The author of the Forbes article is neither an accountant, a tax accountant, a forensic accountant -- heck, not even a CPA -- and most definitely not a tax attorney.
The article itself is a puff piece in a the popular press designed to sell magazines; it is not a scholarly article that has gone through peer review. The article is in Forbes. It is NOT in, say:
The Journal of Accounting Research, or
The Journal of Forensic Accounting, or
Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research, or
Journal of Accounting and Taxation, or
Journal of Finance, or
The Journal of Taxation, or
The Tax Lawyer, or
Virginia Tax Review, or
NYU Tax Law Review, or
... well, you get the idea.
Why wasn't this article in those scholarly journals? Because it was a puff piece with no foundation in data. Indeed, those of us who know better equate "GE didn't pay income taxes" with other such scholarly observations such as "The Holocaust was fabricated by Hollywood" and "No one landed on the moon; it was special effects" and other such observations.
The author of the Forbes article states the following:
Quote:
The most egregious example is General Electric . Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.
The first sentence is key: "...egregious example..." The adjective "egregious" indicates the author is advocating a point of view rather than showing data.
The next sentence is key: "...ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam..." The author has no idea how much money GE paid to Uncle Sam in income taxes. NO IDEA AT ALL. Neither do you. Neither do I. There are only a handful of people who know, and they are not talking.
The article points out GE's tax return is about 24,000 pages. This is probably correct, but once again, there are only a handful of people in the world who know this because it is secret. It is not publicly available information. I say the 24,000 page number is probably correct because I personally heard the VP of Tax at GE say this at a meeting of the Tax Executives Institute - but he was speaking in generalities rather than specifics. It was probably 24K pages +/- 10%.
And, again, the author of the Forbes article is discussing public information contained in financial statements, and the US Federal Tax Return has NOTHING to do with Financial Statements! NOTHING. The "provision for income taxes" has NOTHING to do with the actual amount of income taxes paid. NOTHING. One is financial accounting to create financial records to send to owners & the SEC and others; the other are tax books created in order to create the US Federal Income Tax Return filed with the IRS (secret), along with the actual payment of income taxes (also secret).
When people in the popular press, the OWS crowd and those on the left talk about "The 1%", they muddle the conversation, as only the top of the 1% are truly wealthy.
Going by the numbers on the above chart, there are about 314 Million people in the USA with less than $100 Million, and about 2441 people with more than $100 Million. Talk about those 2441 people, and you've got my attention. 2441 of about 314 Million is about 0.078%
But somehow, those on the left talk about those ultra wealthy, and then levy taxes on the merely affluent. $500K/year certainly isn't hurting, but it is far from the domain of the wealthy.
More deflection.
If the money is so heavily in favor of the Democrats, it would suggest that the Republicans are winning on issues, which is no doubt what you intended to imply from this post.
The real issue here is the tremendous amount of money being funneled into political campaigns. The nature of man being what it is, this is inevitably an indicator of corruption.
If the money were taken out of politics, if the partisanship was broken, all contributions placed under the authority of a single fund from which equal amounts were disbursed to all candidates, do you envision that the amounts of contributions would decrease?
If personal gain from the holding of a political office were legislated to be treason, would that affect the issues the politicians campaign upon?
If lobbying of politicians was outlawed, do you think there could still be manipulation of the legislative system by special interests?
Do you think that the best policy for America should be that which provides the greatest benefit for the majority?
Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?
There is no deflection. The chart, compiled by Open Secrets from federal election filings, happens to show the bias in the contributions.
Of note is there is only 1 corporation among the top 15 contributors, and that is ATT. Several people on the left have posted that the evil rich and evil corporations purchase politicians -- the data show the purchasers are more often unions, both private sector and public sector.
There are 100 senators, 435 in the US House of Representatives, and one President/Vice-President. That is 536 offices, comprising 537 people.
I personally think we would be better off changing 100% of them. That is, re-elect NO ONE. How hard should it be to vote out 537 people?
Oh -- we don't live in a democracy; we live in a constitutional republic.
A masterful move, but you forgot the relevant part.
The only reason this 'total compensation' is higher is because the Unions negotiated benefits such as healthcare and a living wage for their members, and the averages for the general population are skewed by the many millions of low wage no benefits slave labor working poor who drag down the numbers for everyone.
Quoting out of context. Tsk Tsk tsk...
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.
