MattM

Many thanks for the legwork. I'll take a look and come back with my thoughts when I have a chance (ie, after work).... name='WorldTraveller' timestamp='1343051748' post='2510812'] Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.) http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/ http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_33933_41460917_1_1_1_1,00.html The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich. First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs. Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us. A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, however, suggests that both may be false. Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period. That may sound like a minor haircut for One Percenters compared to people who lost their jobs. But when you take into account federal transfers, assistance and taxes paid, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent. In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession. Change in after-income tax (2007-2009) The result of this big drop at the top was that their share of the country's total income also fell. In 2007, the top one percent earned 16.7 percent of all after-tax income. In 2009, that portion fell to 11.5 percent. Inequality, in other words, fell during those years. We are now in an age of High-Beta Wealth, where the incomes of the One Percent have become far more manic and prone to wild drops than the rest of the country. And taxes paid? Despite the oft-repeated fact that tax rates for the wealthy are at an all-time low (which is true), it’s also true that the actual amount paid in taxes by the wealthy is higher than before the recession. The One Percent paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9 percent on their income — far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11 percent on average. So the rich lost more income and paid more of their money in taxes than the rest of the population. This is not an argument against taxing the wealthy. And the incomes and tax rates of the wealthy may have jumped back since 2009, with the rebound in financial markets. But when politicians and pundits talk about the rich just getting richer and paying less taxes, they need to pay closer attention to the actual numbers. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611 Size Matters - Why "Just" Taxing 3% of Small Businesses is Misleading July 12, 2012 By Ed Gerrish President Obama has recently called for letting the Bush tax cuts expire on families more than $250,000 a year (and individuals making over $200,000). This tax increase will affect many businesses that file under the personal income tax code rather than as C corporations – what are known as “pass-through” businesses because the profits pass through to the owners. This is small potatoes, he claims, because the tax hike will only impact 3% of these individually owned businesses, which includes businesses that file as S-corporations and partnerships. How many businesses that will face higher taxes is not the economically meaningful statistic here. What is meaningful is (1) how many people earning over $200,000 have business income and (2) how much business income will be taxed at a higher rate. While S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 [1] a year may represent a small percent of all personal income tax returns – just 1.2% in 2010 according to the IRS, they represent nearly 5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) in the U.S. More importantly, S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 a year represented more than 97% of all income earned by these entities in 2010 due to net business losses at lower income levels. This not only means that most of the positive net income from S-corporations and partnerships will face higher tax rates, it ultimately means that the most successful S-corporations and partnerships in the U.S. will see a tax hike. This is important both because there are four times as many S-corporations and partnerships than traditional C-corporations (as of 2008), and S-corporations and partnerships earned 26% more taxable net income in the US than C-corporations – 1.4 trillion to 1.1 trillion. [2] The latest IRS state data on S-corporations and partnership income and returns also demonstrates that some states will be hit harder by these new taxes than others. D.C., Connecticut, and New York, for instance, all receive more than 6.4% of their total state’s adjusted gross income from in S corporations and partnerships; allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would disproportionally draw more tax dollars from these states than others (even accounting for population). http://taxfoundation.org/blog/ In short, that 3% number reflects the total number of small businesses, not the total % of revenues. If you include the total number of revenues from that 3%, you are talking about well over half the revenues generated from small businesses. Of course, I don't expect you guys to loony leftists to understand this because you are spoon fed distorted numbers from MSNBC, The Obama administration and leftist media organizations. The facts are that this 3% number is misleading at best and doesn't truly reflect the scope of of the net of this tax policy on small businesses. Also, that we do indeed have the most progressive tax code in the world according to the OECD, and that the rich are even paying more in taxes now than then they were before the economic downturn. Those are facts. There it is, facts are facts, and you lose. Oh, and while you loony leftists have been obsessing over his tax returns, and the vast outspending from the Obama administration on this issues and the media giving mitt horrible coverage over the past two weeks, the polls have tightened. So much for your school of thought. lol

Of course, that's why I posted the long-term capital gains historical rate chart way up above, which shows that the capital gains rate was higher during the last period of high economic growth. Can we cut the condescending tone here for folks who may not share your views, please? I've got degrees from two Ivy League schools with honors and have worked in finance/investment for 20 years, ok, so no need to "go slow". In fact, I think it's kind of funny that I tend to cite/link to things like actual historical numbers or academic studies, but as usual only tend to get back regurgitated Fox News talking points....

No, it's defined as paying the taxes you owe. What will naturally occur from all of this, however, when we see the very low rate a very rich man pays is a discussion on the fairness of that. It may open the eyes of some folks who don't currently understand how the system is gained to benefit the very rich. As the article I originally posted shows we have a progressive tax system--until you get to the very top. Folks need to ask themselves why is that? Personally, I think it's because the very rich have captured the legislative process/govt over the last 30 years or so and have reaped those rewards in the form of lower taxes. Read Hacker and Pierson's "Winner-Take-All Politics" for more details--they lay it all out in a pretty good and accessible way for those who have an interest.....

Ask Mitt's father, who released 12 years' worth when he ran and made a big point of doing so. This has to be killing his son, who apparently idolized his dad, like many sons do. Candidates for high office typically release their tax returns as part of the public vetting process. It shows (a) whether they're being honest about their financial matters and their reporting of same and (b) what their business interests are for things like conflicts of interest. Mitt doesn't want to for some reason, which we can only guess at. There could be any number of embarrassing things there, from aggressive, complex tax positions (or outright "over the line" positions, but I personally doubt that), to using legal tricks to pay a much lower rate than most Americans who don't have such tricks (such as using carried interest to convert ordinary wage income into capital gains that get taxed at only 15%) at their disposal, to investing in companies that engage in business practices that go against Mitt's public campaign persona (like outsourcing firms). As noted above, all of this is even more important when the candidate makes his campaign bones on his business experience. Well, alright then, let's see what he's got under his own hood seems mighty reasonable to me and most reasonably objective independents in that case. My argument on the when no one is looking point has to do with how aggressive he was in his taxes before he knew he was running for President. If they're full of problems or aggressive positions, well then, you have a pretty good window into how civic or patriotic the guy really is, that is unless you somehow think it's patriotic to cheat on your taxes....

Then he'll suffer the consequences at the polls--his call. If he doesn't release them people will suspect the worst (and probably be right.). Despite your true believer's view here, this is not a winner for him. PS Still waiting for my education on tax principles from your learned hands that you promised above.

I'll be there. Looking for tix on Stubhub today. Can't wait to head West to watch the Bills....

I'll be there with my wife and kids and a neighbor here with his wife and son, so that's plus 7 in the Bills rooters' column....

But you'd never see that in a tax return, even were it true. It would just show capital gains. It's not like there's a box labeled "illicit proceeds of crime" on one's tax form. Don't kid yourself that Mitt's taxes are a dead issue==that's not going away any time soon. As noted above, it's a loser for Romney no matter what at this point. Let's assume that it's crystal clear that there's absolutely nothing wrong at all with his returns when he releases them--no tax haven accounts, no "carried interest" (we know that there will be some of that), no confusing artifices used to lower his taxes, etc. In that case, he just looks dumb for not releasing them earlier to quiet all this down. He gains little to nothing by that. Obama may look dumb for pressing the issue, but not in a way that will cost him many votes or swing many to Mitt. If, on the other hand, as many suspect (me included), his returns show either any or all of the above problems or even without them, show instead a ridiculously low rate (as noted above, that's my theory) for reasons that aren't easily explainable to the average American, then he's a big loser in all of this, as is the Republican brand both on the substance of the debate we'll then all have on tax fairness and progressivity in the tax code and how that's gamed by them's that's gots and also for nominating someone who wasn't really fully vetted. As noted above, were that to break badly that could really damage other Republicans, too, and have "negative coattails" so to speak. DC Tom, thanks for the appreciation, but I do think his tax returns are relevant, particularly as his claim to competence is mainly resting on his business acumen and background, and he should show them going back a reasonable amount of time. To my mind, that's to some point before he knew he was going into politics if you want to see what kind of a man he really is. I'm a believer in the old chestnut that doing the right thing means doing the right thing even when you think no one's looking. That would give Mitt the chance to show what his taxes were like before he knew he'd be sharing them with the world by going into political office. I'm certainly not alone in this, as many prominent Republicans have said the same thing that he should release his returns, for political or ethical reasons.

I'll be waiting for it. What's to refute? What I posted are all facts--percentages paid or highest marginal rates. As you can see, our tax code is actually not all that progressive when the folks at the very top pay a much lower percentage than, for ex., Bain capital's cleaning lady when you count it all up (in normal years, for ex., she and her employer pay about 12.5% into SSI alone, I believe). And I understand, Rob, about capital gains vs. ordinary income, believe me. And while I understand some of the policy reasons behind that difference, and agree with it to some extent, I don't think it would kill the rich to pay closer to 20%, as would happen should we hit the fiscal cliff. That's why I posted the capital gains rate chart, too. PS to WT--I pay in taxes multiples of what the average family makes in a year (and that's after starting out a blue collar kid who grew up in a 1400 square foot house without a shower), so please don't lecture me on hypocrisy, 0K? Some of us simply don't forget where we came from even if it's to our benefit or convenience. I'll discuss this like adults and treat you with respect when you do the same instead of going all wingnut, ok? PSS This tax policy, particularly over the last 30 years or so might also explain things like this, the recent Pew study on economic mobility across generations: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdf Notice how both income and wealth have skewed towards the upper income quintile over that period? Personally, I found Figure 7 on page 11 particularly sad, since when you do the math you realize that a kid growing up in the bottom quintile (like lots of the folks I grew up with) have about 1/11th the chance of making it into the top quintile as adults as compared to the kids born there. Basically upper middle class kids are 11 times (that's TIMES, not percent) more likely to stay that way than a poor kid is to make it up the income scale. I'd wager personally that it's even worse the more granular you go up the scale (for ex., I'd say that the folks who start in the top 1% and make it back there as adults is higher than 11% of the top 1%--that's based on anecdotal evidence gleaned from knowing the class/social backgrounds of the folks my wife and I went to school with and the people I've worked with). Is that the America we want to have? I say no and a fairer tax policy is a way to help prevent this kind of "permanent inequality." We are at the stage/tipping point of turning into a society with a permanent, immutable underclass and that is good for no one, rich or poor, even if some of the rich are too short-sighted to see that. I'll take the bait. Why? Personally, my best guess is that he paid 10% or less in at least some of the years we haven't seen and that's why we won't see them unless they're leaked. While he may have done nothing illegal (or even too aggressive), the simple fact of the rate itself would lead to a discussion that Republicans will not want to have on taxes and fairness. This is really a no win situation for Mitt and them. If they get leaked/release and I'm correct on the rate prediction (which I base on the fact that he paid 14% in years he knew he'd need to release when he knew he was running for President) and it breaks the wrong way with the public, despite all of Obama's problems, the race could be over by August....

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/06/business/la-fi-mo-taxes-400-20120606 Here's some information on the rate paid by the Top 400 taxpayers. The Top 400 pay less as a percentage than most of us, I'd wager. I know they pay a lower percentage of their income than I do. Here are the historical rates paid in the highest brackets: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161 Toss in the situation with the estate tax and it looks to me like it's never been a better time to be rich from a tax perspective, yet they want more tax cuts and they certainly don't want any increases, all while pounding the table on the deficit. And what amazes me even more than that chutzpah is that there are many on the right of modest means who don't seem to understand this (you mock the uninformed on the left, but believe me, there are just as many if not more on the right) and who support the wealthy's drive to lower their own taxes without understanding that the cuts to pay for that will come out of their own benefits. It's almost gotten to the point where I'm sick of arguing that with them about that.....

I was at that game and I honestly thought Bruce might have actually killed him. You could hear the pop of the impact in the upper deck like a gunshot....

In addition, I thought I'd read somewhere that Mankins also may be on PUP to start the season due to his SB injury and Brian Waters, their other guard who's 35 or so, hasn't made up his mind as to whether he'll be back. If that's the case, combined with the Light retirement, you could be looking at a very different O-line this year. As we all know, O-lines can take some time to jell, so what was always a Pats* strength could turn into a weakness. If their line does indeed stink this year, even with Brady, I don't see how they win more than 10 games this season.....

To paraphrase our hometown boy, Rick James, HGH is a heckuva drug! Looks like the Pats* are just going back to old training methods.....

That's a high class problem I wouldn't mind us having....

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who'd be doing a Dick Vermeil impersonation--"cry" was honestly the first thing that came to my mind on seeing this question....

The whole thing seems pretty pathetic to me. A not really all that attractive blond wannabe actress ditz is the best Bob Kraft can do less than a year since the passing of his wife (who by all accounts was a good woman)? I hate the Cheats* as much as the next Bills fan, but I actually felt sorry for Mr. K last year. Now--not so much....

Here's a few more: http://helmet2helmet.net/2012/05/27/ochocinco-raffling-off-custom-lamborghini-for-charity/ From March--raffling off his custom Lamborghini with a portion of the proceeds going to Feed the Children who he's apparently supported before; like here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/chad-ochocinco-and-degreer-men-ask-america-to-rise-to-the-challenge-and-donate-to-feed-the-children-80929667.html http://onthesideline.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/some-athletes-are-good-people/ http://voices.yahoo.com/we-more-professional-athletes-like-chad-ochocinco-5726186.html?cat=49 "His charity work is often publicized in a grand way, like when he raced a thoroughbred racehorse to raise money for charity in 2007. Yet he is continually criticized for being so open about his charity work, like he is showing off. From his twitter account or his website, www.ochocinco.com you can learn about his charity, Soldiers for Giving, and that they went on a four day charity bus tour in January of 2010 from Cincinnati to Miami and he chose 10 lucky fans to go on his tour with him to spread the love. Ochocinco spends a lot of his time helping charities especially "Feed the Children", he helped out for Haiti, as a matter of fact if you google the name Chad Ochocinco and the word charity together, your results will be endless. It looks as if it's his part time job. He matches any fines he gets on the field and donates it to charity, when the home games in Cincinnati are not sold out and a blackout is lingering, Chad with the help of businesses, will buy out the remaining tickets to the game, once it was 1200 tickets, he then turns around and gives the tickets away the day of the game, 600 pairs. Who else does this kind of thing? No one I've heard of. He cares about his fans more than any other player I have seen. He is a twitter addict and is constantly tweeting and interacting with his fans. This is what a superstar should do, give back and interact." Life is complicated, as are people. There certainly are parts of this guy's act we've all grown tired of, but to me at least, it does sound like he does more than most in his position to give back. I see no takers on that positive comments on the Bills, so I had to come up with the Pats* to help you out, otherwise it would have been ALL negative.

I'm not touching the "getting laid" part, but I'd be curious if anyone else can ever remember him actually being positive about anything, in particular any move the Bills have ever made. I personally don't recall it, but I obviously don't read everything written here. That said, I honestly can't remember offhand any single positive post the esteemed Senor WEO has ever made on this board, about anything (except perhaps the Patriots*)..... http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Chad-Ochocinco-makes-one-young-fan-s-dream-come-?urn=nfl,244600 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-57390696-10391697/chad-ochocinco-sprayed-by-lion-at-charity-event/ http://voices.yahoo.com/chad-ochocinco-does-charity-work-5344599.html http://www.carbonated.tv/blogs/charity-bull-ride-does-chad-ochocinco-have-more-substance-than-we-thought http://www.feedthechildren.org/site/PageServer?pagename=usw_ochocinco This is all from a very simple Google search of Chad Ochocincho and charity. This from the first page of 412,000 total entries, but you get the picture. Say what you want about the guy on the field or the fact that he may not be all that "booksmart" bright, but it's pretty clear that his heart's in the right place and does give his time, money and name to charity, unlike many other players in the League (and, to be fair, like many others as well).....

Have read a number of places over the years that despite the image he's actually a really nice guy. In fact, I'm spacing on who it was but there was a sportswriter just recently who listed him on his Top 10 "good guys in the League" list and said he's very different in private than his public showboating image. (it was the guy who wrote the "top 10 jerks in the League" article.) And wrt WEO's comment above on "public vs private" charity, how do we know what in fact he does privately since, by definition, that's private? Personally, I'd wager that he does a good bit that we don't read about based on what I've read on him....

NYC Bills Backers are planning a trip to the game I believe, as well as a tailgate. They also mentioned something in a recent e-mail about buying a block of tickets together via the Jets. I may try to get in on that, or just Stubhub it like I did to the Giants game last year. Tickets can be had for as little as about $65 each there and despite being in the nosebleeds you can still pretty much see everything, so a pretty good deal (for NY!). Best of luck and maybe I'll catch you there!

I hope you're right about TO and suicide, but I'm not so sure. As you may recall, there was already that incident several years ago when he "accidentally" ODed on sleeping pills and they had to call EMT's to his home if I recall correctly. While I'm not a medical professional (and I don't even play one on TV), it does seem at times like he's got something clinical going on.....

That's what you'd think would make sense, but that's the LAST thing the owners will want to do....

Very sorry to hear about your dad--may you cherish the memories he left you. I'll keep him and your family in my prayers....

It's interesting that you pick the Stillers for the biased officiating and then give the Cheats* a pass on Spygate, when it's been the Pats* who've benefitted by far the most from poor officiating over the last decade or so, to the point where it's not even close....

And the teams playing on the short 4 day week will be playing another 4 day short week team--that's really the key, the differential in time off....