He purchase his jet for about $75 million and it was not totally deductible at that time and so most if not all of what he could write of has already occurred. He also has a $160 million yacht which from what I understand can be written off over 10 years so $16 million per year. The $16 million would save him 16X.13 or about $2 million. His actual dividend on his shares is $1.098 Billion. So his actual California tax would higher than $130 million including the write offs for his jet and yacht. He probably has other write offs but also addition income. He also can no longer write off his California taxes and most of his property taxes on his Federal Income taxes because of the new tax law.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
He purchase his jet for about $75 million and it was not totally deductible at that time and so most if not all of what he could write of has already occurred. He also has a $160 million yacht which from what I understand can be written off over 10 years so $16 million per year. The $16 million would save him 16X.13 or about $2 million. His actual dividend on his shares is $1.098 Billion. So his actual California tax would higher than $130 million including the write offs for his jet and yacht. He probably has other write offs but also addition income. He also can no longer write off his California taxes and most of his property taxes on his Federal Income taxes because of the new tax law.
Nevada, Utah, and perhaps Oregon. All states with CA transplants fleeing taxation (and housings cost and traffic).
My sister, who still works primarily in CA (basically for the state) moved to Nevada - primary reason was taxation. I believe she lives among a bunch of Californians.
My last trip to Park City a few months ago, I was amazed at the number of prior CA residents - and the subsequent RE prices.
Florida is the same story of course for New York.
Rich states will always tax higher and enough rich will stay that it isn't a huge problem. The most recent tax reform bill made it is a significantly larger problem though.
One thing that will always be true, the form of taxation will always create winners and losers. That will always make some people frustrated with the system. It will always give the government that power. Power corrupts. From a taxation standpoint, the libertarian viewpoint makes a lot of sense. Taxation on some level is theft. Getting this correct is very hard in a large diverse entity.
The populist argument is to tax the rich. In a true democracy we would perhaps only have income tax over $100k and it would be steeply progressive. Why don't we try that for a decade and see what happens? I'll probably move to Europe or Canada because I am not willing to take that risk.
My sister, who still works primarily in CA (basically for the state) moved to Nevada - primary reason was taxation. I believe she lives among a bunch of Californians.
My last trip to Park City a few months ago, I was amazed at the number of prior CA residents - and the subsequent RE prices.
Florida is the same story of course for New York.
Rich states will always tax higher and enough rich will stay that it isn't a huge problem. The most recent tax reform bill made it is a significantly larger problem though.
One thing that will always be true, the form of taxation will always create winners and losers. That will always make some people frustrated with the system. It will always give the government that power. Power corrupts. From a taxation standpoint, the libertarian viewpoint makes a lot of sense. Taxation on some level is theft. Getting this correct is very hard in a large diverse entity.
The populist argument is to tax the rich. In a true democracy we would perhaps only have income tax over $100k and it would be steeply progressive. Why don't we try that for a decade and see what happens? I'll probably move to Europe or Canada because I am not willing to take that risk.
The US had 90% tax rate on the rich in the 50s and 60s. Worked well. Economy grew and the middle class prospered.
People of a certain political persuasion always say the wealthiest pay all the taxes, and that's so unfair!
What they gloss over is the wealthiest own all the wealth, and the taxes they pay on that wealth are lower than the taxes than the middle class.
As for the "You can't tell tax the rich!" argument.
What they gloss over is the wealthiest own all the wealth, and the taxes they pay on that wealth are lower than the taxes than the middle class.
As for the "You can't tell tax the rich!" argument.
Last edited:
CEOs, not the unemployed, are America's real 'moral hazard'
CEOs, not the unemployed, are America's real 'moral hazard' | Robert Reich
Why is moral hazard a problem when it comes to millions of jobless Americans who can’t even collect $600 in unemployment benefits, but not a problem when it comes to CEOs who have borrowed to the hilt, used the money to artificially boost share prices, and pocketed $20m a year?
The real moral hazard has been in C-Suites, not in homes. It’s time to stop bailing out corporations and start bailing out people.
CEOs, not the unemployed, are America's real 'moral hazard' | Robert Reich
Why is moral hazard a problem when it comes to millions of jobless Americans who can’t even collect $600 in unemployment benefits, but not a problem when it comes to CEOs who have borrowed to the hilt, used the money to artificially boost share prices, and pocketed $20m a year?
The real moral hazard has been in C-Suites, not in homes. It’s time to stop bailing out corporations and start bailing out people.
Bernie Sanders: The Foundations of American Society Are Failing Us Opinion | Bernie Sanders: The Foundations of American Society Are Failing Us
The pandemic has also made clear the irrationality of the current system. Unbelievably, in the midst of the worst health care crisis in modern history, thousands of medical workers are being laid off and many hospitals and clinics are on the verge of going bankrupt and shutting down. In truth, we don’t have a health care “system.” We have a byzantine network of medical institutions dominated by the profit-making interests of insurance and drug companies. The goal of a new, long-overdue health care system, Medicare for All, must be to provide health care to all, in every region of the county — not billions in profits for Wall Street and the health care industry.
If there is any silver lining in the horrible pandemic and economic collapse we’re experiencing, it is that many in our country are now beginning to rethink the basic assumptions underlying the American value system.
The pandemic has also made clear the irrationality of the current system. Unbelievably, in the midst of the worst health care crisis in modern history, thousands of medical workers are being laid off and many hospitals and clinics are on the verge of going bankrupt and shutting down. In truth, we don’t have a health care “system.” We have a byzantine network of medical institutions dominated by the profit-making interests of insurance and drug companies. The goal of a new, long-overdue health care system, Medicare for All, must be to provide health care to all, in every region of the county — not billions in profits for Wall Street and the health care industry.
If there is any silver lining in the horrible pandemic and economic collapse we’re experiencing, it is that many in our country are now beginning to rethink the basic assumptions underlying the American value system.
I don't understand why so many folks think the middle class is worse off than in the 1950s-60s. Here is the census data on mean income and as you can see the middle class is doing better than in the 1960s including inflation. This shows that the middle class has gone from $44,254 in 1967 to $61,372 in 2017 in 2017 dollars.
Median Household Income in the United States
The median income in 1950 was $3,300. Adjusted for inflation that would be $35,344 in 2020 dollars versus current of around $64,000.
Median Household Income in the United States
The median income in 1950 was $3,300. Adjusted for inflation that would be $35,344 in 2020 dollars versus current of around $64,000.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
In 1967 that household income was likely from a single person working 40 hours. Now it's more likely from two people working 40 hours each or more.
Both my mother and my wife's mother worked part time in the 1950s and 1960s. Homes are more expensive but much of that is due to what we expect in a house. In 1950 the average house was 950 sq ft with one bathroom no air conditioning and small kitchen. By 2000 the average size house had increased to 2345 sq ft with 2 bathrooms, air conditioning, larger kitchen, etc. We just expect and have a lot more now than back in 1950.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
And it costs a lot more to have those things. Essentially you're saying people should live like the 1950's and everything would be fine. One could just as easily say people should live like the 1850's and things would be even better. That's not how it works. Your anecdote about your mother and mother in law working part time simple further proves my point.
What I'm saying is that we have it better now because of all the stuff we now can't live without. I much prefer the life we have now than what we had in the 50s and 60s. So yes, the middle class folks would have money to spare if they lived the life like they had in the 50s and 60s.
Absolutely ridiculous logic. The reason that some medical workers are being laid off is due to the country being shut down. My dental hygienist is on furlough, as is my physical therapist, and nearly other one of my health care workers. And sure, hospitals are hurting bcos the economy is shut down and therefore zero elective surgeries are being performed. So, most every hospital outside of the hot spots of NYC, New Orleans, & Detroit is practically empty. Even if we had health care for all, the economy would still be shut down and those hospitals would still be empty.
Health care for all may be good for many things, but a pandemic is not one of them. For that, we need a vaccine. Pure and simple.
The myth of the monolithic middle class.
That isn't really an article just a point. Medians, averages, "middle" - statistics and all that.
And to think NYC's middle is comparable to Peoria or Tampa.
We have things that are better and things that are worse than the 50s. I suspect nearly all Americans would pick today despite the mixed issues. We have more - things, traffic, anxiety. If you want less, move to a rural area. There are places that aren't too unlike the 50s in rural america. Guess what? - almost no one decides to do that.
We work more (often both parents) primarily because there are so many more things to buy and more places to go. We also work more because more of us are in white collar jobs that we sort of enjoy. At least better than working the fields or mindless labor.
The tax question is also not monolithic. No one paid 90% - they spent effort avoiding it. Who would work for 10%? I wouldn't. Progressive taxation at some point disincentives working more. Sometimes that maybe good for society but mostly it isn't.
All countries tax wealth but it is roundabout in the form of property taxes. Taxing wealth doesn't really work out that well. Complaining about rich not paying taxes is not all that simple to fix.
That isn't really an article just a point. Medians, averages, "middle" - statistics and all that.
And to think NYC's middle is comparable to Peoria or Tampa.
We have things that are better and things that are worse than the 50s. I suspect nearly all Americans would pick today despite the mixed issues. We have more - things, traffic, anxiety. If you want less, move to a rural area. There are places that aren't too unlike the 50s in rural america. Guess what? - almost no one decides to do that.
We work more (often both parents) primarily because there are so many more things to buy and more places to go. We also work more because more of us are in white collar jobs that we sort of enjoy. At least better than working the fields or mindless labor.
The tax question is also not monolithic. No one paid 90% - they spent effort avoiding it. Who would work for 10%? I wouldn't. Progressive taxation at some point disincentives working more. Sometimes that maybe good for society but mostly it isn't.
All countries tax wealth but it is roundabout in the form of property taxes. Taxing wealth doesn't really work out that well. Complaining about rich not paying taxes is not all that simple to fix.
Except that they now need two incomes to get to the $60K average per household, so that's actually $30K per person, rather than one person working 40 hours.
The basic misconception here is that the 90% was only for income above a certain amount, not the entire income.
Climate crisis will deepen the pandemic. A green stimulus plan can tackle both
The climate crisis will deepen coronavirus. A green stimulus plan can tackle both | Daniel Aldana Cohen, Daniel Kammen
The convergence of the climate and coronavirus crisis will be catastrophic. Now is the time to deploy a green stimulus
Moreover, green stimulus is the only option for a smooth transition to the 21st century green economy. The era of dirty energy is ending. Even the conservative CBNC analyst Jim Cramer has warned investors that oil stocks are no longer safe investments, as society is increasingly repudiating fossil fuels.
Here in the US, green stimulus is easily the best way to create good jobs through public investment. According to a 2011 World Bank study, $1m invested in the oil and gas in the United States creates just five jobs, compared to 17 jobs per million dollars invested in energy-saving building retrofits, 22 jobs for mass transit, 13 for wind, and 14 for solar. Kammen’s research and that of other institutes all concur that investment in a modern green economy is a more efficient job creator than the fossil sector.
It seems counterintuitive, but the timing for such a Green Stimulus is perfect. Bridge-loans and advance payments on public green purchases of goods like solar panels and electric vehicles for public use would stabilize firms’ and workers’ finances. Announcing initiatives like a Climate Conservation Corps would give young people eager to work jobs to apply for, and plan to start. And desk workers across the economy could get on Zoom and do paperwork to make green projects shovel-ready the minute it’s safe to break ground.
The climate crisis will deepen coronavirus. A green stimulus plan can tackle both | Daniel Aldana Cohen, Daniel Kammen
The convergence of the climate and coronavirus crisis will be catastrophic. Now is the time to deploy a green stimulus
Moreover, green stimulus is the only option for a smooth transition to the 21st century green economy. The era of dirty energy is ending. Even the conservative CBNC analyst Jim Cramer has warned investors that oil stocks are no longer safe investments, as society is increasingly repudiating fossil fuels.
Here in the US, green stimulus is easily the best way to create good jobs through public investment. According to a 2011 World Bank study, $1m invested in the oil and gas in the United States creates just five jobs, compared to 17 jobs per million dollars invested in energy-saving building retrofits, 22 jobs for mass transit, 13 for wind, and 14 for solar. Kammen’s research and that of other institutes all concur that investment in a modern green economy is a more efficient job creator than the fossil sector.
It seems counterintuitive, but the timing for such a Green Stimulus is perfect. Bridge-loans and advance payments on public green purchases of goods like solar panels and electric vehicles for public use would stabilize firms’ and workers’ finances. Announcing initiatives like a Climate Conservation Corps would give young people eager to work jobs to apply for, and plan to start. And desk workers across the economy could get on Zoom and do paperwork to make green projects shovel-ready the minute it’s safe to break ground.
Green energy could drive Covid-19 recovery with $100tn boost
Green energy could drive Covid-19 recovery with $100tn boost
Renewable energy could power an economic recovery from Covid-19 by spurring global GDP gains of almost $100tn (£80tn) between now and 2050, according to a report.
The International Renewable Energy Agency found that accelerating investment in renewable energy could generate huge economic benefits while helping to tackle the global climate emergency.
Green energy could drive Covid-19 recovery with $100tn boost
Renewable energy could power an economic recovery from Covid-19 by spurring global GDP gains of almost $100tn (£80tn) between now and 2050, according to a report.
The International Renewable Energy Agency found that accelerating investment in renewable energy could generate huge economic benefits while helping to tackle the global climate emergency.
I think Bernie's point is that we have built the wrong kind of health care system. We have one based, not on maintaining health, but based on extracting maximum profit from disease. The result is that we are totally unprepared for public health emergencies and have the worst health indicators of any developed country in spite of spending more than any country.
The health care workers being laid off are non-essential. Their jobs were to earn profits for the health care industry (doctors, hospitals, insurance, pharma, etc.), and only incidentally improve health. There is no profit in public health so we have been hollowing out our public health infrastructure so that now when we have a crisis, we don't have the public health workers and infrastructure to competently address the epidemic.
Last edited:
Yeah, I get Bernie's point bcos he's been making it for years. But that doesn't mean he gets to make up his own facts to support his point.
They are ONLY non-essential as the country is closed down. The point was to save supplies, equipment and beds for COVID patients.
Definitely true about no profits in public health. But Health care for all doesn't mean that dollars for PH will magically appear. Look at deep blue NYS, a big supporter of health care for all. They have been purposely closing hospitals and beds over the past many years. They have purposely discarded ventilators that were being held in reserve. They have purposely cut their own state PH budget. It was a state Government decision to do so.
(And quite frankly, I understand their logic. If you are a government official, how much are you gonna budget for a possible pandemic that may occur once every hundred years when you have other pressing needs, such as education, crumbling road, homelessness, and of course, the environment?)
My point is that Public Health spending is independent of health care for all. PH is a government expenditure, no different than K12 education, roads, bridges and yes, medical care. Now, if Bernie wants to claim that health care for all will be cheaper and therefore more money is available for Public health, sure, but that's a tautology and true for every government program. (If you reduce teh cost of one budget item, there is more money for other items.) But there is no guarantee that government will spend any of that savings on PH. The money could easily go to other areas of need.
btw: note the death rates of countries with health care for all. If health care for all was the answer to a pandemic, why are Great Britain & France and other EU countries much worse than the US?
Coronavirus deaths per million by country 2020 | Statista
- Status
Similar threads
