Biggest income drop in 20 years

Consumer Spending in U.S. Climbs Even as Taxes Hurt Incomes

Household purchases, which account for about 70 percent of the economy, climbed 0.2 percent after a 0.1 percent gain the prior month, a Commerce Department report showed today in Washington. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of 76 economists called for a 0.2 percent advance. Incomes slumped 3.6 percent, sending the saving rate down to the lowest level since November 2007.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-0 ... comes.html

Still waiting to gear if STDS got a tax hike at the first of the year.
The .2% spending increase is a result of higher gas prices and home heating oil.

Yeah, it's pretty frustrating when you see how the GOTP made sure the top 1% got 93% of the income....



It's even more disgusting when you realize that corporate profits are the highest they've been since WWII.... And when you realize that the CBO says that the increase in gas prices has NOTHING to do with "supply and demand"...It's being driven by the usual vulture speculators...

So in your world....those evil corporations should hand some of those profits over to those less fortunate.....even if the little people did nothing to earn it?

Just trying to understand your response.

The cool thing is that since the money is not getting paid to employees and the govt is printing more of it and that the govt is spending less of it (currently)....there is more money to go out and try to get.

These are good times for those that want to start something new or compete in the business world. These are bad times to go ask someone if they need help with their goals. This is the time to follow your own dreams. Credit Cards are still easy to get, home interest rates are low and you can even get a business loan again (if you have something to back it up).

LJ, I am not denying your graphs, but they may be designed to give a stronger impression than what really happened by the way the data is presented. If you have the data, I am curious what % say the top 1% or 20% went up and in the same time period, what % did the mid or lower levels go up. Of course if they both go up at the same rate, but one starts lower, a graph is going to make the human eye look at the top 1%, because their graph will show the separation, but not the differential effect. but in fact they could still be growing at the same rate. I am suggesting that if no one changed their position in society over decades, that the graph would still look like that...we cannot see what we need to see in the condensed part at the bottom. Also, how does that graph account for the fact that people in the low income brackets don't typically stay there (college kids are there and then, in the old days, were not 10-20 years later). Those are not tracks of people, but tracks of income groups. The lower income group is constantly replenished with young people, immigrants and low skilled workers. You are wrapping some fact with misrepresentation that plays on most people's ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3 ... 7E&index=7

I think most people can not even wrap their head around ^^^^^, and thus are not qualified to discuss this. This stuff is so complicated, it is best for the mediocre people running our govt to stay out of it.

Let's face it, the rich, the smart, the strong, the good looking, the tall and the men will tend to do better no matter how much you game the system. The men simply because it takes less time to impregnate than gestate and care for a child, even if men and women were equal, you would still be up against this. If you are poor, stupid, weak, ugly, short and/or a female, your expectations should be lower for yourself, you have to work harder to reach the same level as others, this is just the way it is. Fighting this forever will just bankrupt us.

It came out yesterday that the $ cost of regulation that small businesses pay in the us is LESS THAN the total of ALL income taxes. That is just the $ cost to the business....this thread is also about the $ cost to the employee. While many of these regs effect the cost of low level employment and not the cost of being a CEO, all the regs just lower the worker's pay. The do gooders need to realize that much of the income change in the last 20 years has to do with govt design of the system. Once the set new rules, those that are in the best position to take advantage of new rules, the owners and ceos, will do so and those that are in no position except for asking for the new rules (to make their job better) get paid less or fired to finance what they ask for. This is classic shooting yourself in the foot. Do you want less employment and even lower wages....try to fix this with legislation.

In my world, it's not about "handing over some of their profits", it's about the corporations pay their taxes, instead of hiding it offshore and moving it around.

30 Major Corporations Paid No Income Taxes In The Last Three Years, While Making $160 Billion

Amongst the 30 are corporate titans such as General Electric, Boeing, Verizon, and Mattel. The only four companies that slipped into positive tax territory were DTE Energy, Honeywell, Wells Fargo, and DuPont, with DuPont the only one that paid more than 4 percent over the four years.

Corporate taxes in the U.S., contrary to the constant protestations of conservatives, are at a 40 year low, with many of the most profitable companies paying nothing at all. CTJ noted that “had these 30 companies paid the full 35 percent corporate tax rate over the 2008-11 period, they would have paid $78.3 billion more in federal income taxes.” And this is not a problem that only afflicts the U.S., as the UK found out last week that online retailer Amazon made billions in sales in 2011, while paying nothing in corporate taxes.

Amongst the 30 are corporate titans such as General Electric, Boeing, Verizon, and Mattel. The only four companies that slipped into positive tax territory were DTE Energy, Honeywell, Wells Fargo, and DuPont, with DuPont the only one that paid more than 4 percent over the four years.

Corporate taxes in the U.S., contrary to the constant protestations of conservatives, are at a 40 year low, with many of the most profitable companies paying nothing at all. CTJ noted that “had these 30 companies paid the full 35 percent corporate tax rate over the 2008-11 period, they would have paid $78.3 billion more in federal income taxes.” And this is not a problem that only afflicts the U.S., as the UK found out last week that online retailer Amazon made billions in sales in 2011, while paying nothing in corporate taxes.

As CTJ’s report put it, “just as workers pay their fair share of taxes on their earnings, so should successful businesses pay their fair share on their success. But today corporate tax loopholes are so out of control that most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.” And its one that lawmakers could fix, if they were willing to stand up to the nation’s biggest corporations.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/1 ... -no-taxes/


Three BIG loopholes to close:

No More Amsterdam Sandwiches

Obama has called repeatedly for corporate reform that would stop multinationals from shipping profits overseas in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The policy paper, for example, proposed a minimum tax on offshore earnings to encourage domestic investment and "prevent a race to the bottom in corporate tax rates."

These aims hew closely to legislation recently introduced by Sen. Carl Levin, (D-Mich.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) that would attempt to stop U.S. companies from shipping patents and other assets to offshore affiliates. One infamous technique, pioneered by Apple, is known as the "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich." The maneuver is complicated, but essentially it allows U.S. companies to move profits through Ireland, the Netherlands and then on to a tax haven in the Caribbean in order to lower the U.S. tax bill. Over the last three years, Apple, Google and Microsoft have used techniques like this to avoid paying taxes on $80 billion in profits over a three year period, a recent Senate subcommittee on investigations found.


Ending The "Facebook" Break

The U.S. tax code permits companies to deduct the cost stock options as an expense that reduces profits, just like cash compensation. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, in a report picked up by Bloomberg News, the stock options cashed in after the Facebook IPO will allow the company to claim a tax refund of $429 million.

So what's the problem? The tax code permits companies like Facebook to take stock option deductions in excess of expenses. So, for example, Facebook booked stock options given to founder Mark Zuckerberg at 6 cents per share, according to Levin. The company later claimed a deduction at about $40 per share. Moreover, Facebook can carry forward deductions -- and indeed, has an additional $2.17 billion that it can apply against future tax bills, Citizens for Tax Justice calculates.

This "excess" deduction, according to Levin's calculations, has cost the Treasury between $12 billion and $61 billion a year in lost revenue.


Carried Interest / "Make Mitt Pay More"

As you no doubt have heard by now, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney probably pays a lower effective tax rate than you. That's because of the "carried interest" rule, which allows private equity managers to to treat the fees they charge to manage a client's portfolio -- typically, a one-fifth share of any profits -- as investment income, subject to a lower 20 percent capital gains tax rate than the top 39.6 percent marginal rate.

Obama specifically mentioned the carried interest break on the campaign trail, and again in the run-up to the last fiscal cliff crisis, in December. Eliminating the perk, though, won't do much to ease the budget deficit. It costs Treasury about $1.3 billion a year.

---

So, in MY world, the House and Senate GROW A PAIR and close the corporate loopholes that allow those smart lawyers to move assets around, dodge taxes, and take advantage of regulators who always seem to come from the very institutions they're supposed to be regulating. I'm not interested in the usual drivel from the Randroids about "taking corporate profits" (presumably to 'redistribute'...or, as the neanderthal puts it, "hand some of those profits over to those less fortunate") I'm interested in closing the loopholes that give these vultures a free ride. Apple, Microsoft, G.E., ad nauseum...

I want to see the tax-breaks for corporate jets gone; I want to see tax-breaks for corporate yachts gone; I want to see limits on mortgage deductions for 2nd, 3rd, .... 7th, 8th homes GONE for people who make more than $1million... I want to see $4-BILLION/year subsidies for oil/gas companies gone.... There's a much longer list, but that will do for now...

This is not about "hand some of those profits over to those less fortunate", it's about paying taxes so that we have bridges that don't fall down; schools that educate and are affordable; R&D for companies to find cures for cancer, all that stuff that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "those less fortunate"... 'Cause god forbid, a teabagger should see any of his money to help anyone else.... (I need an icon for "loathing" and "disgust.")



And Boehner wants to continue playing his games... How's that working out for ya?

I have a corporation, when I pay more in taxes, I then cannot raise my employees pay as quick (and I love paying more if I can afford it). In the end, as I have said, I can only pass increases in govt costs from taxes and regs to two people - the customers and the employees and the customers don't like it so usually it is the employees.

Plus, if I were to grow and manufacture more, your minimum wages and OSHA have essentially told me to ship the jobs oversees. Why do you min wage folks only secure min wages for US citizens and end up punishing them. You need to push for min wages and OSHA rules for all imported products or you have in fact driven the jobs oversees using your worker protections.

You seem to want the govt just to mandate that every be paid the same amount or if not left to the two people trading (employer and employee) how do we determine a fair wage. Min wages do not work, we have had them for decades and we still have lots of poor and unemployed....what other system could you suggest for fixing the problem you point out. You have IDed problems, what are your proposed solutions to this disparity. I have said simply limit wealth of people to something like 10 million bucks, they will leave opportunity for others, what say you...how do you solve this "problem" that will never go away. Surely you govt regulators have tried and failed for about 100 years. Every time anyone gets ahead because of a decent policy, they tax away that gain via more actual taxes fees or regs (like the extra 10-20% everyone pays for their home so it can be building regulated - people did not have to pay this govt premium until the 70s).

What is your solution? Do you have one that does not involve a gun or force? Could you convince others to do better with just words?

US corporations not paying taxes? Sounds like Obama needs to fix that. Blame Congress? Then why did corporations pay no taxes when Pelosi was in charge too?

There's a difference between having to pay "MORE" in taxes...and having paid "ANY"... When multi-billion-dollar companies play the tax avoidance game, everybody loses. I'm not particularly interested in your anecdotal personal situation.

I seem to want, and expect, corporations to pay taxes...and close the loopholes that let those with the smartest lawyers get out of it. It's not about "limiting wealth"...It's about making corporations pay their taxes by closing loopholes. It's about closing loopholes that allow hedgefund managers, and job-destroying vulture-capitalists like Romney and others pay the same rate on their income as everyone else; and it's time to stop rewarding "capital gains" over "income" at ridiculously low rates. Multiple studies already show that the people who get huge amounts of their wealth from capital gains, and hiding their money offshore, do NOT create jobs. (A cute talking point, but "job-creators" is a laughable term...)

FredHayek wrote: US corporations not paying taxes? Sounds like Obama needs to fix that. Blame Congress? Then why did corporations pay no taxes when Pelosi was in charge too?

Seeing as how the loopholes that are allowing this kind of tax-avoidance were passed during the Bush administration...

But you feel free to insert your "They did it too" bullsh*t here: ______________________________________

LJ, you are not interested in my personal situation because it is the real world and I am one of the ones making the real decisions in business you are constantly talking about - I am an employer and you don't respect real world opinions, only articles that say what you like. And actually because the policies you love actually do run the govt and our economy for the most part, I thank you, if things were done my way, these employee types would likely be more empowered and would not need my job. Thanks to the do gooders that rarely are able to do good, the little man is kept down....and I get to employ him. You do gooders give us all our power by concentrating everything in govt. You make business for those already in business easier, not only by lowering the value of employees, but keeping them from becoming owners, thus reducing my competition. This is all wrong, so I fight against it, even though since I am already on top of most situations I am involved in, your policies help me because you like central power...I have much of that power in my world.

Yet still, no specific suggestions as to what to do about it and certainly nothing that involves convincing and not forcing.

Still thank you for helping to keep the little guys down and making my life easier and cheaper to run.

I know, no interest and you can respond by posting another guy with a teabag on his head, it will only help me more.