It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Billionaire Governor Taxed Rich - Raised Minimum Wage — State’s Economy Now One of Best in US

page: 2
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Didnt Trump want to tax the 1% in the 90's?

She should still do it now if he's legit.

a reply to: soficrow




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

edit on 12-3-2017 by JanetteDoeDoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Who cares if Minnesota is below or above.....subject is a good one tax the rich.....

Hey on the radio long ago they said the Texas electric co......you know they pump revenue.....they do have infrastructure But......they said....

Texas electric only has to pay fifty bucks in taxes this year.....it was about 1982.....
Then they made a statement from the utility co.....said it's not tax evasion, it's good tax planning...

But...But....



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Snarl
We'll see how long it lasts. When the rich move to Texas from Minnesota ... ah, well ...

In the meantime, the Governor's office can make up any numbers they want to suit their agenda. Some fake news agency will make it all sound real.

LOL


In 2015, an investment group I work with asked me to look into an energy field recovery services company in rural NW Minnesota. I spent several weeks looking things over, but the bottom line almost 80% of their revenue came from contracts in North Dakota.

We bought part of the company and promptly sold it to another company in Williston (ND). But I've seen enough. Minnesota is NOT a good place to do business.


This was an interesting read. It is from Twin Cities Business Magazine.
tcbmag.com...


Wow... Well, that was exactly my experience in 2015. Every "incentive" had strings attached. Every "waiver" meant there were two worse reg's hiding in the shadows.

Had we been able to make our deal work in MN, it would have meant at least 20 $60 k + jobs and a capital investment of $3.5 million or so.

As it turned out, two people in MN who were already well-off pocketed a small fortune, about 15 people lost their jobs, and the revenue-generating assets were moved 300 miles away to North Dakota.

And I learned my lesson... Stay out of MN!



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Who cares if Minnesota is below or above.... tax the rich.....


How much?

I'm not "rich", but I use what capital I have to make my living. I do that by investing. I can tell you that at a certain point I would STOP investing and live off passive investments if my taxes were much higher. And there are millions of me out there...

The "rich" already pay most of the taxes. The top 10% of earners already pays 70% of the taxes.

You know what makes me really angry...? The bottom 50% of earners pays a pathetic 2.75% of the taxes...

So how much should the "rich" pay?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG


You know what makes me really angry...? The bottom 50% of earners pays a pathetic 2.75% of the taxes...



You know what makes ME really angry?


World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%



And NOTE: This does NOT include the banksters.



edit on 12-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: SBMcG


You know what makes me really angry...? The bottom 50% of earners pays a pathetic 2.75% of the taxes...



You know what makes ME really angry?


World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%



And NOTE: This does NOT include the banksters.




Good! I'm glad those 8 people have so much wealth. They created it.

And that's the point!

Wealth is not a finite commodity, it is created. There is no upper limit to how much wealth can be created.

If I have $100 in my bank account and you have $0, you don't have $0 because I have $100.

If you want wealth, you are perfectly free to create as much as you want and I'm not going to stop you. Government might -- by regulating your chosen method of wealth-creation out of existence. They might tax you so much that it ceases to make sense to create anymore wealth.

I want you to be wealthy. The more wealthy people out there, the more economic activity, the lower the social welfare burden on society, the more jobs, and the higher our quality of life in total.

It's not my responsibility to make anyone else wealthy. Again, if i found myself in an economic environment where I was so heavily taxed I would simply stop working and investing.

The redistribution crowd who think it's a good idea to take from the rich and give to the poor have no concept of the Law of Unintended Consequences that ALWAYS leads to more poor people in the end.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

I have no problem with wealth being created.

I have a problem with that wealth being used to form monopolies, lobbying and buying elections.

In a perfect world...... Oh never mind.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Minnesota is the Midwest version of California. It loves it illegals, it loves all things liberal, and it's very good at misappropriation of funds. They apply for all federal programs and receive funding, then piss it away on other things. Look up the real id bill.
Also check out how many bridges have collapsed or are falling apart. They have no f#ing idea how to actually take care of their residents. But they are fantastic at misdirection and illusions. ..
By the way , Dayton has had another massive stroke, and his mind is slipping fast. It's a shame, as he seems to be a genuinely caring person, even though his constituents lie to him continuously.
They will not be the model of prosperity for long, as they fund every liberal project before their own infrastructure. Duluth is in shambles, and the twin cities are a joke. Currently they are praying for funding for the Northstar express - a train from duluth to the twin cities. If they are doing so well , how come they can't pay for their fuc#ing toy?
edit on 3132017 by Natas0114 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Who cares if Minnesota is below or above.... tax the rich.....


How much?

I'm not "rich", but I use what capital I have to make my living. I do that by investing. I can tell you that at a certain point I would STOP investing and live off passive investments if my taxes were much higher. And there are millions of me out there...

The "rich" already pay most of the taxes. The top 10% of earners already pays 70% of the taxes.

You know what makes me really angry...? The bottom 50% of earners pays a pathetic 2.75% of the taxes...

So how much should the "rich" pay?

Income share for the bottom 50% of Americans is ‘collapsing,’ new Piketty research finds

In the U.S., between 1978 and 2015, the income share of the bottom 50% fell to 12% from 20%. Total real income for that group fell 1% during that time period.


Per capita income in the U.S. was $29,979 in 2015
If you look at filings...
High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?
44.7% of income tax filers earned (approximately) per capita income or less (under $29,999) and paid approximately 1.5% of taxes.
An additional 39.3% of income tax filers earned between $30,000 and $100,000, and paid 19% of taxes. A further 13.3% earned between $100,000 and $250,000, and paid 27.8% of taxes. A scant 2.7% of filers earned more than $250,000 and paid the remaining 51.6% of taxes.

So, you seem to have this question of fairness... let's look at the math:
148,686,586 U.S. individual income tax returns were filed in 2014, for a combined total income of $9,667,712,667,000 and paid a total of $1,419,614,722,000 in taxes (14.68%).
36,181,194 (24.33%) people earned (under $15,000) a combined $90,803,715,000 (0.94%) and paid $4,589,290,000 in taxes (0.32%)
30,321,571 (20.39%) people earned ($15,000-$30,000) a combined $667,974,467,000 (6.91%) and paid $22,143,346,000 in taxes (1.56%)
26,110,889 (17.56%) people earned ($30,000-$50,000) a combined $1,023,194,198,000 (10.58%) and paid $61,946,032,000 in taxes (4.36%)
32,327,738 (21.74%) people earned ($50,000-$100,000) a combined $2,311,371,626,000 (23.91%) and paid $214,416,953,000 in taxes (15.10%)
17,534,600 (11.79%) people earned ($100,000-$200,000) a combined $2,365,294,280,000 (24.47%) and paid $311,455,047,000 in taxes (21.94%)
2,192,340 (1.47%) people earned ($200,000-$250,000) a combined $486,433,760,000 (5.03%) and paid $83,885,543,000 in taxes (5.91%)
4,018,255 (2.70%) people earned ($250,000 and up) a combined $2,722,640,621,000 (28.16%) and paid $721,178,510,000 in taxes (50.80%)

So, what are the tax rates of these brackets - how much tax paid versus how much income earned:
(under $15,000): 5.05% (it really is higher than the next bracket)
($15,000-$30,000): 3.31%
($30,000-$50,000): 6.05%
($50,000-$100,000): 9.28%
($100,000-$200,000): 13.17%
($200,000-$250,000): 17.25%
($250,000 and up): 26.49%

Speaking of earnings, let's look at income share versus population share:
(under $15,000): 0.94% / 24.33% = 0.04
($15,000-$30,000): 6.91% / 20.39% = 0.34
($30,000-$50,000): 10.58% / 17.56% = 0.60
($50,000-$100,000): 23.91% / 21.74% = 1.01
($100,000-$200,000): 24.47% / 11.79% = 2.08
($200,000-$250,000): 5.03% / 1.47% = 3.42
($250,000 and up): 28.16% / 2.70% = 10.43

To put this particular ratio into perspective... it shows how wealth is concentrated (higher ratio = higher concentration) - and it's quite a concentration - the over $250k bracket averages to $677,567.90 annually; stopping it at $250k just doesn't capture how skewed it is nearer the top. Under $15k is skewed badly as well... it averages out to about $2,509.69; ideally, the brackets would have a ratio close to 1 (as the $50k-$100k bracket is nearly).

One last thing - how does tax share compare to the income share/population share ratios?
(under $15,000): 0.32% / 0.04 = 0.0800
($15,000-$30,000): 1.56% / 0.34 = 0.0459
($30,000-$50,000): 4.36% / 0.60 = 0.0727
($50,000-$100,000): 15.10% / 1.01 = 0.1495
($100,000-$200,000): 21.94% / 2.08 = 0.1055
($200,000-$250,000): 5.91% / 3.42 = 0.0173
($250,000 and up): 50.80% / 10.43 = 0.0487

This could be considered a perspective of tax fairness - an answer to your ultimate question.

The poorest bracket has the third highest ratio, that's pretty bad... recall from above the bizarrely higher tax rate for under $15k bracket compared to the next and you will see how this relates. The under $15k bracket averages ~$2.5k and $15k-$30k bracket averages ~$22k, but under $15k bracket (despite not being a lot larger in population) pays more than 1/5th what the higher bracket does in taxes - even though the higher bracket earns 8.8 times as much; this corresponds to about 80% higher (the ratio above is about 74% higher; factoring in taxes/population puts it within 2%). The lower the ratio, the further it is from being in line with wealth concentration.

Clearly, tax burdens are not distributed fairly - interestingly, the $200k-$250k range is especially low; the $250k+ is a lot fairer, but still on the low end.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
One of those story's where facts are unimportant when trying to push an agenda,especially Huffington Post,where are the facts,Minn is one of poorer economy,MSM story's more fiction then truth



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: SBMcG

Prepping for the 2018 gubernatorials, are we?


Just so ya know, Two-term Governor Mark Dayton is eligible to seek re-election, but has stated that he would not do so. ...But Jesse Ventura might go for it.



pokeprodpickle





Dayton can't for health reasons.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Twin Cities is where the school discipline is done according to Obama guidelines so as not to be racist. Accordingly, it has turned Twin Cities schools into war zones because no one sends the real troublemakers home.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Who cares if Minnesota is below or above.... tax the rich.....


How much?

I'm not "rich", but I use what capital I have to make my living. I do that by investing. I can tell you that at a certain point I would STOP investing and live off passive investments if my taxes were much higher. And there are millions of me out there...

The "rich" already pay most of the taxes. The top 10% of earners already pays 70% of the taxes.

You know what makes me really angry...? The bottom 50% of earners pays a pathetic 2.75% of the taxes...

So how much should the "rich" pay?

Income share for the bottom 50% of Americans is ‘collapsing,’ new Piketty research finds

In the U.S., between 1978 and 2015, the income share of the bottom 50% fell to 12% from 20%. Total real income for that group fell 1% during that time period.


Per capita income in the U.S. was $29,979 in 2015
If you look at filings...
High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?
44.7% of income tax filers earned (approximately) per capita income or less (under $29,999) and paid approximately 1.5% of taxes.
An additional 39.3% of income tax filers earned between $30,000 and $100,000, and paid 19% of taxes. A further 13.3% earned between $100,000 and $250,000, and paid 27.8% of taxes. A scant 2.7% of filers earned more than $250,000 and paid the remaining 51.6% of taxes.

So, you seem to have this question of fairness... let's look at the math:
148,686,586 U.S. individual income tax returns were filed in 2014, for a combined total income of $9,667,712,667,000 and paid a total of $1,419,614,722,000 in taxes (14.68%).
36,181,194 (24.33%) people earned (under $15,000) a combined $90,803,715,000 (0.94%) and paid $4,589,290,000 in taxes (0.32%)
30,321,571 (20.39%) people earned ($15,000-$30,000) a combined $667,974,467,000 (6.91%) and paid $22,143,346,000 in taxes (1.56%)
26,110,889 (17.56%) people earned ($30,000-$50,000) a combined $1,023,194,198,000 (10.58%) and paid $61,946,032,000 in taxes (4.36%)
32,327,738 (21.74%) people earned ($50,000-$100,000) a combined $2,311,371,626,000 (23.91%) and paid $214,416,953,000 in taxes (15.10%)
17,534,600 (11.79%) people earned ($100,000-$200,000) a combined $2,365,294,280,000 (24.47%) and paid $311,455,047,000 in taxes (21.94%)
2,192,340 (1.47%) people earned ($200,000-$250,000) a combined $486,433,760,000 (5.03%) and paid $83,885,543,000 in taxes (5.91%)
4,018,255 (2.70%) people earned ($250,000 and up) a combined $2,722,640,621,000 (28.16%) and paid $721,178,510,000 in taxes (50.80%)

So, what are the tax rates of these brackets - how much tax paid versus how much income earned:
(under $15,000): 5.05% (it really is higher than the next bracket)
($15,000-$30,000): 3.31%
($30,000-$50,000): 6.05%
($50,000-$100,000): 9.28%
($100,000-$200,000): 13.17%
($200,000-$250,000): 17.25%
($250,000 and up): 26.49%

Speaking of earnings, let's look at income share versus population share:
(under $15,000): 0.94% / 24.33% = 0.04
($15,000-$30,000): 6.91% / 20.39% = 0.34
($30,000-$50,000): 10.58% / 17.56% = 0.60
($50,000-$100,000): 23.91% / 21.74% = 1.01
($100,000-$200,000): 24.47% / 11.79% = 2.08
($200,000-$250,000): 5.03% / 1.47% = 3.42
($250,000 and up): 28.16% / 2.70% = 10.43

To put this particular ratio into perspective... it shows how wealth is concentrated (higher ratio = higher concentration) - and it's quite a concentration - the over $250k bracket averages to $677,567.90 annually; stopping it at $250k just doesn't capture how skewed it is nearer the top. Under $15k is skewed badly as well... it averages out to about $2,509.69; ideally, the brackets would have a ratio close to 1 (as the $50k-$100k bracket is nearly).

One last thing - how does tax share compare to the income share/population share ratios?
(under $15,000): 0.32% / 0.04 = 0.0800
($15,000-$30,000): 1.56% / 0.34 = 0.0459
($30,000-$50,000): 4.36% / 0.60 = 0.0727
($50,000-$100,000): 15.10% / 1.01 = 0.1495
($100,000-$200,000): 21.94% / 2.08 = 0.1055
($200,000-$250,000): 5.91% / 3.42 = 0.0173
($250,000 and up): 50.80% / 10.43 = 0.0487

This could be considered a perspective of tax fairness - an answer to your ultimate question.

The poorest bracket has the third highest ratio, that's pretty bad... recall from above the bizarrely higher tax rate for under $15k bracket compared to the next and you will see how this relates. The under $15k bracket averages ~$2.5k and $15k-$30k bracket averages ~$22k, but under $15k bracket (despite not being a lot larger in population) pays more than 1/5th what the higher bracket does in taxes - even though the higher bracket earns 8.8 times as much; this corresponds to about 80% higher (the ratio above is about 74% higher; factoring in taxes/population puts it within 2%). The lower the ratio, the further it is from being in line with wealth concentration.

Clearly, tax burdens are not distributed fairly - interestingly, the $200k-$250k range is especially low; the $250k+ is a lot fairer, but still on the low end.


Wow.

Great work, nice post.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I can't address this until I know whether these tax rates are based upon gross income or AGI.

Until then, the question remains: How much should the "rich" pay in taxes, and at what tax rate do the "rich" stop employing, investing, and spending?

I can answer the above question. I think EVERYONE with earned income should pay some tax -- even the poor. I think there should be a 3-tier flat tax starting at about 8% for anyone (single filer) earning $1 - $30,000, 15% $30,000 - $150,000, and 25% beyond that. The only deductions I would allow would be for healthcare, mortgage interest, and property taxes. No more EITC idiocy.

My money is NOT someone else's money. If it came down to it and I was taxed about 10% more than I am right now, I would cease all earned income-related activities and simply live off passive investments (capital gains). If Bill Clinton's wife had won instead of the far superior Donald Trump, I probably would have done just that.

I have a friend my age (early 50's) and my former business partner who is truly wealthy (9-figure net worth). He has already gone into early retirement because he's tired of working so others don't have to. In the past. he's created thousands of jobs, built hundreds of income-producing properties, and probably paid hundreds of millions in taxes along the way.

Now he sits at home day-trading...

I don't think the wealth-grabbers on the Left have any idea how quickly private capital would vanish if they ever really tried to implement their loony redistributionist plans.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Got one problem with the issue of taxing the rich to get a surplus...

I want to say it was jersey went after the rich... then a billionaire decided to move and his home area suddenly had a deficit to contend with, there has got to be more to it that just taxing the rich.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG
a reply to: Greven

I can't address this until I know whether these tax rates are based upon gross income or AGI.

Until then, the question remains: How much should the "rich" pay in taxes, and at what tax rate do the "rich" stop employing, investing, and spending?

I can answer the above question. I think EVERYONE with earned income should pay some tax -- even the poor. I think there should be a 3-tier flat tax starting at about 8% for anyone (single filer) earning $1 - $30,000, 15% $30,000 - $150,000, and 25% beyond that. The only deductions I would allow would be for healthcare, mortgage interest, and property taxes. No more EITC idiocy.

My money is NOT someone else's money. If it came down to it and I was taxed about 10% more than I am right now, I would cease all earned income-related activities and simply live off passive investments (capital gains). If Bill Clinton's wife had won instead of the far superior Donald Trump, I probably would have done just that.

I have a friend my age (early 50's) and my former business partner who is truly wealthy (9-figure net worth). He has already gone into early retirement because he's tired of working so others don't have to. In the past. he's created thousands of jobs, built hundreds of income-producing properties, and probably paid hundreds of millions in taxes along the way.

Now he sits at home day-trading...

I don't think the wealth-grabbers on the Left have any idea how quickly private capital would vanish if they ever really tried to implement their loony redistributionist plans.

Well, you could read the IRS report I linked. The numbers I quote are based on:
-total tax liability paid for each bracket
-total income taxes filed for each bracket
-total adjusted gross income for each bracket

We operate in a capitalist system. If the rich voluntarily remove themselves from the market because they think taxes are too high, and the market is still profitable, then someone else will take their place. People ain't heroes because they earn a bunch of money.

Why should people who can barely afford food, shelter, and clothing pay even more in taxes than they do now?

The really ironic thing is that some see others as leeches, yet don't realize that profit itself is leeching money from others. To wit - if a business is earning more money than it spends on labor, resources, and capital - then someone's getting shafted.

By all means, follow in his footsteps if you can. Why work if you don't have to? Life's too short.

I'm not on the Left, but the funny thing about capitalism is that there's always someone else who will swoop in to exploit (aka profit) from the situation - otherwise, capitalism is a lie.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join