E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThey say that wealth begets wealth. That sure rang true for many hedge fund managers in 2011.
The “Rich List” of Wall Street hedge fund managers, who took home a combined $14.4 billion last year, includes businessmen who culled their wealth in part through fees charged to pensions and to manage money for the wealthy.
The annual ranking by AR Magazine, an industry publication, also includes managers who made millions even though the returns on their funds didn’t do much better than the overall S&P 500’s performance last year.
And in a year when the Occupy Wall Street movement protested inequitable wealth distribution, top hedge fund managers handling investments for the super-rich still found ways to make big money.
Take for example Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, who earned almost $4 billion mostly by betting on U.S. Treasuries, according to a TODAY report Friday by NBC senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers.
“My customers are pension funds, teachers. I did well when others didn’t and I’m going to say that they are very grateful,” Dalio said in an interview with PBS.
Two years in a row, Dalio's firm earned more than Google, Yahoo, Amazon and Ebay combined, Myers found. And Dalio’s earnings were just considered “pretty good” by industry standards.
“The industry’s fees and performance are so out of whack it’s unbelievable,” Bradley H. Alford, a former hedge fund investor who now oversees a mutual fund firm told the New York Times. "Fifteen years ago, you got double-digit performance for those returns, but last year, the S&P was positive and hedge funds were negative. There’s no alignment with fees.”
Number 2 on the list, shareholder activist Carl Icahn, raked in $2.5 billion.
Number 3, James Simons, who owns a stake in the Renaissance Fund, earned $2.1 billion. Citadel hedge fund head Ken Griffin got $700 million.
Griffin has a taste for the good life, Myers found.
His wedding reception was held at the palace of Versailles. He owns at least four homes in the U.S. including a $17 million home in an exclusive Hawaiian resort. He donated an eponymously named wing to the Art Institute in Chicago.
Then there’s the pauper of the top five: Steve Cohen.
Cohen, head of SAC Capital Advisers, earned a comparatively paltry $585 million. He’s also a big spender.
He has a 35,000 square foot mansion, owns a piece of the Mets and his world-class art collection is worth millions.
There were some losers in the group. Last year’s standout star, hedge fund manager John Paulson, founder of Paulson & Co., is believed to have personally lost about $3 billion — losses partly attributed to his investment in a Chinese timber company later accused of fraud, according to the New York Times.
All these billionaires either declined to comment or did not respond to NBC's calls. The managers argue that, unlike some corporate CEOs, they only do well if their investors do well.
Dalio has pledged to give away at least half of his wealth to charity.
TODAY.com contributor Halimah Abdullah often reports on the influence of money on politics and policy.
Leave a Comment:
The 'haves' just have it; the 'have-nots' just have less of it
Then the have-nots need to get off their ass and better their situation
the haves need to start paying fair tax rates !!!!!!
EXACTLY, When I'm paying 25% in taxes on 62K per year and Mitt Romney is only paying 15% on 40 million then there's a problem. The Income Tax and Capital Gains taxes need to be the same rate so that everyone is paying their share. Flat Tax on all income is the way to go. No loopholes for the GREEDY.
The haves pay a higher percentage in taxes if you look at the actual figures and don't just listen to the left wing drivel that is out there. You wanna tank the market Roscoe2U? Increase the capital gains tax rate back up to 25%. Do you know when the economy took off under Clinton? It was when he lowered the capital gains tax rates. Do you know why? Because more people were given the incentive to invest. And now you want to take that away? BIZARRE
It isn't just the rich that take advantage of the capital gains taxes, it is EVERYONE that invests. It isn't just the rich that take advantage of loopholes, it is nearly everyone.
weiser that is as ignorant as I have ever heard.
Arguing that "have-nots" are there because they have not tried to better things is trivializing every single one of them who have and hit roadblocks orchestrated by the "haves". I am always astounded by people with blind partisan views of any kind, when since its inception, the rules in this country have been created to keep the wealthy safely wealthy, no matter which party writes them.
Can the have nots not get out and better their situation instead of whining about it? Yep. Sorry if that is too blunt for you.
The rich got richer in 2011, Thank Goodness for that. Would the rest of us be better off if they didn't, not a chance.
Roscoe2u
there is no way that you are paying 25% on federal taxes at 65,000 a year. You cannot add in fica, social security or state taxes.
WeiserJG - sounds like you need to get out of your penthouse a little more!
I wish! :)
Anyone in the top 5% should have manadtory military duty for a 4 year stint since they stand to gain or lose so much more based upon our freedom. Front lines in our worst conflicts. Or pay 39%.
And with Ryan's plan, the haves will be paying even less. While the poor will do without! This will be an election of the 1% vs the 99%!
Orthosophy,
I just wanted you to know I clicked 'like' fifteen times (post 1.5) but it only recorded one. :o)
So I saved 7-10% of my take home pay after taxes for 32 years. I now have a million invested. My capital gains are taxed at 15-20%. I paid my taxes, just like you, just saved instead of spent. My car and house are paid for and I'm not wasting my money on the lottery this week. I'm the same as Buffet, except alot less zeros...
Tell that to the single mother who's raising 2 children on her own, working 2 jobs and trying to attend law school at night.
Tell that to a guy who couldn't finish high school because his father died and had to work to support the family being the oldest child.
Tell that to the man who served in the military and got his legs blown off, living off disability, unable to work because he has PTSD he can't even get treatment for.
More examples could be provided but it underscores how generalized and obtuse you statement really is. Just get off your ass and stop being lazy in other words. Yeah, tell that to these people...
Why does the left so thoroughly hate those who are more successful than they are? Must be just plain old envy. I really and honestly don't care what anybody else makes.
It is amusing, however, how the left idolizes a whole bunch of bad actors, singers, and other "celebrities", and never seem to complain about them for the huge amounts they earn, despite a serious lack of talent.
Back to the top tax rate in the 50's: 90%.
because the rich get richer. the poor? well they just get lazier and lazier.
Yup, lots of folks got richer and the president was Obama, guess he needs to rethink that wealth redistribution concept a tad better. Not enough rich people going broke here. Need to fix that.
Those people who are decently well off need a mental defense against the idea that people are genuinely suffering, while they themselves are not.
Thus they make up garbage about 'the poor' like
and
Brand them as lazy, addicts, bums, anything to place the blame on them. Anything to help justify the imbalance between the fortunate and the unfortunate. Its only natural to feel guilt in a situation like this; eating your fill while the person next to you starves. So tell yourself its the starving persons fault, so you won't have to feel that instinctive guilt.
But why the self-deception? Because the alternative is charity, and for some people, having to give up that last twinkie to someone else is simply too reprehensible a idea to consider.
Afterall, its much tastier to blame the victim and eat that last twinkie for yourself!
Weiser, BIG Lie!
The "haves" pay a higher dollar amount of their income/capital gains than the have nots. However, the wealthy elite pay a much smaller percentage of some of their ill-gotten gains than the "rest of us."
On August 15, 2011, Warren Buffet testified to the above fact.
That Buffet is a very wealthy man...I think he knows more than you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
Weiser,
Do not forget the extreme disparity in wealth that is present in this country.
The 1% owns and controls 40% of the wealth.
Wealth includes: income/capital gains, real estate, treasury notes, venture capital funds, stocks, bonds, IRAs, savings, derivatives ("crazy" income snatching schemes,) etc.
Wealth = assets - liabilities.
Weiser, the "rest of us" are monetarily quite behind the rich.
I like the concept of taxing the rich into poverty.
Trickle down poverty. Great concept. Everyone should be equally poor with no opportunity/incentive to create wealth.
One problem though, since the poor don't pay taxes what will we do when we run out of other people's money?
hs321,
All people who are willing to work hard, should have equal opportunities.
The super rich are doing quite well.
The elite's "club" is a closed one/Invitation only.
Regarding the "trickle-down" theory, if there was any truth to this skewed political platfrom - with the exception of the Clinton years, the middle class and the poor would prospered over the past 3 decades and these classes would not have fallen into the economic basement. All that wealth and cash from the wealthy would have "trickled down" to the majority population.
The last 3 decades have shown us that - no wealth even drizzled down.
Supply-side economics is a GOP failure.
weiserjuniorgrade- you a dumb schmuck, dude. Or, maybe a liar, it's hard to tell. The economy took off in the 90's mainly because of the explosion of the IT industry. Which was largely fueled by the expansion of the internet which made IT something the masses could access. Mass access = explosive growth. Thanks to something the government was responsible for creating, then giving away.
Tax cuts had almost nothing to do with it. If people think they see an opportunity to make one hundred k on an investment, your thesis is that they won't do it if their tax bill is 25 k rather than 15 k. So you are saying that they will throw away 75 thousand dollars because it's not 85 thousand dollars.
Further, raising the capital gains rate to 25 or better 28% won't tank the economy. Aside from the screams and wails of fanatically greedy people and the politicians they bribe, there will barely be a hiccup. First, it will not make honest people out of the packagers and salesmen of derivatives. Second, as above: even the fanatically greedy are not going to give up a chance to make a million bucks because they have to pay 250k rather than 150k.
Like I said, you either a dumb schmuck or a liar. Sorry if that's too blunt for you.
For everyone who keeps on cherry picking Warren Buffet's article to argue that the rich pay less than the poor (% wise): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46313519/ns/business-personal_finance/t/actually-wealthy-are-taxed-more/#.T3c-5NWb8kY
"Wealthier Americans pay higher taxes than middle- or low-income earners; according to the latest Internal Revenue Service data"
I'm not right or left, I'm very much against demagoguery and "facts" that are lies but believed because it's what people want to hear.
Anyone with half a brain that can actually reason would be able to figure out that the vast majority of wealthy people are lazy as sin. They don't make their money doing any mental heavy lifting or any heavy, demanding physical activity like the 99%. They are leaches who give nothing back to America. If they were TRUE, PATRIOTIC Americans they would be bringing back jobs from China and taking lower profits to keep more Americans employed with decent wages.
Sadly, as long as Republicans have anything to say about it that will never happen. You have to FORCE the greedy wealthy to actually invest in workers or they will use them like and consider them slave labor.
The times when this country had the MOST PRODUCTIVITY were when tax rates were HIGH on the wealthy. Just check the 1950's when people were buying their own houses and the average American was flourishing in the middle class. The tax rate on millionaires and higher was 90% and they all got wealthy anyway AND created good paying jobs.
CorporateShill 1.2
Assuming the haves are the top 5%, since they already pay more than the other 95% combined, could you elaborate on exactly what is their fair tax rate?
The FACT is, the reason SOME people get rich is because they take more of the collective pie for themselves by ruining good companies for short term profit by lowering workers pay and eliminating benefits, shipping jobs overseas, buying our government to further stack the deck against the average worker, destroy unions, cut education, destroy the environment, take advantage of the United States laws but invest nothing in it's future. These people don't deserve billions in salary, when hard working people who's labors have been devalued by them are in poverty and being villified by the moron right wing. Money is whatever a society SAYS IT IS. Don't believe me? Ask the aristocratic French after the revolution. Now, we are a supposed "free market" nation, but when the elite few take far more than they contribute, way out of step with the people whose efforts made them their gains, then it's not time to cut their taxes, but rather to bring to some responsibility and raise their taxes. Nobody makes that much by themselves. The right wing liars on this post would double down on the policies that have led to the ruination of the middle class in America. Wise up, or someday those billions you have may be deemed worth nothing by the rest of the people you want to exploit.
But WeiserJG has too much willful blindness to understand that.
Why do you libtards keep collapsing all the true posts?.... Does the truth bother you that bad?
How many jobs did they create with their tax breaks?
Sam,
Did you know that the overall tax income went up after the tax breaks? The more people who work, the more tax revenue that is generated.
We need jobs, not higher taxes.
For all you people blaming the rich for getting richer.
Get off your butts and do something. Start a Company,start a Hedge Fund or learn Financing. Since you people say that the rich don't work for their money it should be easy to become rich.
The rich are no smarter, nor do they work harder than in, say, the 70s. Yet, relative to everyone else, they are far richer now than then.
The cause of this was and is a massive redistribution program undertaken by the government. Reassured by a smiling, chummy, senile old man who promised that this would make things better for everyone, the American Idiots believed it. After all, the smiling old man was good at it. He had been a paid shill for several decades and the practice paid off.
Too bad it turned out to be a lie.
subnormal, that is a complete and total lie. If you check taxes in America over the past many decades you will find the most jobs created and the most prosperity by the 99% was when taxes on the wealthy were HIGH, much higher than they are now. When Clinton was President with higher taxes than now and low unemployment and decent wages. When Bush gave tax breaks unemployment started going up and job creation started going down. Look at the 1950's where the tax rate on the wealthy was 90% and everyone was doing great.
It's a republican LIE that lowering taxes creates jobs and has been proven over and over again throughout history that it is a lie.
None, no jobs were created by the tax breaks. Job creation was higher before the tax breaks.
Once you are rich, it is easy to become more rich.
Very true. Is that a bad thing? Because if it is, we may as well put a moratorium on all college educations in the legal, medical, and technical fields, as well as business start-ups because I'm pretty sure the goal with these is to make much more money than they would have without the education or financial risks.
If you believe the rich should oay a lower tax rate than the middle class, good for you.
The only problem with the redistribute the wealth mantra is that you have to create wealth in order to redistribute it.
Right! Something Obama doesn't get! Among everything else this guy doesn't get. We better have RICH people the way HE SPENDS MONEY.............................Sad, very sad. Can't wait for January.
Marilee, president Bush spent money like a drunken sailor for 8 years and YOU never complained about it. And the reason the deficit ballooned under Obama is because Obama stopped the Bush Lie that hid the cost of two wars. Bush never included the cost of two wars in his deficit as they were funded by emergency measures and they never show up in the deficit or budget. Obama stopped the lying to the American people when he became president. Obama included the Bush Bailouts and cost of two wars in the deficit number and gee they skyrocketed. Under Bush we had the fastest and largest deficit increases since WWII and Dick Cheney said "Deficits don't matter.".
Obama gets it and knows how to fix it as we can see things are getting better. If republicans were back in charge we would have 2-3 times the current unemployment and failed businesses that would made the 1929 Great Depression look good. I wouldn't trust a republican to manage the money in a piggy bank. If I did they would just steal the money and say some Socialist stole it. :p
Once you learn to take advantage of people and steal their retirement it just gets easier and easier.
One more article done to make anyone that is rich seem hostile to the American people and to mark them as bad in accordance with the Obama election agenda. The only problem is the Left-wing media is being selective in which people/corporations they want to vilify - of course the rich Left-wing supporters and Progressives corporations are excluded even when they earn more or have a higher profit margin. Hopefully not every voter is the sheep the Obama Administration/Left-wing press is hoping they are. The Great Divider in Chief and the Liberal press are hoping for a dumbed down electorate.
Sooo not true. The article was specific, not making sweeping generalizations as you would have us believe.
Left-wing, right-wing --it's not that mucked up anymore! Greed-wing!
If the article was so comeplete how come the headline from the Guardian is:
Ray Dalio eclipses George Soros as most successful fund manager
Oh wait they can't possible villify George Soros the source of most of their money!
money has the access to influence the rules how money is made.
that's it pure and simple. sure, they create wealth, but if you think it trickles down well enough, you are deluding yourself.
to add insult to injury, who gets the perks, the free tickets, the great deals the free accommodations etc. etc? those who can most afford to pay for them.
i will forever be a democrat because they contribute less than to the gop to that unfairly tilted playing field, and try more to tilt it back toward the average citizen.
Looks like it's time for more TAX CUTS!
Well Dan. it's not the left attacking the women, it's not the left promoting even larger tax breaks to the "job creators", it's not left that wants to gut entitlement programs, it's not the left that wants to continue to subsidize billion dollar profit industries, it's not the left that wants to let Wall Street to continue is risky rampages...
Low and middle class wages stay stagnant and the gap continues to grow on the back of those classes. THAT's the point!
The Beasts of Burden need better education. You can see where the voting is when it comes to THAT.
Dumb animals OR workers are easier to control/influence/persuade/mislead.
Ok Chip, so how should it work in your world? Are you saying we should all leave high school and immediately be guaranteed getting a job pulling in $120k year? There is nothing going on today that has not gone on throughout history. The only difference is the numbers are getting larger because of all the money that is being pumped into economies across the globe. The poor are not getting poorer, the wealthy are getting wealthier, so that money is not coming out of the poor's pocket as you'd like to have us believe.
If you want some of that money, work for it, aspire to it, keep your positioned to advance in whatever job you have and if you don't have a job, find one. Blaming the wealthy for your problems is not going to get you anywhere. And if you simply want the wealthy to hand over some of their wealth to you? That's just wrong on so many levels.
Nobody on the right is pushing for tax breaks for these people.
Grover who?
"The poor are not getting poorer, the wealthy are getting wealthier, so that money is not coming out of the poor's pocket as you'd like to have us believe"
Actually, the money is indeed coming out of the pockets of the poor - and, might I add, the middle-class moreso - in the form of massively inflated prices for life's neccesities. As such, the middle-class is struggling like they haven't since the 1930's.
Chip,
The reason for wages not increasing is the increase of cheap labor competition from other parts of the world.
Oil companies pay 60% of their after cost profit in taxes. So please explain how they are subsidized?
It would be nice if they actually talked about facts once in a while.
How about GE, they did not pay any taxes last year? Who's fault is that? What about Warren Buffet, who is fighting his companies taxes for the last 6 years?
Soros made 6 billion dollars last year.
Shhh, don't mention Soros or Buffet, they are the 'good' rich people. They have to be good so that when the revolution comes the angry mobs go after the 'bad' rich people and leave their estates and palaces alone. Facts???? We don't need no stinkn' facts, we have Media Matters telling us what to think....
mygirl1, you are correct the republicans don't like facts. They hate facts with a passion because they tend to disprove every damned thing they say. Republicans much prefer the lies that come out from places like Fox News because IGNORANT people eat that stuff up like candy.
What bull@!$%#.
STexan - either way it is wrong. Every time the wealth disparity has gotten this large it has resulted in Revolution. learn a little history, it is coming
Still waiting for the "Lich List".
I believe you meant "Lynch List"
UdunnoBro,
So if you Lynched all the rich, what are you going to do with their possessions?
If you lived in their house, you would be rich, so then you would be next to be lynched.
No, no, no. The way it works is they kill the rich people, steal whatever they can get their hands on and burn anything else to the ground. That way everyone will be equally poor and the leaders of the mob will be the new rich and they will build new palaces to live in. The new and elite leaders of the new revolution want to destroy the entrenched rich so that THEY can become the new rich and so it goes...
Meanwhile wherever the Republicans have a majority in a state legislature, they are doing their best to suppress voting. Maybe the Supreme Court will decide the election 5-4 like in 2000. "Let's stop counting while our guy is ahead".
So proving that you are a US citizen before voting is somehow a bad thing in your mind? You people are mind boggling
You people? you are fighting a problem that doesn't exist! If you have to spend money to vote, it is a poll tax
There are all sort of FREE ID cards that you can get. Newsflash: you are REQUIRED to be a US Citizen to vote. You need to prove that. If you are of voting age and don't have an ID you have bigger problems than not being able to vote. This is 2012. Get with the times.
You have to prove your identity to get on the voting list. Poll watchers from all parties can be or are assigned to polling places and can challenge anyone's identity at the time of voting. I suggest these are sufficient safeguards to voting. If fraud is rampant, where is the evidence? This is a solution in search of a problem.
Frank,
How is having a picture ID supressing voting?
The states that have done it have shown an increase in voter attendence.
If you need a photo ID to cash a check, buy sudafed, how can you not need one to vote?
Kriag,
there has been voter fraud in my state, and it has been prosecuted. In this day an age you have to have a photo ID. What is so wrong in showing it to vote?
Sub, because a driver's license is enough. A social security card is enough. There is no need to require a new ID be needed other then to drive turn out down.
Geowil,
In my state there is not a special Photo ID card. There is the state issued drivers license, the state issued Picture ID card, Photo ID from the military, and photo ID from a college. There is no special new ID card needed. That is what they are requesting in my state. I do not know of any state that is voting on anything different than that.
Corporate idiot...voter I.D. is free of charge. Your problem with it is that you have to prove you are a citizen to get it. Can't you just be honest and admit that?
Eric is so gulliable, voter ID is a non-issue to keep simple people like you entertained.
Well, that is what capitalism is. You have a company? All you have to do is pay low wages and prices of goods and services high. You have an investment company? Take their money, invest it for a little while and then start creating a crisis and let all the stocks go down by cornering the markets, and then leave after becoming a billionaire.
Capitalism is only moral for those who believe that with wealth comes responsibility. Those with good conscience welcome regulations, evil does not like to be regulated. The best regulations found are the Ten Commandments. When you love your neighbors as yourself, you will cause no harm. Financial and economic oppression will not exist.
Who are you to say that companies pay low wages? And now the rich are evil????
Weiser,
Wages have been stagnant for 12 years. That is how he can make that claim. In order for an economy to grow the middle class has to spend greater amounts of money. That money they spend is given to the upper class who reinvest it in higher production and higher wages which in turn fuels the middle class' spending spree.
When you depress wages like we have done to try and compete globally you depress the ability of the middle class to spend and the result is that your economy grows at a slower rate. Take a look at China, they are increasing their wages slowly but surly and their economy is growing at least twice as fast, if not tens of times, as ours is.
There is no way that having no substantial wage increases for 12 years has not damaged the middle class and our economy's ability to grow, it is logically impossible for that to be the case. The rich are evil because of two reasons:
1. They cannot be relied upon to regulate and govern themselves.
It was not the middle class nor the poor class that caused the 2008 collapse. It was the greed of the banks, of the upper rich class, that forces bank tellers to, instead of standing up to the Government and display some backbone and maybe go to jail, sell off @!$%#ty loans that the tellers new could not be paid back.
It was not the poor nor the middle that sold those loans on the stock market nor was it them who gave those loans a AAA security rating. It was the upper rich class in control of the banks and S&P that did these things even though they knew that they would cause hell to break loose.
It is not the poor nor middle classes that feel the need to flood Congress with money to create legislation that is completely biased and one sided and serves no purpose but to strip freedoms away from the citizenry and monetize systems in a way to boost their own profit margins.
Case and point SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA. All of theses bills do nothing for the common person. They change the very foundation of the Internet so that only those rich enough to create content and copyright it can put anything onto the web. They make it so that websites that provide music license and royalty free that compete with the Industry to close shop. They all would force YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites to completely shut down and complete what Viacom tried to do in 2007, in regards to YouTube.
The rich want to control the world around them without any regard for the rest of the people in the world. This is not always the case but when you have rich people funding political parties (Soros & Koch for example) the common person no longer has a say in those parties because the common person cannot "donate" a hundred million dollars. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, yet money corrupts the consciences of men and women even more so and faster.
So you are saying that their money buys your votes? We as a people have power to change things. We have to stop voting for people who tell us one thing, then get in office and due something else. That is what the Tea party is about. People fed up with the over spending. If you do not want to support the rich think about where you buy your products. Support the local businesses. Support the mom and pop restaurants. There are many things that you can do.
Also the lower we value our dollar the more bubbles that will be created.
yes, the rich are bad, they steal form others so they can live lavish lifestyles
Good for them. If the libtard dream of equitable wealth distribution were magically made a reality, within 10 years the broke would be broke again and the rich would be rich again.
You know its true.
,'-D
Fox News not working for you again?
Get some new material.
Why waste time writing anything? Your name alone tells all we need to know.
Incidentally, that $4 billion taken in by Ray Dalio in the past 12 months? The majority of it will incur a mere 15% tax thanks to the laughable carried-interest loophole.
Sick of the greedy narcissists in this country. Congress is full of them, wallstreet is full of them and there are people suffering but hey...at least the rich are getting richer. Sickening.
Why is it "sickening" that people are accumulating wealth? Isn't that what every American should strive for?
I'm an architect in Greenwich, CT - ground-zero for the hedge-fund and private-equity industries. Coincidentally, five years ago I was part of a team that designed a summer-compound in the Hamptons for a guy mentioned in this article. And truthfully, unless you've seen it up close and personal as I have, people really have no idea just how insanely and obscenely excessive these finance titans are.
That Hamptons compound I previously mentioned? It was this family of four's sixth residence and included among the $35 million in construction costs were such items as $45,000 custom medicine cabinets for the guest house, $5,000 sink faucets in the main house, $7.5 million exercise pavillion, etc. And this place is occupied just weeks per year.
And how many jobs did building that house provide? How about the small businesses that benefited from providing the products used to build this house?
How many more jobs could be created if the wealth was put to constructive work rather than conspicuous consumption? How about starting an American steel company, for example?
Ok MG, we should obviously have a panel comprised of enlightened liberals who determine just how much wealth any individual or entity can accumulate.
IT'S NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS.
There will always be those with more/less than you and I.
Get the hell over it.
Wonderful; my design team included graduates from the architecture schools of Yale and Notre Dame, possessed both amazing creative ability and vast technical knowledge and combined decades of experience. As compensation for the 12 hour days spent designing and engineering the aforementioned home? About $70,000. A mediocre - and barely comfortable - wage in Fairfield County.
Incidentally, when the financial industry brought this country to its knees in the fall of 2008, three-quarters of my firm was let-go.
At what point do these people accumulate enough? Is there ever a limit? And is using their money for such personal purposes the best use of it? How many homes can you occupy at one time? How many cars can you drive at ome time? How many Gulfstream's can you fly at one time? Accululate your first 5 billion and get what you want and need. After that, do something that contributes to the good of the country and world.
I've no problem with a guy like Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates or - going way back - Henry Ford. These people created products used the world-over and raised everyone's standard of living in the process (well, maybe not Facebook).
The financial-engineers mentioned in this article produce nor create nothing (unless you consider CDO's, MBS's, CDS's, etc. productive) yet individually siphon-off billions of dollars per year.
So, to the self-titled 'angry conservative', to be clear, I commend the true innovators who continue to raise everyone's standard of living and are paid handsomely; conversely, I'll never be fine with the parasites of the financial industry.
Incidentally, I'm no liberal; I despise the likes of Al Sharpton and Rush Limbaugh in equal measure.
@MG
I still don't understand how they "siphon" off billions of dollars a year. The hedge fund managers manage IRA's and institutional investors accounts, most likely including your retirement account in one shape or form. If these executives successfully navigated down market conditions and provided a profit to the business and your own personal fund, why should they not be compensated for thier work?
You make it seem like what they do is illegal or immoral, yet when these people make you money in one form or another, we all hear nothing but crickets.
Chirp chirp
If you were anything but a right wing shill you would stop parroting Faux News.
That is a fun Darwinian lie but it is still a lie.
"An injustice committed against anyone is a threat to everyone." Montesquieu
“If access to health care is considered a human rights, who is considered human enough to have that right?” Paul Farmer
Is it the wealthy? The GOP? The Dems? Or is it all those who are born of women and men? The right to be a human being? If you declare that a fetus is a human being, does he stop being a human being when he grows up and gets sick?
Is he still human enough for good wages, health care, and freedom from financial persecution?
So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy. Roger Nash Baldwin
"Everyone has a right to peaceful coexistence, the basic personal freedoms, the alleviation of suffering, and the opportunity to lead a productive life..." Jimmy Carter
Angry, I've not heard one "libtard" promote an equitable distribution of wealth. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think so.
The main point is that as poor and middle class wages continue to stagnate or ebb, the gap widens and there are real reasons for that happening. Disparate tax applications are one of those reasons. Off-shore money channeling is another, continued risky Wall Street behavior one more...
Unchecked growth of the federal government is another. Unsustainable spending, borrowing, and printing of our money is another.
But to my point, the flow of money is from those who cannot manage and grow it to those who can, and to tyrannical spenders in DC.
Actually, data from the IRS confirms that it is the middle class and below who have gotten the big tax breaks in the last 25 years. Here is the actual data from the IRS on the average tax rates being paid by people in different income groups on all their adjusted gross income, including capital gains and qualified dividends.
AGI GROUP: ........Bottom 50%...50%-25%...25%-10%...10%-5%...Top 5%...Top 1%
1988 Avg Tax Rate....5.06%.......9.60%.........11.82%.....14.07%....21.14%.....24.04%
2009 Avg Tax Rate.....1.85%......5.56%..........8.25%......11.36%....20.46%.....24.01%
Peter, middle class may have gotten the biggest tax rate cut, but the rich, in absolute terms, made out like bandits under bush tax cuts. I'd much rather a 10% tax rate cut on 1m in income than a 15% tax rate cut on 50k a year. You tell me which guy got the best of the tax cut deal.
Mark - look at the rates. Those in the top 1% are paying the same average tax rate on their adjustible gross income as they did 20 years ago. When the CBO looked at the Bush (now Obama) bipartisan tax cuts passed by a Senate split 50-50, those in the top 2% who pay almost 50% of all individual federal income tax got just 20% of the benefits. Those in the bottom 98% who pay just over 50% of individual federal income tax revenue got 80% of the benefits. Those tax cuts were geared to the middle class and below.
The federal government has been trying for more than 3 decades to redistribute wealth by having high income earners pay an increasing share of individual federal income tax revenue. It hasn't worked. Wealth is not distributed, it has to be earned. Perhaps you saw a recent article that scored the Obama proposal to raise the marginal tax rate on those with incomes over $1 million back to the rates in 2000. It would raise only a mere additional $1-2 billion per year.
Honestly Peter, wouldn't it seem to make sense that when you have individuals sucking-in $4 billion per year that they'd foot a substantial portion of the tax bill?
MG - I did not suggest that our tax code should not be progressive. But it is not possible to solve our financial problems simply by raising tax rates on high income earners, there are not enough of them to make much of an impact. Even raising taxes on everyone will only solve 10-20% of the problem. The federal government spends too much; it is that simple.
I call BS. I paid more than 24% last year and I only made 62K. Wow, I must be RICH and a member of the 1%................................
Fair enough, Peter; incidentally, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the issue of spending.
I must say, however, that I do take issue with $4 billion annual paydays for doing nothing more than placing big bets with other people's money. By comparison, the truly brilliant heart surgeon who saved my grandfather's life - and saves the lives of others on a daily basis - earns in a year what these hedge-fund types make in a day. And though I'm not quite the miracle-maker, I am an architect. And after six years earning my m.arch degree and an additional three years of 12 hour days accumulating the number of hours required to sit for my licensure exam and - now - the knowledge to design and engineer a building, my annual income is about equal to the hourly wage of some of these guys.
Seems far out of whack to me.
Roscoe, sorry but your numbers are not correct. 24% of $62,000 would be a tax bill of almost $15,000. For someone who is single and has a $62,000 income, subtract one personal exemption and the standard deduction and you get around $53,000 of taxable income. If single, you would pay about $9500 federal income tax on that, or just over 15% for an average tax rate. If you paid more than that, get a new accountant.
One again Peter17 and his bull@!$%# stats. AGI does not include Schedule A, where a lot of deductions occur. It never does because the real tax rate would show what a bunch of liars Peter17 and hsi bunch really are. Look at how Romney and Buffet paid less tax than their employees and less tax on a percentage basis than the middle class.
You gotta wonder how people like Peter17 can stand to look at themselves in the mirror spreading their propaganda everyday.
Well after tonight it will grow by one after 640 mega million grows to $750 million or more by 7:30
Tax the $hit out of thesse greed bags
I wonder if they gave any of their employees raises? OR if they fired them to make more money. Seems like most hedgefunds are just in it for the money and everyone else be damned
I could care less about how much these guys are making. As long as it was legal and they are not screwing the public. HOWEVER they need to pay taxes on this stupid amout of money they make. I pay what 38% in income tax? They should pay the same. Until then I believe its not fair.
You need a new accountant if you pay an average federal income tax rate of 38%. The top marginal rate is only 35%.
You should have paid 15% like Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney.
But as usual Peter17 spreads the tax propaganda of the Right extremist Tax Foundation.
Peter- everyone pays 15% off the top in employment taxes. Half of it is hidden and called the employer contribution. I can tell you being an employer that if the employee did not earn it they would not have a job.
then as folks move up the ladder of success they pay income tax. Single making 45,000 per year puts you over the 35% he claimed.
STexan I said nothing about anyone deserving $120K a year or not. You missed the point and the reality of what goes on in this country. And there is something going on in this country that is different that has been going on throughout history. For one, the gap between the rich and the rest has grown disproportionately.
Legislations passed have benefitted the wealthy more than the middle class and the poor (capital gains, death and luxury taxes) . The wealthy are not losing their homes, the wealthy aren't too concerned (if at all) about gas prices. Extending tax breaks for the rich but not for everyone else (if the right had their way - that is until they realized it would have been political suicide and even that took them a while (the dim bulbs).
Weiser; "Nobody on the right is pushing for tax breaks for these people". Okay, that's just a ridiculous statement...
I don't know of a single politician who advocates extending the current tax rates for just upper income folks. The official policy of Republicans is extending ALL the current rates.
Chip,
What do you want?
If a CEO is making 20 million dollars, with a company pay roll of 100,000 people. That would give you a $200.00 more per person. Are you telling me that $200.00 is suddenly going to make you rich?
subnormal - it would be a start. No one is worth 20 million a year
I find the article and dialogue interesting, but actually a waste of information and a insult to the people.
If one was looking for a Representative for their union, would they choose the executive ceo of a company to represent the working people of that Union?
Yet we elect millionaires for our congress and administration and feel all warm and fuzzy when they say they represent us and can relate to the poor and middle class.
Many radio and television commentator's are millionaires supposedly fighting for the middle class and the poor.
I have watched the above mentioned grow wealthier each year as they are pointing fingers at the wealthiest. Does not make a whole lot of sense to me to have those who are among the 1% represent the 99%. Does not make sense to me to applaude them or take their advice when their own wealth goes up every year.
Wow, the whining malcontent class warriors who should have aspired to a more lucrative occupation are out in force today.
Envy, thy name is Liberal.
,'-D
You think envy is the problem? No, it's because people are sick of a system rigged in favor of wealthy people (e.g. "Citizen's United", "K street", etc.)
Yeah and some people are too angry to able to think straight and see that. No wonder Murdoch and the Koch Bros make people angry, that stops them from being able to think.
Mac and Yash would rather the poor run this country?....I'm sure that would work out well.
No eric after reading your post we are all just grateful that you have no voice in our government.
Ya no @!$%#. My employer for 4 years straight hasn't given raises while the cost of living has risen. Of course the company i work for is making record profits, expanding, not hiring, looking to lay off more people, outsourcing jobs to other countries, and increasing the workload of the people left. There is no work life balance and 1 person is doing 4 jobs. Hmmm... who's raising the kids! I guess i am lucky and just a whiner ehhh...
My company is not giving raises, but is highering more at a decent start off wage with benefits and not through temp agencies.
Cost have gone up, it would be easier and possibly cheaper to outsource, however the owner keeps the work local. Not all employers are greedy.
You work for a greedy American corporation. Is there any way you could form a small company and compete?
I haven't worked for a Corporation in years but it was a dehuminizing experience. Too bad for America really.
Wouldn't you like to see an accountant that really knows this stuff post in one of these threads? I know I would.
Conservative - so, you're saying those of us who aspired and achieved the title of architect, engineer, or doctor should have thought better of it and pursued a career in banking.
Wonderful concept there. And just think about how better off the world would be minus all the architects, engineers and doctors and plus a whole lot more hedge-fund types.
I thought I read a few weeks back that those 3 fields are the very ones that are hiring at present?
They certainly are; but how does that relate to my comment directed at the angry conservative?
OK, now I know who you were addressing. I kept looking for some user named Conservative, however I was perplexed for I did not see the username "Conservative". Sorry about that.
Peter17... Short memory. The Republicans only wanted to extend (and make permanent) the tax break for the rich. They held the rest of the tax breaks hostage until everyone agreed that the rich would get theirs (some more). In fact, they also held the unemployment benefit extension hostage as well.
And they only agreed to do that once they realized how ridiculously stupid they looked and how much more damage they would suffer from such an inane position.
Like I said, people have short term memories...
Nonsense. The Republican Party has always support extending ALL the Bush Era Tax Cuts. You cannot rewrite history to support your political views.
Talk about rewriting history, nobody mentions all the tax increases under Alzheimer's Reagan.
Taxes were riased to pay for liberal spending Yash...I was there, you can't fool me.
subnormal... I'm not saying that at all. However, $200.00 is a lot of money for a whole lot of people.
Chip
Have you watched the movie "In Time". In that movie the rich are people with more time. This time allows them to live as long as they want. The Rich in our country still get old and die. So sooner or later all of their wealth is going to go back into the system. I have no idea why they want that much money. However saying that I know what I would do. Not sure how that would work though, but it sure would be fun to try.
You can use the same example for the the population as I did for that company. If we evenly distrubuted the income of the rich to every person who is working in the united states, it would not actually amount to that much. It actually would be less since then we would all have to pay more in for taxes.
What I want is for all of us to keep more of the money that they make. We need to take care of ourselves. If we are unable to take care of ourselves, there is always friends and family who can help. I have no idea what someone does with a 32,000 square foot house. But I can tell you this, they are not cleaning it themselves.
As mentioned, if we all had $50,000.00 right now, in 5 years there would be people with a Million dollars and people with nothing.
We need to give these rich people a tax cut too, so it will trickle down to the rest of us...
Yeah the leaky diaper eceonomy has worked so well over the last 3 decades.
So...whats the name of the poor man you work for Yash?.....I'm waiting.