Not just Big Oil, there's also Nuclear Welfare

The government spends on average $650 billion every year just on defense. But Speaker of the House John Boehner and the GOP always claim that "government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does."

How many jobs does government create with billions of dollars every year in taxpayer subsidies going to the big profitable oil companies? By contrast, the $500 million the government spent on Solyndra for solar panels almost seems meager, but the GOP won't stop harping about those loses.

And besides defense and big oil, the government also spends a ton of money in subsidies for the nuclear industry.

Nuclear welfare started with research and development. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, since 1948 the federal government has spent more than $95 billion (in 2011 dollars) on nuclear energy R&D. That is more than four times the amount spent on solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, bio-fuels, and hydropower combined.

But all that free federal R&D for the nuclear industry wasn't enough, they also wanted federal liability insurance too, which it got back in 1957 with the Price-Anderson Act. This federal liability insurance program for nuclear plants was meant to be temporary, but Congress repeatedly extended it, most recently through 2025.

But R&D and Price-Anderson insurance is just the tip of the iceberg. From tax breaks for uranium mining and loan guarantees for uranium enrichment, to special depreciation benefits and lucrative federal tax breaks for every kilowatt hour from new plants, nuclear power is heavily subsidized at every phase.

The industry also bilks taxpayers when plants close down with tax breaks for decommissioning plants. Further, it is estimated that the federal costs for the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste could be as much as $100 billion.

Even with all of those subsidies, the private sector still will not agree to finance a new nuclear plant, so wealthy nuclear corporations recently secured access to $18.5 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees.

Exelon takes in $33 billion in revenue annually and is the leading operator/owner of nuclear reactors in the United States. On the verge of retirement, Exelon CEO John Rowe's total compensation last year jumped 48 percent, to $10.7 million.

Another corporation, Entergy, with revenues of more than $11 billion annually, is the second largest. J Wayne Leonard has been CEO of Entergy for 11 years. Total compensation last year: $27.32 million (5-Year Compensation Total $89.43 million)

Someone needs to tell the Speaker of the House that government created very good-paying jobs for these CEOs.

Together, just those two companies alone, own or operate almost one-third of U.S. reactors, and based on their revenue they are doing pretty well. So why do they need endless federal welfare for their industry year after year after year? Will it ever end?

Someone needs to tell the GOP that "government" (we, the taxpayers) are not only the biggest job creators, but are also the best paying. Just ask any CEO in the defense, oil, space, and nuclear industries (the top 1%).

Also, somebody needs to ask Speaker of the House John Boehner and the GOP about how many jobs the government created for the big tobacco companies.

* Excerpted and edited from an article by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Ryan Alexander for the Huffington Post called Stop the Nuclear Industry Welfare Program

Tax rates under Clinton, Bush, Obama & Romney

The differences between Mitt Romney and President Obama are stark; one advocating for the advancement of all Americans, and the other for the further advancement of a few (see the different tax brackets below).

When Obama said, "I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth", he wasn't attacking successful people or his fellow Americans as Mitt Romney had claimed, but was describing his own background.

Romney said on Fox News, "The president likes to attack fellow Americans. He's always looking for a scapegoat, particularly people who have been successful like my dad, and I'm not going to rise to that. I'm certainly not going to apologize for my dad and his success in life," and claimed his father was born poor (which was a lie).

And Mitt is also complaining about "punishing the rich". Boo hoo.

President Obama wasn't looking for a scapegoat, he never mentioned Mitt's dad, and Obama never expected an apology for Mitt Romney's success. President Obama just believes that successful people (like himself) should pay a proportionally fairer share of their incomes in taxes - and 72% of "fellow Americans" agree with the President, even "successful" ones like the Warren Buffett and the patriotic millionaires.

Too often the Republicans and wealthy people falsely use the disingenuous argument of "envy" and "class warfare" when counter-attacking the President and 72% of America when the discussion of raising taxes is mentioned. Envy and class warfare are attributes better associated with the wealthy, not average Americans, who aspire to one day be wealthy themselves.

Currently the top tax rates on ordinary income, dividends, estates, and gifts remain at or near historically low levels.

For the 400 U.S. taxpayers on the Forbes Fortune 400 list with the highest adjusted gross income, the effective federal income tax rate—what they actually pay—fell from almost 30 percent in 1995 to just over 18 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

And for the approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29 percent to 23 percent in 2008. It may seem too fantastic to be true, but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or so.

The reason is, much of the income among the top 400 derives from dividends and capital gains, generated by everything from appreciated real estate, to stocks and the sale of family businesses. As Warren Buffett likes to point out, since most of his income is from dividends, his tax rate is less than that of the people who clean his office.

The Democrats put off a vote on letting the Bush tax cuts expire until after the Republicans won a sweeping victory in the 2010 congressional elections. Obama said he would negotiate with the Republican leaders and the "compromise" he made extended all of the Bush tax cuts for another two years. Unemployment benefits for the working poor had been held hostage by the Republicans. Extending the Bush tax cuts was supposed to create lots of jobs, remember?

Mitt Romney and his rich ilk called it fair, but to call this "fair" is laughable. It brings to mind Malcolm X's point that "you can't drive a knife into a man's back nine inches, pull it out six inches, and call it progress".

Over the past several decades, income and wealth inequality has increased dramatically. The top 1 percent now own over 40 percent of the nation's wealth, and their share of national income increased from 9 percent in 1976 to 26 percent today. Read more...

Meanwhile, the tax burden has shifted in exactly the opposite direction - - first, from corporations onto individuals, and second, from the wealthiest individuals onto everyone else.

In 1943, U.S. corporations paid nearly $1.50 in taxes for every $1 paid by individuals. By 1960, this amount had already fallen to just over 50 cents in corporate taxes for every $1 from individuals. But the trend continued over the following decades. By 2010, corporations were taxed about 22 cents for every dollar paid by individuals, about one-seventh the relative proportion they paid in 1943.

These figures contradict the deceptive claims of pro-business commentators who love to complain about how U.S. corporate tax rates--nominally 35 percent of income--are "the highest in the world."

In reality, the biggest corporations pay a fraction of that rate, if they pay any taxes at all. In a joint report, Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy examined the tax records of 280 profitable Fortune 500 companies from 2008 to 2010. The average tax rate for all of these corporations was 18.5 percent, and 30 profitable corporations paid no taxes at all over the three-year period--they actually received a refund. A total of 78 companies paid no taxes during at least one of the three years.

There's an old saying that "nothing is certain except death and taxes" - - but that applies to everyone except major U.S. corporations, which are saved from death by insolvency with taxpayer-funded bailouts and freed from the burden of paying taxes despite massive profits.

Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, released the Simpson-Bowles proposal into his committee this week. He didn’t expect to pursue a committee markup until after November’s presidential election. During the unveiling, Conrad said he would hear opening statements on the proposal but that the process would end there.

According to Conrad, his Fiscal Commission Budget Plan will reform the current tax code by removing three of the six current tax brackets. The three tax brackets remaining include a 12%, 22% and 28% bracket. Additionally, Conrad said his proposal would reduce the deficit to 1.4 percent of GDP by 2022.

The House recently rejected another version of the Simpson-Bowles plan, 382-38.

Current Tax Brackets

Senator Kent Conrad's plan removes three brackets from progressive tax rates and changes the marginal rates, but he doesn't mention how (so I'll guess the incomes in the chart below). Those earning $0 - $8,700 will pay more, those earning $8,700 - $85,650 will pay less, those earning $85,650 - $178,650 will remain unchanged, and everyone else earning over $178,650 a year will pay less.

Senator Kent Conrad's Plan (New Simpson-Bowles)

You'll notice that tax rates for the very poor go up 2% (from 10% to 12%), and tax rates for the very top income bracket go down 7% (from 35% to 28%). The higher earners get the biggest tax break if they are paid ordinary wages, but capital gains and dividends for the wealthiest would be taxed as regular income (with exemptions, but Senator Kent Conrad's plan doesn't specify). His plan would also eliminate tax expenditures (with few details) and eliminates the alternative minimum tax entirely.

On January 1, 2013 the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire, which would raise income tax rates on virtually every household; increase estate, dividend and capital gains tax rates; and shrink popular deductions like the child credit. But Obama just wants to let the cuts expire for the top marginal income bracket by using the Buffett Rule, and taxing incomes of over $1 million a year at 30%. For example, the wealthiest use capital gains to generate the bulk of their income, and is currently taxed historically low at only 15%.

Under Bill Clinton, before the Bush Tax Cuts

In February 2012, Mr. Obama repeated to a call to an end for the tax cuts for high-income households, and upped the ante by calling for capital gains to be taxed at the same rates as ordinary income, a measure that would raise about $206 billion over 10 years. Previously, he had proposed setting the capital gains rate at 20 percent for the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers.

Obama just wants the Bush tax cuts to expire for the upper income earners, and proposed the "Buffet Rule", taxing those earning $1 million a year a 30% tax rate - - which would raise capital gains from 15%, past the previous 20% rate, to 30%...which would still be less than the current top marginal rate of 35%, or 39.5% if the Bush tax cuts expired.

Long before the Bush tax cuts, tax rates for the wealthiest U.S. households had already declined dramatically. According to a report by Wealth for the Common Good, "Over the last half-century, America's wealthiest taxpayers have seen their tax outlays, as a share of income, drop by as much as two-thirds. During the same period, the tax outlay for middle-class Americans has not decreased."

As recently as the early 1960s, the tax rate on income at the highest levels--known in tax terminology as the top income bracket--exceeded 90 percent. By the end of Ronald Reagan's eight years in the White House in the 1980s, the rate had dropped below 30 percent. George H.W. Bush increased the top tax rate to 31 percent, and Clinton hiked it to 39.6 percent. The Bush tax cuts reduced the rate to 35 percent, where they remain today.

Meanwhile, the tax rate on capital gains, which was raised in the late 1960s and mid-1970s to a maximum of close to 40 percent, has been cut over the past few decades to the current rate of 15 percent. These reductions have almost exclusively benefited the top 1 percent. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, were the capital gains tax rate restored to its high point, 80 percent of the tax increase would be borne by the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, and 90 percent by the richest 5 percent.

Senator Kent Conrad's outline would not touch the president’s health care law, but it would phase out the employer tax deduction for health care and include additional health care cuts. It would lay down parameters to overhaul Social Security (and raising the age of retirement) to slow its growth. And it would set out prescriptions for a simpler tax code that eliminates or reduces scores of tax deductions, taxes dividends and capital gains as ordinary income, and lowers individual and corporate tax rates.

In that sense, the Bowles-Simpson plan may be no more viable now than it was in late 2010, when it got the votes of some conservatives and liberals on the presidential panel but failed to receive the support of the most conservative and liberal House members on the committee.

At the budget hearing Democrat Senator Mark Qarner piped up and sounded more like a Republican, saying low income people also need to "put more skin in the game."

Mitt Romney proposes a 20% tax cut in all tax brackets across the board (assuming the current income brackets).

Mitt Romney's Proposed Tax Plan

Romney would maintain the current tax rate of 15% on capital gains and dividends for households that earn $200,000 a year or more (the top 1%), keeping the wealthiest American's tax rates extremely low. High earning Americans who are paid through regular wages would pay a 25% rate, and the middle-class would pay 20% (Mitt Romney would still only being paying 15% on his carried interest...he's not raising or lowering his tax rates.)

Mitt Romney would lower the poorest American's tax rate only 2% (from 10 to 8 percent), but lower the top rate 7% (from 35 to 28 percent). In each way, the rich get richer as the poor get poorer because the poor will also have social programs cut in exchange for a little lower tax rate. Romney has said his goal is to reduce federal spending to no more than 20% of the economy by 2016, down from a current level of roughly 24%.

For example: Last year 50% of all U.S. workers earned less than $26,364 a year (the poverty level for a family of four is considered to be $22,350 a year, which is a very low government assessment).

In round numbers (for the sake of argument), if someone earned $26,364 a year under Mitt Romney, they would see their taxes reduced by $791 - - from $3,954 to $3,163 (before exemptions and deductions).

On the other hand, someone earning $388,350 a year, would have their taxes reduced by $27,184 - - from $135,922 to $108,738 (before exemptions and deductions).

But the very rich, those who earn millions of dollars in capital gains, would only pay a 15% tax rate, and would not have their taxes reduced or increased...after all, they are already almost as low as they were in 1921 when the preferential treatment of capital gains was first introduced.

As you can see, the wealthiest get a huge tax break, while everybody else gets a meager one, but at the expense of huge budget cuts to government programs (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, TANF, food stamps, etc) that those in the top income bracket don't need.

Obama says he just wants the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top income bracket, and tax those earning over $1 million a year an effective tax of 30%. That would theoretically raise the top income bracket for regular wages from the current 35% to 39.9%.

It would also raise capital gains from 15% to 30% under the Buffett Rule, although the detail are a bit fuzzy.

In a recent TV interview, I heard Bill Clinton say that he "regretted" lowering the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%, before Bush lowered it further to 15%.

Near the end of the Gilded Age after World War I the Revenue Act of 1921 was passed after Republican Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon (also the banker) argued that significant tax reduction was necessary in order to "spur economic expansion and restore prosperity".

Mellon obtained a repeal of the wartime excess profits tax and the top marginal rate on individuals fell from 73% to 58%. But the preferential treatment for capital gains was first introduced at a rate of only 12.5%, effectively lowering the wealthiest individual's tax rates from 73% to 12.5%

...a windfall for the super rich that's been in place for the past 90 years. 

Under Obama's Tax Plan (estimated, using the current tax brackets)

Here's what I would propose: I would tax all income (inheritances, capital  gains, SWAG investments, carried interest, dividends, wages, tips, gifts, bonuses, stock options, etc.) like ordinary earnings and tax them at the rate in the chart below. And then charge a 5% VAT Tax (value added tax) on all purchases over $500,000 - - and eliminate the CAP on Social Security taxes that people earning over $112,000 are presently not required to pay. 

But either way, unless tax loop holes are eliminated for those who can afford a shrewd accountant or attorney (like Mitt Romney), who understands very complex tax shelters, there are many ways to dodge taxes. (Details here > How to Pay No Taxes: 10 Strategies Used by the Rich)

Here are some of them:

1. The ‘No Sale’ Sale - Cashing in on stocks without triggering capital-gains taxes
2. The Skyscraper Shuffle - Partnerships that let property owners liquidate without liability
3. The Estate Tax Eliminator - How to leave future stock earnings to the kids and escape the estate tax
4. The Trust Freeze - “Freezing” the value of an estate, so taxes don’t eat up its future appreciation
5. The Option Option - Stock options allow executives to calibrate the taxes on their compensation in a big way
6. The Bountiful Loss - Using, but not unloading, underwater stock shares to adjust your tax bill
7. The Friendly Partner - With this deal, an investor can sell property without actually selling—or incurring taxes
8. The Big Payback - So-called permanent life insurance policies are loaded with tax-avoiding benefits
9. IRA Monte Carlo - Tax advisers recommend converting traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs—soon
10. The Venti - Putting a chunk of pay in a deferred-compensation plan can mean decades of tax-free growth

With over 500 pages in his tax return, I wonder...how many of these shell games does Mitt Romney use? He clings to his money and is probably a cheap tipper when he goes to a restaurant.

More of my posts on taxes:

• The Republican's Small Business Tax Cut Act of 2012 is just another GOP Scam
• Mitt Romney's Offshore Bank Accounts
• BIG MONEY & tiny taxes
• Republicans Kill Buffett Rule, Refuse to Tax the Rich
• The Perfect Bipartisan Tax Plan
• Stocks up 64% since Tax Cuts for the Rich
• George W. Bush Still Lying About Tax Cuts
• Wealthy Heirs for Higher Taxes
• Why Congress Refuses to Tax the Rich
• Feed the Rich! Tax the Poor!
• Paul Ryan's 'New and Improved' Path to Austerity
• Wall Street Journal Debunked on Obama Tax Plan
• Obama Tax Plan vs. Mitt Romney's
• Mitt Romney: Lobbyists, Special Tax Rates & Tax Evasion

More of my posts on Mitt Romney:

• Mitt and Ann Romney are Full of Horse Manure!
• Ann Romney Needs to get a REAL Job!
• Mitt Romney Comes Clean
• Mitt Romney, the Forbes Fortune 400, and Taxes
• How Mitt Romney & the 1% Evades Taxes
• Mitt Romney - Mister 15% and Platinum Parachutes
• Efficiency expert Mitt Romney: "You're expendable."
• Mitt Romney Knows Envy Better than Anyone
• Mitt Romney Connected to $8.5 billion Ponzi Scheme
• For Mitt Romney, the Joke's on Us
• Mitt Romney was the real-life Gordon Gekko

Small Business Tax Cut Act - Another GOP Scam

For the GOP, it's business as usual. Just the "same ole, same ole"...take from the poor to give to the rich. They're relentless, they never stop trying!

(Below) Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan, trying to push austerity on the middle-class while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

The Small Business Tax Cut Act of 2012, sponsored by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), would slash taxes on the adjusted gross income of as many as 22 million small businesses -- those with fewer than 500 employees -- by as much as 20 percent for one year. It would add $46 billion to the deficit.

The measure, approved on a mostly party-line 235-173 vote, will die in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and for good measure: The White House warned of a veto by President Barack Obama, saying the proposal is far too broad and generous to the wealthy.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said, "Congressional Democrats think we can tax our way to improve our economy", but he doesn't mention that raising taxes on the very wealthy (just a little) could decrease the national debt, the GOP's biggest talking point. The Republicans want to accomplish this solely on cutting programs that the poor and elderly rely on, without having to make the top 1% participate in any "shared sacrifice".

He goes on to bloviate, "Congressional Republicans, once again today, will stand with small business across the nation." But he neglects to mention what type of small businesses they're standing for (e.g. hedge funds, private equity firms, etc.) Democrats complained that the bill would provide tax breaks whether companies hire additional employees or not, including to firms that fire workers. They said its beneficiaries would also include lobbyists, lawyers and pornography businesses.

I have a whole list of "small business entrepreneurs".

The measure, by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., would provide a one-year, 20 percent tax deduction for companies with fewer than 500 workers. As examples of who would benefit, Cantor's office listed firms like the Academy of General Dentistry to the World Golf Foundation. Missing from Cantor's tally was the National Federation of Independent Business, the country's highest-profile small business organization.

Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said, "It's a boon for the rich, the very antithesis of smart tax reform, and it does nothing to create opportunities for middle class, let alone poor Americans."

The tax break would cost the government $46 billion in lost revenue — money that would add to deficits that are already huge. Catching Democrats' attention was an estimate by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which studies tax legislation, that almost 50% of the bill's benefits would go to employers making more than $1 million annually (the Republican's biggest supporters).

Just recently the Republicans have already stopped a Democratic measure in the Senate that would have imposed Obama's "Buffett Rule" taxes on people earning over $1 million a year.

Eric Cantor argues that the average $6,500 tax break resulting from his measure would serve as "a potent economic stimulus, which could spur growth by letting entrepreneurs keep more of their money to spend and reinvest as they saw fit."

He also says, "There's a study out, which shows that this bill, when fully implemented, will create an additional 100,000-plus new jobs." Yeah right, we've heard that before.

The Wall Street Journal just reported that " U.S. based multinational companies increased their work forces at home by only 0.1% in 2010 while expanding overseas employment by 1.5%". The expansion overseas came in a year when the private sector as a whole shed 0.6% of its U.S. workers.

Critics have argued that the benefits would disproportionately land in the pockets of wealthy individuals and businesses such as sports franchises, financial firms and celebrities.

Eric Canter also doesn't tell us that Congress' revenue estimators, the Joint Committee on Taxation, has calculated that the top 11% of small businesses would grab 64% of the break, while 125,000 firms with $1 million a year in adjusted gross income would snag 18.3 percent. The 9.2 million REAL middle-class small businesses at the bottom of the income heap would share a meager 15% of the break.

But most "thinking people" have already to come to realize that almost ANYTHING the GOP ever proposes is mostly just benefiting the already-wealthy. When was the last time the Republicans ever proposed something that JUST helped the middle-class and/or poor? Never.

They just punch lines like, "When was the last time a poor person hired you?" Mitt Romney made $20 million last year and will only owe about 15% in incomes taxes, when was the last time he hired anybody? How many people work at Bain Capital? Less than 500 people?

The bill "is not focused on cutting taxes for small businesses, but instead would provide tax cuts to the most fortunate," the Obama administration noted in a statement. "Under the bill’s definition of income, many of the 'small businesses' that would receive the largest tax breaks are law partners, consultants, and other wealthy individuals and corporations with the biggest profits. The proposal is a giveaway that will cost $46 billion and could, in fact, lead to delays and reductions in investment and hiring."

The White House argued that a more "targeted" approach that simplifies tax rates and encourages new hiring would be better. "If the President is presented with H.R. 9 (Eric Canter's Small Business Tax Cut Act of 2012), his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill," the administration's statement concluded.

One would think that by now, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan would realize that we're on to them by now, and they would try to change their tactics and be a little more subtle. But they're relentless, they just keep on trying!

It's like the little boy would cried "wolf". One of these days, if they Republicans were ever to propose something that was really fair and sane, no one would believe them anymore.

How many jobs did Mitt Romney create last year?

Mitt Romney just announced that he has sought an extension to file his 2011 tax return.

Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement, “Sometime in the next six months, and prior to the election, Governor Romney will file and release the 2011 return when there is sufficient information to provide an accurate return."

The Romney campaign claims that the postponement of his filing has nothing to do with political timing, and everything to do with the fact that some of the companies in which he invested have yet to report their earnings — making it impossible for him to calculate his income.

Tax returns released earlier this year revealed that Romney made lots of money — $42 million or so — in the past two years. Romney made no wages in 2010 or 2011, deriving his entire income from capital gains, interest payments and stock dividends. Average Americans make the vast majority of their income via wages.

He paid an effective tax rate of 13.9% on $21.7 million for 2010. Romney estimates that he will pay about $3.2 million for an effective rate of 15.4% on $20.9 million earned in 2011. (Source: Washington Post)

Which begs one to wonder...how bad can the economy really be (as Mitt Romney is always saying) when he seems to be doing quite well. The stock market is up 63% since Obama took office. So how many jobs has Mitt Romney created with his very profitable "investments" and low tax rates? And why doesn't his tax plan include a "shared sacrifice" from him to help pay down our national debt?

Mitt Romney also has foreign bank accounts in Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands, both of which are well known tax havens. He said he closed his Swiss bank account back in 2010. Did he move that money into his Luxembourg or Cayman Islands accounts?

Romney has insisted that he pays the exact same amount of taxes in these accounts that he would if they were based in the United States. Oh really? Then why does he bank overseas? Does he fear that the American economy might collapse, or that the U.S. authorities might freeze his assets for some reason?

Who does Mitt Romney pay these taxes to, the government of Luxembourg? In the Cayman Islands there are no taxes on profits, capital gains, income or any withholding taxes charged to foreign investors. There are no estate or death duties payable on Cayman Islands real estate or other assets held in the Cayman Islands

An offshore bank is typically in a low tax jurisdiction (or tax haven) that provides financial and legal advantages. These advantages typically include:

• greater privacy
• low or no taxation (i.e. tax havens)
• easy access to deposits

Also...

• Offshore banking is often associated with the underground economy and organized crime, via tax evasion and money laundering.
• Offshore banking tax havens hold 26% of the world's wealth, including 31% of the net profits of United States multinationals.
• Offshore banking may provide higher interest rates than the legal rate in the home country. Interest is generally paid by offshore banks without tax being deducted. This is an advantage to individuals who feel that they can illegally evade taxes by hiding the interest income.
• Offshore banking may offer anonymous (numbered) bank accounts.

According to the “World Wealth Report”, one third of the wealth of the world's “high net-worth individuals”—nearly $6 trillion out of $17.5 trillion—may now be held offshore.

The IMF has said that between $600 billion and $1.5 trillion of illicit money is laundered annually. Today, offshore is where most of the world's drug money is allegedly laundered, estimated at up to $500 billion a year. Add the proceeds of tax evasion and the figure skyrockets to $1 trillion. Another few hundred billion come from fraud and corruption.

Is Mitt Romney one of those tax dodgers?

The Romney team knows that the candidate’s tax returns are a political loser for them. The best way to deal with losing issues is minimize them to the greatest extent possible. Filing for an extension — whether that was by necessity or born of political calculation — to release his returns allows Romney to handpick that moment.

But we already know who he really represents...these people and these people. Mitt Romney ain't no stinkin' "job creator", he's just another lousy tax dodger who hoards his cash.

* Romney's tax returns — nearly 550 pages, including the 2010 returns for three family trust funds and a foundation can viewed here:

• Romney's 2010 tax return (full text)
• Romney’s estimated 2011 filing (full text)

What "we" Earn & what "they" Earn

It takes much more than just hard work to make a decent living these days, let alone to eventually become uber-rich. It takes a lot of talent, and a whole lot of luck too. Even successful criminals need talent and luck. But if you just work hard, that's not enough anymore, not when there are so few jobs paying a "living wage".

Now you need a lot of luck just to get a job interview. Even a college education is no guarantee anymore, but it might help to give someone the upper hand when applying for a menial job, even when an advanced education isn't even needed or required.

Gone are the days of big manufacturing or working in a good trade and belonging to labor union, negotiating wages and benefits for a job that only one parent would need to provide enough for an average family of four. Now it take both parents working menial jobs just to survive. And they both will have to work very hard just to keep those jobs, providing "increased worker productivity", lest they be fired for a more desperate person who's been out of work a long time.

But if you have a special talent, such as in business (e.g. finance, banking, stock trading, etc), or in the arts (e.g. acting, painting, music, etc.), or in athletics (e.g. football, baseball, basketball, etc.), and you have a lot of luck (and get discovered by someone who can market your talent), then you'll stand a much better chance of surviving much more comfortably...but you'll also have to work hard too.

Talent, luck, and hard work...you'll need all three.

According to the Wall Street Journal last year, the U.S. has a record number of millionaires (3.1 million). The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record, with a combined total of $11.6 trillion. According to Forbes Magazine (a year ago), there were over 400 billionaires in the U.S.

Below are just those on the Forbes 400 list that have billions in double digits. And below that is a short list of Hollywood notables. And below that, a short list of athletes.

• Bill Gates $59 billion net worth - Microsoft
• Warren Buffett $39 billion net worth - Berkshire Hathaway
• Larry Ellison $33 billion net worth - Oracle
• Charles Koch $25 billion net worth - diversified
• David Koch $25 billion net worth - diversified
• Christy Walton $24.5 billion net worth - Wal-Mart
• George Soros $22 billion net worth - hedge funds
• Sheldon Adelson $21.5 billion net worth - casinos
• Jim Walton $21.1 billion net worth - Wal-Mart
• Alice Walton $20.9 billion net worth - Wal-Mart
• S. Robson Walton $20.5 billion net worth - Wal-Mart
• Michael Bloomberg $19.5 billion net worth - Bloomberg LP
• Jeff Bezos $19.1 billion net worth - Amazon.com
• Mark Zuckerberg $17.5 billion net worth - Facebook
• Sergey Brin $16.7 billion net worth - Google
• Larry Page $16.7 billion net worth - Google
• John Paulson $15.5 billion net worth - hedge funds
• Michael Dell $15 billion net worth - Dell
• Steve Ballmer $13.9 billion net worth - Microsoft
• Forrest Mars $13.8 billion net worth - candy
• Jacqueline Mars $13.8 billion net worth - candy
• John Mars $13.8 billion net worth - candy, pet food
• Paul Allen $13.2 billion net worth - Microsoft, investments
• Phil Knight $13.1 billion net worth - Nike
• Carl Icahn $13 billion net worth - leveraged buyouts
• Donald Bren $12 billion net worth - real estate
• Anne Cox Chambers $12 billion net worth - media
• Ronald Perelman $12 billion net worth - leveraged buyouts
• Abigail Johnson $11.7 billion net worth - Fidelity
• James Simons $10.6 billion net worth - hedge funds
• George Kaiser $10 billion net worth - oil & gas, banking

Those working in Tinsel Town have always done financially well. Last year Vanity Fair Magazine released the 2011 list of Hollywood’s highest paid stars for 2010. Their estimated total "net worth" and bios are from Celebrity Net Worth. The Republicans in Congress won't even raise taxes on their arch enemies, the Hollywood liberal elite!

• James Cameron estimated 2010 earnings: $257 (Net Worth $700 million)
• Johnny Depp estimated 2010 earnings: $100 million (Net Worth $350 million)
• Steven Spielberg estimated 2010 earnings: $80 million (Net Worth $3 billion)
• Christopher Nolan estimated 2010 earnings: $72 million (Net Worth $90 million)
• Leonardo DiCaprio estimated 2010 earnings: $62 million (Net Worth $200 million)
• Tim Burton estimated 2010 earnings: $53 million (Net Worth $80 million)
• Adam Sandler estimated 2010 earnings: $50 million (Net Worth $300 million)
• Todd Phillips estimated 2010 earnings: $34 million (Net Worth $55 million)
• Taylor Lautner estimated 2010 earnings: $34 million (Net Worth $40 million)
• Robert Downey Jr. estimated 2010 earnings: $32 million (Net Worth $85 million)
• Will Smith estimated 2010 earnings: $29 million (Net Worth $188 million)
• Joe Roth estimated 2010 earnings: $29 million (Net Worth $700 million)
• Kristen Stewart estimated 2010 earnings: $29 million (Net Worth $55 million)
• Jerry Bruckheimer estimated 2010 earnings: $28 million (Net Worth $850 million)
• Robert Pattinson estimated 2010 earnings: $28 million (Net Worth $55 million)
• Tyler Perry estimated 2010 earnings $25 million (Net Worth $350 million)
• Jennifer Aniston 2010 earnings: $25 million (Net Worth $120 million)
• Jon Favreau estimated 2010 earnings: $24 million (Net Worth $60 million)
• Nicolas Cage estimated 2010 earnings: $24 million (Net Worth only $18 million now)
• Angelina Jolie estimated 2010 earnings: $24 million (Net Worth $120 million)
• Brad Pitt, soon to marry Angelina Jolie (Net worth $150 million)
• Sandra Bullock estimated 2010 earnings: $22 million (Net Worth $125 million)
• Ron Howard estimated 2010 earnings $21 million< (Net Worth $140 million)
• Christopher Meledandri estimated 2010 earnings: $21 million (Net Worth unknown)
• Joel Silver estimated 2010 earnings: $21 million (Net Worth $300 million)
• Owen Wilson estimated 2010 earnings: $19.5 million (Net Worth $40 million)
• Vince Vaughn estimated 2010 earnings: $18.5 million (Net Worth $35 million)
• Daniel Craig estimated 2010 earnings: $18 million (Net Worth $45 million)
• Vin Diesel estimated 2010 earnings: $18 million (Net Worth $44 million)
• Ben Stiller estimated 2010 earnings: $18 million (Net Worth $120 million)
• Steve Carell estimated 2010 earnings: $17.5 million (Net Worth $45 million)
• Martin Scorsese estimated 2010 earnings: $17 million (Net Worth $70 million)
• Katherine Heigl estimated 2010 earnings: $16 million (Net Worth $18 million)
• Tom Cruise estimated 2010 earnings: $14.5 million (Net Worth $250 million)
• Shia LaBeouf estimated 2010 earnings: $16 million (Net Worth $25 million)
• Reese Witherspoon estimated 2010 earnings: $15 million (Net Worth $80 million)
• Hugh Jackman estimated 2010 earnings: $14 million (Net Worth $65 million)
• Shawn Levy estimated 2010 earnings: $14 million (Net Worth $20 million)
• Guy Ritchie estimated 2010 earnings: $13.5 million (Net Worth $90 million)
• Eddie Murphy estimated 2010 earnings: $13 million (Net Worth $75 million)
• John Travolta (estimated net worth $120 million)

And that is just the tip of the iceberg for Hollywood. CelebrityNetWorth.Com also lists a few professional athletes, their recent salaries, and their net worth.

• Tiger Woods' net worth - $500 million Floyd Mayweather Jr. – The boxer nicknamed “Pretty Boy” had quite the year in 2010 earning an estimated $60,000,000 for his two boxing matches against Sugar Shane Mosley and Juan Manuel Marquez. Net worth $90 million
• Alex Rodriguez – "A-Rod" has been the highest paid player in MLB since he signed his first record setting deal with the Texas Rangers. In 2010, his salary was $33,000,000 and he earned an additional $5,000,000 or so in endorsements. Net worth $300 million
• Kobe Bryant – Kobe’s base salary during the 2010 season was slightly over $23,000,000 and he earned an estimated $10,000,000 in additional endorsement revenues. Net worth $200 million
• Peyton Manning – The fact that Peyton Manning was the highest paid professional football player comes as no surprise, however, the amount he makes in a year might. Peyton’s base contract paid him slightly less than $16,000,000 and he earned another $15,000,000 in endorsements. Net worth $115 million

Again, that is just the tip of the iceberg for professional athletes. And we can't forget "rock stars". Steven Tyler of Aerosmith has a net worth estimated at $130 million

In the U.S. most good manufacturing jobs were outsourced overseas, and 70% of the workforce is now in the service industry, which is anticipated to generate nearly 18 million new jobs by the end of the decade.

The "land of opportunity" has become the "land of low wages". While the job market may still look grim for those looking to replace their good-paying office or manufacturing job, opportunities are expected to abound for a host of jobs paying less than $10 an hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here's what the rest of us will have to do and live on while serving those mentioned above:

• Food preparation and serving workers, including fast food - $8.71 an hour, or $18,000 annually. The occupation is now the fourth largest in the country with 2.7 million workers. Hourly mean wages: $8.91 Yearly mean wages: $18,540.
• Dishwashers - There are roughly half a million dishwashers in the United States, and they earn about $8.81 an hour. Hourly mean wages: $8.98 Yearly mean wages: $18,680.
• Counter Attendants - Hourly mean wages: $9.27 Yearly mean wages: $19,280.
• Dining Room Attendants And Bartender Helpers - Hourly mean wages: $9.29 Yearly mean wages: $19,320 (A union bartender in Las Vegas, about $15 a hour, but it's a difficult job to get now.)
• Cashiers - A workforce of about 3.3 million, behind only retail sales people with 4.2 million. Cashiers make $9.15 an hour, or $19,000 annually; about half of those who work cash registers are part timers. (Hourly mean wages: $9.52 Yearly mean wages: $19,810 ).
• Hosts and hostesses - These jobs bring in $9.23 an hour, compared to $9.80 an hour for waiters and waitresses. About $19,000 a year. Hourly mean wages: $9.43 Yearly mean wages: $19,600.
• Amusement park attendants - Median wages for these jobs are below the national mean hourly wage of $9.35 an hour. Hourly mean wages: $9.50 Yearly mean wages: $19,750.
• Movie theater ushers, ticket takers - $9.43 an hour.
• Farm workers - Often cited as the "jobs Americans don’t want" - $9.51 to $9.64 an hour ($20,040 a year).
• Personal and home care aides - $9.75 an hour.

It's no wonder this country is turning into a welfare state...all the money is being hoarded by the top earners, and is not being re-circulated throughout the economy.

Someone needs to tell Ann Romney (the woman running for First Lady) that those people earning less than $10 an hour NEED to earn $25 an hour at a 40-hour-week job to support their "stay-at-home" spouse and children. The minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour, and Mitt Romney doesn't want to raise it. How can someone live on that?

It's no wonder young adults are supplementing their incomes by selling drugs! And even at less that $10 an hour, it wouldn't matter anyway, because no one will hire them, because the jobs aren't here...they're in China.

* Also see my post BIG MONEY & tiny taxes (regarding hedge fund mangers, CEOs, and bankers)

BIG MONEY & tiny taxes

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. In a tale of two economies, it was the best of times for hedge-fund managers, CEOs, bankers and the wealthiest in America. It was the worst of times for the poor and working-class.

Turn on Fox News or listen to conservative talk radio and you won’t have to wait long until someone starts whining about how much of their incomes the rich have to pay in taxes — and how little the poorest pay.

Over a century ago Teddy Roosevelt fought for steeply graduated tax rates — the higher the income, the higher the tax rate should go. We call this principle “progressive taxation.” Today in the United States, we have precious little of it. Federal income tax rates do, to be sure, rise as income rises. But the tax code exempts one huge category of income from these rising rates — income from investments. And many state and local tax levies, such as sales taxes, subject rich and poor to the exact same tax.

It’s often claimed that the richest Americans pay a disproportionate share of taxes, while those in the bottom half pay nothing. These claims ignore the many taxes that most Americans are subject to — federal payroll taxes, federal excise taxes, state and local taxes. Instead they are focused on just one tax, the federal personal income tax. The other taxes are mostly regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from a poor or middle-income family than they take from a rich family

Researchers at Citizens for Tax Justice ignore nothing in their just-released new report on who’s paying taxes in America. Last year in 2011 the share of total taxes paid by the richest one percent (21.6 percent) is almost identical to that group’s share of total income (21.0 percent). The total effective tax rate for the richest one percent (at 29%) is only about four percentage points higher than the total effective tax rate for the very middle taxpayers (at 25.2%)

Hedge-fund manage Ray Dalio Raked In $3.9 billion in 2011. In the past two years alone Dalio earned $7 billion. Carl Icahn, who runs Icahn Capital, and James Simons, who retired from Renaissance Technologies Corp, also had multibillion-dollar earnings. Another billionaire, Steven Cohen of SAC Capital Advisors in Stamford, was listed earning $585 million last year. The median earner made $235 million

John Paulson of Paulson & Co. ranked #1 with a record $4.9 billion. That exceeds the $3.7 billion he earned in 2007 after famously betting on the housing market collapse. (More)

And there was also David Tepper of Appaloosa Management, $2.2 billion; Steve Cohen of SAC Capital Advisors, $1.3 billion; and Eddie Lampert, ESL Investments, $1.1 billion. Kenneth Griffin, the hedge fund manager at Citadel pulled down $700 million in 2011.

SAC Capital Advisors founder Steven Cohen trumpets “double-digit returns for the better part of two decades.” One apparent driver of this consistency: insider trading. Seven former SAC Capital employees have either pled guilty to criminal charges or settled fraud charges in civil proceedings.

Most pay only a 15% tax rate, but the Republicans don't want to raise their taxes.

Over the last five years, the New York Times revealed last week that, of the ten public employee pension funds with the highest share of their dollars invested in hedge funds and other “alternative investments”, they only gained an average 4.1 percent a year on their money. But the mangers who runs these funds are making out like bandits and paying very low tax rates. When we withdrawal our pensions, our funds are taxed as regular income, depending on our marginal income tax bracket.

AR Magazine says that the income that hedge fund managers earn with their 2 percent management fees has become a “huge profit center” in and of itself. If the hedge fund manager's "labors" should actually produce “performance” gains, the 20 percent chunk they grab gets preferential treatment in the tax code, the notorious “carried interest” loophole. On the bulk of their earnings, the nation’s top-paid hedge fund managers pay federal income tax at just the 15 percent “carried interest” rate, not the 35 percent that applies to ordinary income in the top tax bracket.

Congress has so far done nothing to stop this preferential treatment. In fact, Congress is moving in the wrong direction. A bipartisan majority has just passed legislation (the Jump-start Our Business Start-Ups Act or the JOBS Act) that will free hedge funds in the future to more aggressively market their wares.

This new marketing flexibility will likely add to the over $2 trillion in assets now under hedge fund management — and add even more to the paydays of hedge fund superstars.

The same for many CEOs and bankers. And what did these "job creators" earn last year?

Take for example Ford CEO Alan Mulally (pictured above), who again ranked #1 in auto CEO pay, with $29.5 million. Mulally's compensation was up 11% from 2010 and brings his cumulative take to $148.3 million since joining Ford six years ago. Some 120,000 of them have lost jobs under Mulally's reign, and Ford shareholders saw their shares dropped 36 percent last year. So much for "pay for performance" and "job creators".

The L.A. Times reports that Scott Thompson, the new CEO at Yahoo may receive a $27-million pay package, according to a regulatory filing. His predecessor, Carol Bartz, had a pay package in her first year at Yahoo valued at $47.2 million.

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan was awarded $8.1 million in total compensation last year, making him only the fourth highest-paid executive at the company. Co-Chief Operating Officer Thomas Montag was awarded $14.3 million and Chief Financial Officer Bruce Thompson pocketed $11.1 million. The bank’s other co-COO, David Darnell, was awarded $8.4 million.

Most pay only a 15% tax rate, but the Republicans don't want to raise their taxes.

(Here is a list of others in the BIG MONEY - - - Those on the Forbes 400 list that have billions in double digits. And below that is a short list of Hollywood notables, their earnings and net worth; and below that, a short list of professional athletes. There's a lot cash out there if you have a lot of talent and luck, and work hard...there's no such thing as "easy money")

The “Buffett Rule” (which was just defeated in the Senate) is the principle proposed by President Barack Obama, and that the tax system should be reformed to reduce or eliminate situations in which millionaires and billionaires pay lower "effective" tax rates than many middle-income people.

Another report from Citizens for Tax Justice explains how people like Warren Buffett live on investment income and can pay a lower effective tax rate than working class people. As the report explains, there are two reasons for this. First, the personal income tax has lower rates for two key types of investment income, long-term capital gains and stock dividends. Second, investment income is also exempt from payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare; and the higher income earners have a CAP on Social Security taxes if they receive base salaries, while the rest of us pay this tax on 100% of out wages.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) said "They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind tax loopholes that rig the system in their favor. The wealthiest one percent takes home the highest share of the nation’s income since the early ’20s, the roaring ’20s. Times are tough for many middle class American families. Millionaires and billionaires aren’t sharing the pain or the sacrifice, not one bit. Last year there were 7,000 millionaires who didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes."

As an aside: Psychologists also have a lucrative new niche. They're training therapists for banks who are hired to counsel their clients with fortunes worth $25 million and up. Occupy Wall Street and other protests against inequality have some of these wealthy people so spooked that therapists like John Warnick, a consultant with U.S. Bank, doesn’t use the word “wealthy” with clients anymore. They're opting for “legacy families” instead (as in the Family Wealth Alliance).

But not all the spooked super rich are seeing therapists. Some are just doubling up on security. Mark Pincus, the freshly minted billionaire who runs online gaming giant Zynga, had his firm shell out nearly $1.8 million last year for his home security systems and services.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Congress, especially the Republicans, refuse to raise their taxes to help pay down the national debt. The rich, the Koch brothers and Fox News talking heads have no cause to complain. They have squeezed, with all their political might, all but 0.6 percent of tax progressivity out of taxation in America.

* Also see my post What "we" Earn & what "they" Earn (regarding movies stars and athletes)

* The Sunday Times Rich List of 2012 will be published in full on Sunday, April 29.

Republicans Kill Buffett Rule, Refuse to Tax the Rich

The GOP doesn't mind raising your taxes, or cutting programs you might need, but they'll never make the super rich or large corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

The Paying a Fair Share Act, commonly referred to as the "Buffett Rule" (formally Senate bill 2230), was struck down in the Senate today, largely among party lines.

The Buffett Rule didn’t have a prayer of passing, or of even getting an up-down vote. Republicans using a filibuster against the “motion to proceed” and with the Democrats not having the 60 votes to move forward, would have made taxing the rich "their fair share" impossible.

On a 51-45 (46) vote, the Senate on Monday rejected the Buffett Rule, which would have ensured millionaires pay at least a 30 percent effective tax rate on all their income. Sixty votes were needed to break a filibuster on the bill.

Republican Senator Susan Collins voted for the tax hike, while Democratic Senator Mark Pryor from Arkansas voted against it. Blanche Lincoln, another Democratic Senator from Arkansas, was also known to vote against the wishes of the people and her political party.

The GOP accuses Obama of "gimmicks", when it's the GOP who are proposing gimmicks.

Republicans say it is a bad idea to raise taxes on "investors" like Mitt Romney and the "job creators" like Wal-Mart, especially in a "fragile economy". But it's only fragile for regular working Americans and the poor; the wealthy have been doing exceptionally well with record profits, excessive CEO pay, and huge bonuses.

According to a CNN/ORC poll out today, 72 percent of the nation’s registered voters supported the measure.

Republicans accused President Barack Obama of pitting Americans against each other. Democrats argued that it was time for the tax code to treat the wealthy and the middle class fairly.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) said "They shouldn't be allowed to hide behind tax loopholes that rig the system in their favor. The wealthiest one percent takes home the highest share of the nation’s income since the early ’20s, the roaring ’20s. Times are tough for many middle class American families. Millionaires and billionaires aren’t sharing the pain or the sacrifice, not one bit. Last year there were 7,000 millionaires who didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes."

The Wall Street Journal reports that "A White House report released last week said 1,470 families making more than $1 million a year paid no federal income taxes at all."

Republicans cite a Joint Committee on Taxation report last September, which found that some 0.2% of households made more than $1 million in 2011 but paid 22.5% of all individual income taxes.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) said ""The problem is, we've got a president who seems more interested in pitting people against each other." (Is that the rich against the poor?)

Republicans used the excuse that taxing millionaires and billionaires 30% would only take in $47 billion over a decade, and wasn't enough to solve the national deficit. The Republicans said the same thing about taxing corporate jets - - that it was just peanuts, so why even bother?

But the Republicans found it imperative to block all federal grants for "Big Bird" and National Public Radio. The NPR only receives 2% of its funding from the government, and only received about $5 million in taxpayer dollars in direct funding during the 2010 fiscal year.

The Republicans bitterly complained about the Solyndra subsidy for solar panels (started under Bush), and how the company went bankrupt and lost $500 million in taxpayer dollars. But year after year the Republicans vote to give big oil companies billions of dollars.

The Republicans said the Buffett Rule would have hurt small businesses and job creators, but that's not true either. Individuals with more than $1 million in income are already paying an income tax rate of 35%.

The people who would have been affected are only those wealthy individuals (think of Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney) who are paying the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividend income. Romney wants to keep these tax rates the same, and lower the top marginal rate by 20%.

So despite public opinion polls (they're not buying the Republican's lame excuses) the Republicans are voting against the will of the American people...as always.

Obama and his wife paid about 20.5 percent of their income in taxes in 2011, compared to an estimated 13.9 percent rate paid by the Romney last year. But the bigger difference is, Obama is willing to raise his own taxes, whereas the Romneys wants their tax rates left unchanged, or even lower.

Clearly, today’s GOP is no longer the party of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

On Thursday Republicans - in firm control the House of Representatives - are expected to debate and likely approve a bill to give a one-year, 20-percent tax deduction on business income to owners of businesses with fewer than 500 employees.

Republicans are portraying that tax cut as one for "small businesses," a group they say the Buffett Rule will harm.

But if someone like Karl Rove is a "small business", and has only himself as an employee, and he earned a million dollars in consulting fees and TV appearances, the GOP bill would further lower his tax rate from the upper income tax bracket of 35% to 20%.

Most small business owners don't pay themselves $1 million a year, unless they're a drug dealer.

As I was channel surfing today, I briefly monitored Fox News for a while. I heard Megyn Kelly whining that Obama had "stacked" the National Labor Relations Board with his appointees, but then she admitted that when the Republicans had the White House, they stacked the NLRB with people who were pro-business. The NLRB is an independent agency of the United States government charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices. The Republicans want to eliminate the NLRB. Besides the NLRB (and busting labor unions with "right to work" laws), the GOP also wants to eliminate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the minimum wage...while cutting taxes for big corporations and millionaires. Why would any sane Republican voter, who has to work for a living (being paid a wage or salary, or has a small business), and earns less than a $1 million a year, ever vote for a Republican? Because they like the idea of outlawing birth control?

The Perfect Bipartisan Tax Plan

Tax wealthy Republicans AND wealthy Democrats equally. Impose a 30% FLAT TAX on all annual income over $1 million.

That would include all hourly wages, salaries, capital gains, carried interest, inheritances, gifts, (etc.) and whatever else someone can stuff into the bank as cash or put into their pocket. Close all the tax loop holes that only the wealthy can benefit from.

Obama, Reagan and Biden got it right.

Vice President Joe Biden focused his attention on what he called the Romney Rule, Mitt Romney's plan to cut taxes by $1 trillion over a decade, with most of the benefits going to wealthy Americans. Biden said the Romney Rule relies on a simple principle: "Let's double down on the tax cuts for the wealthy, although they didn't work during the Bush administration."

Back in 1985 President Ronald Reagan said, "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share."

President Barack Obama offered to call the Buffett Rule the Reagan Rule, citing President Ronald Reagan's push to close tax loopholes for millionaires. "If it'll help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we can call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule."

Bud Meyers Tax Schedule for 2013
Tax bracket	Tax rate
0 to 19,999	0%
20,000 to 49,999	5%
50,000  to $99,000	10%
100,000 to 249,000	15%
250,000 to 500,000	20%
500,000 to $1 million	25%
Over $1 million a year	30%
Over $1 billion a year	35%

And then charge a 5% VAT Tax (value added tax) on all purchases over $500,000 - - and eliminate the CAP on Social Security taxes that people earning over $112,000 are presently not required to pay....and do this for all Republicans and Democrats alike, so it's "bipartisan".

Perfect!!!

Don't listen to Mitt Romney, he only represents wealthy Republicans.

Tax capital gains as regular income!

Stocks up 64% since Tax Cuts for the Rich

Most of the losses that occurred in the stock market during the last year of the Bush administration have recuperated...it's the "working" American's economy that still suffers.

Stocks on the DOW JONES are up 64% since capital gains taxes were reduced nine years ago in 2003, to one of the lowest tax rates in U.S. history. As Mitt Romney said, he's not going to worry about the rich, they've been doing very well.

But if the Bush tax cuts expire later this year, what would it mean for you?

According to the New York Times, someone earning $25,000 a year ($481 a week) could see $17 less in their paychecks every week by the end of the year if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire. The Washington Post calls it “taxmageddon.”

The marriage penalty for joint filers will spring back to life, the value of the child credit will drop from $1,000 to $500, and the rate everyone pays on the first $8,700 of wages will jump from 10 percent to 15 percent - and the Social Security payroll tax will pop back up to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent. (New York Times: The Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts)

It's being touted as "one of the biggest tax increases in U.S. history", but millionaires and billionaires weren't complaining a decade ago when Bush lowered their capital gains taxes from 20% to 15% (as well as their top marginal rates), making it one of the biggest tax decreases in U.S. history.

For every million dollars CEOs, hedge fund mangers and bankers earned every year for the past 10 years, they paid $50,000 a year less in taxes...a windfall.

But not if the Democrats just tax the super-rich; then most people (99% of all working Americans) won't see their taxes go up.

White House officials say Obama will not sign another full extension of the Bush tax cuts, as he did in December 2010 when the Republicans held unemployment benefits hostage for the tax breaks for the rich. Obama is demanding a partial extension that would preserve the cuts for middle-class taxpayers, but permit rates to rise on household income over $250,000.

The Republicans say they doubt Obama would make good on his veto threat for allowing all of the Bush tax cuts to expire because it would harm middle-class taxpayers (another hostage situation?)

But there's broad support for the Democrats latest tax strategy, which emphasizes higher taxes just for people earning a million dollars a year (not a NET WORTH of a $1 million, but on those whose paychecks are that large every year).

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 72% of Americans support raising taxes on people with incomes over $1 million a year, in line with Obama’s call for a “Buffett Rule” that would require those people to pay an "effective" tax rate of at least 30%, which is actually lower than the 35% "statutory" tax rate.

Currently, those earning over $1 million a year, usually do so with loopholes such as capital gains and carried interest, and only pays a very low 15% tax rate.

Senator Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the #3 Senate Democrat and the man who came up with the idea of raising the income threshold, agrees with most Americans, and said, “Most Americans share our belief that, while the middle class should not pay an increase in taxes, the wealthiest among us should.”

The rich have enjoyed a tax holiday for decades, ever since capital gains were first taxed preferentially going back to 1921. The top 1% was not taxed as earning ordinary wages.

Many Republicans maintain that they would never raise taxes on a group the GOP views as small-business owners and “job creators.” But those people rarely earn over $1 million a year, and like Mitt Romney, are not "job creators". Hedge fund mangers make multiple millions every year, and might only hire a secretary and a go-for guy. (The last I heard, Paris Hilton only had seven "employees".)

If Obama is re-elected and the Democrats hold the Senate, it makes it much more difficult for Republicans to press for a full extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich (so if you don't earn $1 million or more every year, it would be wise to vote for all Democrats.)

Some Republicans would be willing to raise taxes, but only if cuts are made to programs that the elderly, the sick, and the poor need. (Another hostage situation?)

The Republicans created a massive deficit under Bush, and now expects the poor and middle to "put more skin in the game". Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare may come under the budget axe.. The vast corporate military industrial complex may no longer be able to get whatever it wants. Taxes may have to rise from their recent levels, which have been lower, as a share of the economy, than at any point in the last 60 years

But with rising poverty and low-wage part-time jobs for millions of Americans, the Republicans still insist that they "put more skin in the game", rather than just claw back some the excessive wages and bonuses that the CEOs, hedge fund mangers and bankers have been enjoying for the last ten years.

No, after decades of low tax rates and loopholes for the rich and large corporations, we won't pay down the national debt any time soon...but we can at least start with Obama's tax plan for the time being. It took years to dig the hole, and it will take time to fill it back in.

Mitt Romney likes Paul Ryan’s plan, which would cut the top rate to 25%, from 35%. Romney would cut the rate another 20%, while leaving his own capital gains tax rate the same, at the astoundingly low 15%. (Is that the "shared sacrifice"?)

What’s missing from these tax plans is any detail on which any proposed tax loopholes would be eliminated. Corporate lobbyists, like those at the Business Roundtable, offer an especially telling contrast: they urge the government to "reform" the tax code, while continuing to push for loopholes that benefit them -- and generally refuse to name the loopholes they would close. (Isn't that like signing a blank check?)

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, he and his aides say, he will not extend all the Bush tax cuts, as they agreed to do in 2010. Instead they plan to insist on a deficit plan that combines spending cuts with higher taxes for the affluent, who have received the largest tax cuts in recent decades.

The so-called Buffett Rule, a focus of President Obama’s last week, is a model for such a tax system. It does not specify which tax breaks would shrink for households with more than $1 million in income, but rather caps the total value of such tax breaks.

I would also suggest that we end the CAP on Social Security taxes that the very rich are not obligated to pay on 100% of their income (like most of us must), but they never mention this...why????

The baby boomers are retiring, and health care is getting more expensive. The era of super-low taxes and corporate loopholes can't last forever, unless they pay the young nothing for their labor, and then exterminate them when the become elderly. (Soylent Green).

Mitt and Ann Romney are Full of Horse Manure!

The Romneys like "dressage" horses, such as Missouri Fox Trotters and Austrian Warmbloods. When asked what was the best present her husband ever bought her, Ann Romney responded, "The best gift was a horse. That gift is the gift that keeps on giving. Some people have lovers in every port; I have horses in every port."

Romney's financial disclosure forms show that their horses are worth between $250,000 and $500,000. It cost them about as much to care for each horse as 50% of all working Americans earn in a whole year.

Last year 50% of all U.S. workers earned less than $26,364 a year - - and the poverty level for a family of four is considered to be $22,350 a year (which is a very low government assessment). But the Republicans say that 99% of us own a refrigerator, and most of us also have a color TV, and so therefore, aren't living in poverty. Yes Ann, even most working moms who are raising five kids can own a refrigerator.

Don't get me wrong, I love horses. And I think that anyone that can afford to buy and raise one should, if they want to...so long as they pay the same tax rate as those that can't afford to buy a horse.

Mitt and Ann Romney don't think they should pay more than 15% on their income, because they're "job creators", but that everybody else should have to pay more, while having they're own tax rate either remain the same, or even made lower. Why? Do they need another horse?

It's cynical for the conservative advocacy group, the Heritage Fountain, to falsely claim that half of all Americans don't pay their fair share of federal income taxes when a married couple, who each earn only $20,000 a year while raising two children, can barely live as it is.

It's cruel, misleading, and selfish for the Republicans to parrot these false allegations and then say "they need to put more skin in the game", and then say that if you raise taxes on the rich, tax evasion will increase, bringing in less tax revenues.

And what if only one parent were working, such as a single mom earning $20,000 a year? What kind of healthcare plan could she afford for herself and children after paying for rent and food? Healthcare insurance premiums averaged $414 per month last year, so how much more skin should a real working woman put into the "game"?

It's mean and disingenuous for the GOP to falsely claim that a single mom with children is on the "government tit from the cradle to the grave", when receiving welfare benefits (TANF) when this federal program only has a four year life-time span, and is barely enough to subsist on, let alone buy a new Cadillac.

It's an out-right lie for the Republicans to falsely claim that 18 million Americans (who at one time or anther during the Great Recession, received federal extended benefits) were "gaming the system", and that immediately after their benefits expired, most all of them found jobs. Total B.S..

It's also vindictive and deceitful, and divisive for the Republicans to falsely claim that the unemployed had a higher rate of alcohol and drug use, and so therefore, need be tested - - unlike the politicians who are making these laws, who are also on the government dole. How many of them have been arrested on drug charges? How many times has Rush Limbaugh?

The Republicans use a handful of stories that are contrary to the facts, and use them as anecdotal evidence, and then rail about Obama turning this country into a welfare state - - and more like a European country. It's total B.S.

It's really just the opposite. Give everyone a job paying more than unemployment benefits and welfare and they will work. But the Republicans don't want to raise the minimum age and corporations don't want to pay a "living wage" to Americans, that's why they bust labor unions and outsource jobs overseas (or move to Southern states where wages were kept lower).

Groups like the Heritage Fountain and the Republicans falsely label these CEOs and their wealthy heirs as "job creators", and say we can't raise their taxes or they won't create jobs. But all the jobs were lost WITH the Bush tax cuts over the last ten years.

With CEOs earning multi-million-dollar annual salaries (year after year), and with over $2.5 trillion hoarded away in corporate treasuries, how can these CEOs and the Republicans claim that taxes are too high? Especially when, in truth, they are now historically low in most categories.

The GOP falsely claims that food stamps, unemployment benefits, and welfare is part of "big government" and is also at the root of our budget deficit...as though the poor were somehow taking from you to live "high on the hog", while they lounged around like lazy bums in hammocks. Total B.S.

A member of congress makes almost 9 times more than that single mom earning only $20,000 a year. Should we tax her more to pay that congressional salary, or tax members of congress more to reduce the national debt?

Does Ann Romney, who's raising five sons, work harder than a woman earning a measly $20,000 a year (or is taking in less on welfare) who is also raising five sons? Who, between these two women, needs a tax cut - - and who needs their taxes raised?

Congress has always written the tax code to benefit themselves and the very wealthy, especially since 1921 when the preferential treatment of capital gains was first introduced. The rich have enjoyed paying a disproportionately lower tax rate than the middle-class has for a very long time, and one reason why we have so much inequity in income and such a disparity in wealth.

So now, who really needs a tax cut, and who needs a tax increase? If you ask the Heritage Fountain or the Republicans, they will tell you to raise taxes on the poorest and cut taxes for the richest.

The Republicans and the Romneys claim they're "job creators", when we all know that's just plain horse manure, but that's their story, and they're stickin' to it.

It's not envy or class war...it's math. The Romneys, and everyone else in the top 1%, should pay a higher tax rate than the poor...not a lower tax rate. For them to say otherwise in un-American and greedy...and just shows they have no class at all. I guess it's true, money can't buy class.

(Below) A typical stay-at-home mom and job creator, working hard to raise five kids, and who is now working hard by campaigning to be our First Lady.