What, that they lie like a dog? REH
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:14 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Winner or Sucker? > The problem is: Is anyone surprised by the article? It confirms what is > already known. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 9:38 AM > To: futurework > Cc: Ray Evans Harrell > Subject: RE: [Futurework] Winner or Sucker? > > > Thanks for posting this article, Ray. It went well with a first cup of > coffee on a Saturday morning. I wonder what the ripple effects of it will > be by Monday? - KWC > > Who's the winner and who's the sucker? Anyone know anything about this > game? How does this relate to the game of "strategic giving" where a > wealthy maven uses her rolodex to raise money and considers herself or > himself to win only if they stimulate everyone to give and they give > nothing? That makes the most valued possession of any such person, not the > fortune, but the list. One could call it creative nepotism and is among > one of the more interesting games I have encountered in my travels over the > last ten years or so. Value is not gained by how much one can give but by > how much one can get others to give instead. More later from my "stream of > conscious." > > Ray Evans Harrell > > June 26, 2003 > Very Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger, Data Show > By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON > > The 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the > income in the United States in the year 2000, more than double their share > just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue > Service. But their tax burden plummeted over the period. > > The data, in a report that the I.R.S. released last night, shows that the > average income of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers was almost $174 million in > 2000. That was nearly quadruple the $46.8 million average in 1992. The > minimum income to qualify for the list was $86.8 million in 2000, more than > triple the minimum income of $24.4 million of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers > in 1992. > > While the sharp growth in incomes over that period coincided with the stock > market bubble, other factors appear to account for much of the increase. A > cut in capital gains tax rates in 1997 to 20 percent from 28 percent > encouraged long-term holders of assets, like privately owned businesses, to > sell them, and big increases in executive compensation thrust corporate > chiefs into the ranks of the nation's aristocracy. > > This year's tax cut reduced the capital gains rate further, to 15 percent. > > The data from 2000 is the latest available from the I.R.S., but various > government reports indicate that salaries, dividends and other forms of > income have continued to rise since then, even as the stock market has > fallen. > > The top 400 reported 1.1 percent of all income earned in 2000, up from 0.5 > percent in 1992. Their taxes grew at a much slower rate, from 1 percent of > all taxes in 1992 to 1.6 percent in 2000, when their tax bills averaged > $38.6 million each. > Those numbers can be read to show that the wealthiest, as a group, carried a > disproportionate share of the overall tax burden - 1.6 percent of all taxes, > versus just 1.1 percent of all income - evidence that all sides in the tax > debate will be able to find ammunition in the data. > > In 2000, the top 400 on average paid 22.3 percent of their income in federal > income tax, down from 26.4 percent in 1992 and a peak of 29.9 percent in > 1995. Two factors explain most of this decline, according to the I.R.S.: > reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and bigger gifts to charity. > > Had President Bush's latest tax cuts been in effect in 2000, the average tax > bill for the top 400 would have been about $30.4 million - a savings of $8.3 > million, or more than a fifth, according to an analysis of the I.R.S. data > by The New York Times. That would have resulted in an average tax rate of > 17.5 percent. > > The rate actually paid by the top 400 in 2000 was about the same as that > paid by a single person making $123,000 or a married couple with two > children earning $226,000, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a > labor-backed group whose calculations are respected by a broad spectrum of > tax experts. > > The group favors higher taxes on the wealthy, and its director, Robert S. > McIntyre, said yesterday that the I.R.S. data bolsters that viewpoint. > "Regardless of which party these 400 are in, these are the guys Bush wants > to help, even though they have so much money they don't know what to do with > it," he said. "How Bush feels about the half of the population that doesn't > have much money is he got them a tax cut worth an average of $19 each." > > William W. Beach, a tax expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative > organization that favors lowering taxes for all Americans, said that the top > 400 taxpayers made "the significant contribution" to government revenue - > about one in every $64 of individual income tax paid. Cutting taxes, he > said, will prompt the wealthy to invest more in the economy's growth. > > Detailed information about high-income Americans has become increasingly > important in setting tax policy, because the government relies on the top > 1.3 million households for 37.4 percent of individual federal income tax > revenue. The half of Americans who earned less than $27,682 in 2000, paid > less than 4 percent of income taxes. > > All of the I.R.S. data is based on adjusted gross income, the figure > reported on the last line on the front page of individual income tax > returns. Interest earned on municipal bonds, which are exempt from tax, is > not included. > > Over the nine years of tax returns that were examined for the new report, > only a handful of taxpayers showed up in the top 400 every year, according > to I.R.S. officials. In all, about 2,200 taxpayers made the cut even once. > There were a few incomes of more than $1 billion a year in the group, but > none as high as $10 billion. > > The names of the wealthiest taxpayers are not disclosed in the report, which > was prepared at the urging of Joel Slemrod, a University of Michigan > business school professor who serves on an I.R.S. advisory panel and is a > leading authority on taxation of high-income Americans. > > The figures do not include the incomes of the many wealthy Americans who use > shelters to reduce their reported incomes below the level of the top 400. > > In 1999 and 2000, for example, William T. Esrey - then the chief executive > of Sprint, the telecommunications company - earned more than $150 million in > stock option profits, lofting him onto many lists of the best-paid corporate > managers. > That income might have put Mr. Esrey in the I.R.S.'s top 400 taxpayers. But, > as later came to light, Mr. Esrey bought a tax shelter from Ernst & Young, > the accounting firm, designed to let him delay reporting the profits for tax > purposes until the year 2030. Sprint's board forced Mr. Esrey to resign in > March after he acknowledged that the shelter was the subject of an I.R.S. > audit. > > Over the nine years reviewed in the new report, the incomes of the top 400 > taxpayers increased at 15 times the rate of the bottom 90 percent of > Americans; their average income rose 17 percent, to $27,000, from 1992 to > 2000. > Long-term capital gains accounted for 64 percent of the income of the top > 400 in 2000, nearly double the level in 1992. Wages contributed 16.7 percent > to the incomes of the top 400 in 2000, down from 26.2 percent in 1992, and > dividends made up 2.8 percent. > > A second report that the I.R.S. will make public today shows that the number > of Americans with high incomes who pay no taxes anywhere in the world has > reached a record. In 2000, there were 2,022 Americans with incomes of more > than $200,000 who paid no income tax anywhere in the world, up from just 37 > in 1977, when the report was first issued. > > > Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
