when you talk about $250K

I guess that when some work folks make a bit more money than others, it causes envy. But when it comes to super rich, people admire them. When people talk about top 1%, they also include people who make over 250K. Those, not everyone, who make a bit above that borderline, are nothing to do with superrich. Those are working citizens usually dual earners or living in high cost living area. In order to make that much money, those people also have to be hard working...unlike spoiled brats whose parents can phone call to get temporary jobs in prestigious firms for the heck of experiences for instance. By the way, those spoiled brat taken jobs directly kill the opportunities of serious and talented students from no connection family. Those spoiled brats usually work under direct supervision of middle managers like other entry positions. But usually those managers are pressured to give a good grade on their performance. I have seen it. While those spoiled brats' parents go to public and speak for middle class and raising tax for top 1%. That hit those folks who have to work for the entire life to pay their bills. Super rich are not working to live. The majority of income comes from other than earned income. One is investment. Even if we increase the investment income tax, they will get around by establishing non-taxable entity or some kind of expense account they create. It will hit again those working folks who finally started putting aside some of their income for their own retirement other than tax protected retirement fund. Those folks without pension have to put aside the significant amount of money for their own retirement after tax. You cannot do that seriously. Those people are not even driving luxury cars you see on street. By the way, those luxury cars are owned by many under $250K, too. When you focus so much on the top% wage earners, you are killing those people's seoul. Many folks are coming from modest income. They worked hard without family connection. You got to look at those superrich whether what you are trying to do really taxing really rich, those who do not have to work for life. Those people don't need another marble bath in their castle. Those yacht should pay for basic medical care of citizens who cannot afford. Without taking those obviously unnecessary items of life, you cannot tax those folks who are just making $250K. By the way, there are many people who make less than the cut but living mortgage free because their parents can afford to do so. OR those folks whose parents are lucky enough to pay for college have better life with less hours of work.

tax super-rich not ordinary rich

Inequality: Mostly Among the 1% The super-rich are outstripping the merely wealthy -- but the rest of us are a lot more equal than you might think. By John Maggs, Senior Economics Editor, The Kiplinger Letter After a brief pause for the Great Recession, income inequality is rising again, with the highest-earning 1% getting the lion's share of added income and the other 99% dividing the remainder. But the picture of inequality that this paints is a little misleading. It turns out that there is a lot less inequality among the vast majority of Americans than there might seem, and it's not getting worse. The most common measure of inequality is the share of income earned by the top 1% -- the highest-earning 1.5 million individuals and couples. This was about 18% of all income in 2011, twice as much as when Ronald Reagan was reelected president in 1984. Because one-percenters get a large portion of their income from investments, their share of all income fell to 17% after the stock market plunged in 2008. Since then, the stock market's robust recovery and meager growth in the wages and salaries that the lower 99% rely on has meant that an overwhelming share of total income growth has gone to the wealthiest citizens. In 2010, $9 of every additional $10 earned went to the top 1%, and data due in a few months will show that the same happened in 2011. With stocks up better than 10% already this year and high unemployment holding down wages and salaries, that trend will continue in 2012. But probe a bit deeper and another picture emerges. The gap between most one-percenters and most of the 99% isn't that wide because the most extreme inequality is at the very top of the income scale. The chasm between the super-rich -- the highest-earning 15,000 tax filers -- and others in the top 1% is so large that it skews the overall result. Factor it out, and even inequality between the poor and the well-off is far less than 10-to-1. Though that's still too much inequality in the view of some people, it's not the extreme inequality that often makes the headlines. Consider how much inequality there is within the 1% richest. The average yearly income for this group is $418,000. The average income for the top 1% of them -- the 15,000 in "the 0.01%" -- is $23 million, or more than 50 times as much. Contrast that with the ratio between the $418,000 average income of the 1% and the average for all tax filers -- $68,000 in 2010. Even after accounting for the fact that this $68,000 is inflated a bit by the big earnings at the very top, the average top earner receives less than six times as much income as the average taxpayer. There's much less distance between the average American and the average rich person than there is between the merely rich and the super-rich. Sliced another way, there is a similar difference between the bottom of the 99% and the top of it. According to one study, when government subsidies and employer-funded health insurance are included, the ratio of well-off taxpayers at the 90th percentile of income and the poor at the 10th percentile is also about 6-to-1. And this measure of inequality isn't getting wider. That 6-to-1 ratio is unchanged since 1990s, and the ratio was roughly 5-to-1 in the 1980s. By contrast, inequality within the top 1% soared over that same period. In 1984, the super-rich 0.01% earned $1 out of every $9 pulled in by all of the richest 1%. By 2010, the super-rich were hauling in $1 of every $5 earned by one-percenters. In fact, the concentration of income among the super-rich is about as high as it has ever been, and much higher than it was for most of the 20th century. They collected about 3.3% of all income in 2011, a little below the record 3.5% in 2007 and triple the level in 1984. Between World Wars I and II, the average for the super-rich was 2% of income, and from 1946 to 1991, it was 1% of income. Then it started rising. Meanwhile, inequality among the vast majority of people isn't so wide, and it isn't getting wider. Even after a brutal recession that lowered living standards for most people, the average American isn't losing ground compared with most others, even if the gulf between average and very wealthy is growing broader. Cornell University economist Robert Frank, an expert on public attitudes about wealth, argues that perceptions about living standards are based as much on one's relative position compared with neighbors and coworkers than on actual dollars and cents. If, in F. Scott Fitzgerald's words, the very rich "are different from you and me," the super-rich are so different that their wealth prompts more curiosity than outrage. The wealth of Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg is beyond the aspirations or care of most people in today's challenging economy. What's another billion or two? Read more: http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/practical-economics/archives/inequality-growing-among-rich.html#ixzz27VgUCoYi Become a Fan of Kiplinger's on Facebook Read more at http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/practical-economics/archives/inequality-growing-among-rich.html#5fymBBBWuG8FxEZM.99

Crony Capitalism: $737 Million Green Jobs Loan Given to Nancy Pelosi's Brother-In-Law

Crony Capitalism: $737 Million Green Jobs Loan Given to Nancy Pelosi's Brother-In-Law Despite the growing Solyndra scandal, yesterday the Department of Energy approved $1 billion in new loans to green energy companies -- including a $737 million loan guarantee to a company known as SolarReserve: SolarReserve LLC, a closely held renewable energy developer, received a $737 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee to build a solar-thermal project in Nevada. The 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes project, near Tonopah, Nevada, will use the sun’s heat to create steam that drives a turbine, the agency said today in a e-mailed statement. SolarReserve is based in Santa Monica, California. On SolarReserve's website is a list of "investment partners," including the "PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC." As blogger American Glob quickly discovered, PCG's number two is none other than "Ronald Pelosi, a San Francisco political insider and financial industry polymath who happens to be the brother-in-law of Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives." But wait... there's more! One of SolarReserve's other investment partners is Argonaut Private Equity: Steve Mitchell and Argonaut Private Equity might have a chance to recoup some of their losses in the Solyndra debacle now that the Department of Energy has given a $737 million dollar loan guarantee to a company backed by Argonaut that also lists Mitchell among its board of directors. Mitchell served on the Solyndra LLC Board of Directors. He also serves as Managing Director for Argonaut Private Equity, a company that invested in Solyndra through the LLCs parent company. After Solyndra declared bankruptcy, two Democratic members of the U.S. House asked that Mitchell testify about Solyndra. Though he has not appeared before Congress, he has "been asked to provide documents to Congress" pertaining to Solyndra. And for good measure, it's also noteworthy that Obama is about to hold a big money fundraiser at the home of Tom Carnahan in St. Louis: Carnahan, a member of the prominent Missouri Democratic family, has been tapped by the Obama campaign as its chief Missouri fundraiser. He is chairman of the board of Wind Capital Group, a wind energy company that makes it corporate headquarters in St. Louis. He formerly was president and CEO of the company. Last year, Wind Capital's Lost Creek Farm facility in northwest Missouri received a $107 million tax credit from the Treasury Department, among many such wind operations receiving support from from stimulus funds. Tom Carnahan is the son of former Missouri governor Mel Carnahan and former U.S. senator Jean Carnahan. He's also the brother of current Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan. It's increasingly hard to tell the government's green jobs subsidies apart from the Democrats' friends and family rewards program.

when democrats win

Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law is given $737m of taxpayers' money to build giant solar power plant in middle of the desert Obama administration approved $1bn in green energy loans days after failed Solyndra project due to be completed $737m handed to Crescent Dunes project in Tonopah, Nevada, for 110-megawatt desert solar power plant Investors include firm Minority leader's brother-in-law and major Solyndra stakeholder Republicans warn Ene Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043282/Nancy-Pelosis-brother-law-given-loan-bigger-Solyndra-solar-plant.html#ixzz27UTdFu87 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

'60 Minutes' Uncovers Pelosi's Insider Stock Trades

'60 Minutes' Uncovers Pelosi's Insider Stock Trades
Sunday, 13 Nov 2011 07:49 PM
By Newsmax Wires

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought stock in initial public offerings (IPOs) that earned hefty returns while she had access to insider information that would have been illegal for an average citizen to trade with – even though it’s perfectly legal for elected officials, CBS’s "60 Minutes" reported Sunday night.

In a piece relying on data collected from the conservative Hoover Institution, "60 Minutes" revealed that elected officials like Pelosi are exempt from insider trading laws – regulations that carry hefty prison sentences and fines for any other citizen who trades stocks with private information on companies that can affect their stock price.

In the case of elected officials – this secret information ranges from timely details on lucrative federal contracts to legislation that can cause companies’ stocks to rise and fall dramatically.

How do they get away with it? Lawmakers have exempted themselves from the laws that govern every other citizen.

Pelosi, D-Calif., and her husband have participated in at least eight IPOs while having access to information directly relating to the companies involved. One of those came in 2008, from Visa, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies, began making its way through the House.

“Undisturbed by a potential conflict of interest the Pelosis purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at the initial price of $44 dollars. Two days later it was trading at $64. The credit card legislation never made it to the floor of the House,” Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" reported.

Kroft confronted Pelosi at a regular press conference after she declined an interview.

Kroft: Madam Leader, I wanted to ask you why you and your husband back in March of 2008 accepted and participated in a very large IPO deal from Visa at a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the —through the House.

Nancy Pelosi: But —

Kroft: And did you consider that to be a conflict of interest?

Pelosi: The — y — I — I don't know what your point is of your question. Is there some point that you want to make with that?

Kroft: Well, I — I — I guess what I'm asking is do you think it's all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential, favorable stock deal?

Pelosi: Well, we didn't.

Kroft: You participated in the IPO. And at the time you were speaker of the House. You don't think it was a conflict of interest or had the appearance--

Pelosi: No, it was not —

Kroft: — of a conflict of interest?

Pelosi: —it doesn't — it only has appearance if you decide that you're going to have — elaborate on a false premise. But it — it — it's not true and that's that.

Kroft: I don't understand what part's not true.

Pelosi: Yes sir. That — that I would act upon an investment.

The Hoover Institution’s Peter Schweizer stressed that what Pelosi did was completely legal.

“There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong,” he told Kroft.

“… Insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply,” Schweizer added. “The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is — is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that's market moving information. And if you can trade stock on — off of that information and do so legally, that's a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.”

Pelosi’s office issued a statement Sunday saying, “It is very troubling that ‘60 Minutes’ would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career out of attacking Democrats.”

Schweizer’s books include “Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,” and “Architects of Ruin,” according to Schweizer’s page on the Hoover Institution website.


Read more on Newsmax.com: '60 Minutes' Uncovers Pelosi's Insider Stock Trades
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

how very riches receive government subsidies

Jon Bon Jovi, the millionaire rock star cited in the report, took federal dollars to raise honeybees on his property. Together billionaire moguls David Rockefeller and Ted Turner have also accepted more than half a million dollars in farm payments. Basketball legend Scottie Pippen took $210,520 in agriculture subsidies while making his fortune playing for the Chicago Bulls. To make matters worse, the government disclosed to Coburn that some recipients of farm subsidies got it by mistake. Tax records show that more than three fourths of high earners collecting farming money list their primary residence in a city—land unsuitable for farming.

This is the reason why I don't donate celebrity endorsed charity

Now another of Madonna's charities is investigated amid claims of financial mismanagement
By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 11:41 PM on 4th April 2011


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1373417/Madonnas-charity-Success-Kids-iinvestigated-amid-claims-financial-mismanagement.html#ixzz1IeMwKDPv

A second of Madonna’s charities is being investigated over alleged financial mismanagement.
Educational charity Success for Kids, which the singer chairs, is being probed by the FBI for ‘several irregularities and suspicious activity’.
It is not clear the extent to which Madonna is involved in the investigation but she has donated $671,000 (£415,000) since it was founded in 2001.
She has also persuaded a string of celebrity friends to give generously.
The development comes a week after it emerged that the Material Girl had to scrap plans to build a school in Malawi due to financial mismanagement by another of her charities.
Raising Malawi abandoned the project because the £2.4million already spent had been frittered away on needless luxuries.
The latest blow will be another setback for Madonna and raises the prospect she could be drawn into a federal tax probe in the U.S.
It will doubtless add to her ‘frustration’ that the school project ran aground but experts claimed it raised serious questions over both charities and her involvement in them.
Success for Kids is an offshoot of Raising Malawi and has raised $33million (£20.4million) since 2001 with Madonna being by far its biggest cheerleader.
It describes itself as ‘the largest international social emotional learning organisation in the world’ with offices in eight countries, including Malawi.
Success for Kids and Raising Malawi split in 2008 but both appear to have got into financial difficulties some time afterwards.
A investigation initiated by Madonna found that at Raising Malawi there was a ‘startling lack of accountability’ with the management and a string of ‘outlandish expenditures’.
In one case, two cars were bought for employees that hadn't even been hired. Some of the £2.4million still hasn't been accounted for, said the audit.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1373417/Madonnas-charity-Success-Kids-iinvestigated-amid-claims-financial-mismanagement.html#ixzz1IeN1vVM8

Madonna, 52, who adopted a daughter, Mercy, from Malawi last year and a son, David, in 2008, was not implicated in the financial mismanagement.
A separate report last week claimed Madonna’s Kabbalah religion and Raising Malawi were also being investigated in the U.S for tax irregularities.
Members of a grand jury have supposedly been subpoenaed to ask questions of both organisations.
They will be looking into the Kabbalah Centre, Raising Malawi and the Berg family who own it.
Ken Berger, president of the U.S. charity watchdog Charity Navigator, said the developments were highly unusual.
‘First of all, most charities are not investigated,' he said.
‘Multiple investigations going on at once is quite extraordinary’.
Success for Kids, the Kabbalah Centre, Raising Malawi and Madonna all declined to comment.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1373417/Madonnas-charity-Success-Kids-iinvestigated-amid-claims-financial-mismanagement.html#ixzz1IeN6pgXk