Skip to main content

If you were taking home a $520 paycheck every week and invested $1 a week for a lottery ticket, wouldn't you feel very fortunate if one day you eventually hit the jackpot for $13 million? Wouldn't you still feel grateful if the government took almost a third of it in income taxes? Of course you would, you wouldn't be greedy, you'd be "blessed".

According to the Social Security Administration, 50% of the entire U.S. workforce earns $520 a week or less (which is $27,000 a year) --- that is the "median income" --- and 50% of the workforce earns more than $27,000 a year. (The poverty rate threshold for a family of four is $23,681 a year, and is defined in terms of before-tax cash income.)

A CEO on the S&P 500 earns an average salary of $13 million a year, and they earn these type of annual salaries fairly consistently (year after year) throughout their careers. For them, it's not just a once-in-a-lifetime jackpot, it's an ongoing income.

And most of these CEOs are not taxed at the highest rate on the majority of their annual earnings. The top "marginal" tax rate is 39.6% on earnings over $450,000, but most of these CEOs are taxed at 23.8% for long-term capital gains on their stock-option grants (sometimes called "pay for performance"). Their tax rate is slightly less than someone else who is single and earning $36,250 a year in regular hourly wages, who have a tax rate of 25% (see the chart further below).

House Speaker John Boehner said, "Well, Mr. President, you got your tax increase. It's time to cut spending."

The spending that the Republicans have been mostly focused on has been in Social Security and Medicare. The GOP won't properly fund the IRS to go after tax cheats, or urgently pursue Medicare and healthcare fraudsters, or remove any of the tax loopholes that mostly favor the rich.

But by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on just those earning $400-$450,000 a year, it was really only just a symbolic gesture, because the top marginal tax rates only affects about 377,279 Americans -- and it mostly affects regular "wages".

To put this into better perspective: In the United States a neurosurgeon must complete four years of college, four years of medical school, a one year internship, and at least five years of a neurosurgeon residency. The median pay for neurosurgeons in the U.S. is $368,000 a year.

Most people earning over $400,000 a year also receive other forms of income, such as in the form of stock-options and/or deferred interest, and they don't pay the higher marginal tax rate of 39.6%, but pay taxes on long-term capital gains, which only went up from 15% to 23.8% (which includes the newly added 3.8% surtax for ObamaCare® in 2013).

For example: Unlike the neurosurgeon who pays one of the highest top marginal rates (33%-36.9%), the CEO of a hospital or pharmaceutical company can earn millions of dollars every year with stock-options, and pay the much lower capital gains tax rate of 23.8%, which is less than a single person earning $36,250 a year, who pays a 25% marginal tax rate.

The new capital gains tax rate is still lower for CEOs like Mitt Romney than the marginal tax rates are for a single person earning just $36,250 a year --- so Warren Buffett's secretary will still be paying a greater share of her income in federal taxes than her boss. And she will also pay Social Security taxes on 100% of her income, whereas, someone else earning over $113,700 a year (such as Warren Buffett) pays no additional Social Security tax (or no Social Security taxes at all if all his income was only earned from capital gains).

Every single year, about $1 trillion a year in personal income is not taxed at all because of the "cap" on Social Security and because of the special exclusions for Medicare taxes on capital gains.

And those who gain the most from this preferential treatment of capital gains (and the "cap" on Social Security taxes), are the CEOs of those large corporations, the banks and hedge funds --- and it's the banks and the hedge funds who are also the largest shareholders (institutional investors) that primarily invest in the stocks of the largest corporations. They all go full circle with one another.

So by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and raising the limit on marginal tax rates to those earning $400-$450,000 a year, is mostly just a symbolic gesture. Out of a total of 151.4 million Americans in the workforce, 149.9 million earned less than $250,000 a year --- and 1.5 million Americans earned more than $250,000 a year...but only 377,279 Americans earned over $400,000 a year.

That was NOT the deal that the majority of Americans had wanted and voted for last November. Most had wanted something more similar to the Buffett Rule --- like taxing ALL income at 30% over $1 million a year.

Also, 65 percent of Americans wanted to raise taxes on large corporations (such as having them pay the "statutory" tax rate of 35%, rather than an "effective" rate of only 8.1%) by eliminating tax loopholes, but both parties in Congress are heading against what the majority of Americans want.

The new marginal tax rates for 2013 (Source: Forbes)

Just 406 Americans earned $20 to $50 million a year (e.g. Mitt Romney, etc.) and paid 15% or less for capital gains taxes last year.

And only 93 Americans (and the wannabe "King Makers", such Las Vegas Sands billionaire Sheldon Adelson) earned over $50 million a year.

The top 1% prefers to reference their earnings as "investment income" (which the IRS classifies as "unearned income"), as though this income was somehow more privileged than ordinary "hourly income", and so therefore, should be taxed less. "We're entitled to be taxed less because we're the job creators." (In China perhaps.)

A forty-four-year-old Passaic New Jersey man (Pedro Quezada) just won $338 million from the Powerball Jackpot after "investing" in a lottery ticket. Pedro came to America 26 years ago from the Dominican Republic and worked in a factory until 2006, when he opened his own small business (a bodega, a convenience store specializing in Hispanic groceries). Pedro claimed a lump-sum payment worth $221 million, netting about $152 million after paying about $69 million in taxes (about 31%).

Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, can cash out that same exact amount ($221 million) from his stock-option grants and owe 23.8% in taxes (20% for capital gains with the 3.8% ObamcsCare® surtax) --- and pay about $52 million in taxes (netting about $168 million after taxes).

I'm no tax attorney but, if Pedro Quezada had held on to his winning ticket for one full year before cashing in his $1 "investment", could he have also claimed his $221 million as a "long-term capital gain" and paid much less in taxes?

Lottery winners like Pedro Quezada will make that kind of money only ONCE in their entire life, but some CEOs make these kind of salaries year after year after year after year...

Apple's Tim Cook can keep about $17 million more of his windfall than Pedro Quezada can, because of special tax breaks for capital gains (personal income acquired through the sale of stocks, gold, real estate, fine art, deferred interest, etc.)

"Don't talk back Aunt Maggie! He likes to fire people --- and then keep their pensions!"


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course they do! (5+ / 0-)

    Lottery winners are few and far between, while millionaires are good at pooling their power (i.e., money) to influence things.

    Me? I always figure I'll get only 60% of the jackpot after winning. I still haven't won the grand prize, though.

    There was an article a year or two ago in the NYT that stated you had a very good chance to win if you bought 100,000 tickets.

    Yeah, right!

    First, the logistics of purchasing that many tickets is daunting, if not impossible. Second, if I had the requisite $100,000 to buy that many tickets in the Lucky Day Lotto, Lotto, or Mega Millions, or $200,000 worth of PowerBall tickets, I'd be more inclined to spend it on a new car and our new house.

    Seems like the people who could most likely game the system that way are the ones who really don't need to win the Lottery.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 03:40:06 PM PDT

  •  So do writers... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, elwior

    Or at least they did when I was picking up my income with a pen. Started off dollar one at the "rents and royalties" rate, which was then equal to the top bracket.

  •  That's exactly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Gooserock

    why I don't play.....:o)

    May today be greater than yesterday, and tomorrow be greater than both! Go Ravens!

    by secret38b on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 03:57:10 PM PDT

  •  Pedro Quezada is also a deadbeat dad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rosalie907

    who was "investing" in lottery tickets instead of paying for his children.

  •  stock options are taxed as wages. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk, nextstep, VClib

    incentive stock options can be taxed at cap gains rates, but theyre limited to 100k per year.  very few high level execs get ISOs.

    the vast majority, Bud, get their options taxed as regular wages.

    •  I'm HR'ing this because its flatly false, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, coffeetalk, VClib

      and the diarist has been corrected before on this topic.  at this point is just willful lying.

      •  decent summary of the difference (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep, coffeetalk, VClib

        between ISPs and NQSOs is here:

        http://www.aigclaw.org/...

      •  Right, I just made up all this stuff... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        unfangus

        Ok then --- Mitt Romney didn't REALLY pay a 13.9% tax rate on his $20+ million in deferred interest either. Everybody was lying, and the CEOs like Mitt Romney REALLY DO pay the top marginal income tax rates...and we were all lying --- including the IRS --- and Warren Buffett, who was also lying when he said his tax rate was lower than his secretary's. Everybody is lying. The Wall Street Journal was lying when they said more and more CEOs were being paid this way. Forbes is lying, and after stock option grants are vested for one year, they REALLY AREN'T sold and taxed as a long-term capital gains --- but are taxed at the top marginal tax rate. And SWAG investments are also taxed at the top marginal rate...NOBODY is getting a tax break and the Bush take cuts (and the 15% capital gains tax rate) was all one big frigging lie. Stupid me, and to think I believed all those damn liars.

        •  Yep, you are making it up (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Balto, johnny wurster, coffeetalk

          None of what you cite has to do with options.

          Romney is taking advantage of the carried interest exception, as well as a loophole (since closed) in the valuation of property contributed to a trust.

          Buffett's tax rate is low because he owns Berkshire-Hathaway stock, not because of options.

          The compensatory portion of an option (or other equity grant) is taxed as ordinary income.  After the equity is taken into income (and taxed at ordinary income rates), subsequent gain is taxed as capital gain.

          So yes, stupid you.

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:45:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  u @hole (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            unfangus
            Hidden by:
            johnny wurster

            It's my diary and I express my opinion, and whenever possible, I link to my sources of information. If you don't like what I write, why do you bother reading and commenting? Does insulting people give you a hard on? Why do you feel a need to "monitor" my posts and counter anything that I might say? I don't stalk your diary. Frankly, you're starting to sound a little creepy.

            •  Fuck you, Bud (0+ / 0-)

              What makes you think you're worthy of being stalked?

              You write a shit diary, make a few stupid posts, and you think you're immune from criticism?

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:43:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster

          are not typical CEOs. Romney ran a Private Equity fund and his carried interest was taxed at long term capital gains rates. Romney had no stock options. Buffet is a founder of Birkshire Hathaway and owns founders shares, some of which he has held for decades. When he sells his shares they qualify for long term capital gains treatment, because he owns shares, not options. Buffett has had a salary of $100,000 for twenty five years, so his W2 income is an insignificant part of his total income.

          The value of a stock option that vests in one, or the more common four years, is taxed at ordinary income rates each year it is vesting. When vested if the executive exercises the option the difference between the taxable income that has become his basis and the current market price is taxed as W2, ordinary income. The executive now has a new basis at the current market price and all of the economic benefit has been taxed at the top marginal, earned income rate. At that point the executive has the same basis as you would, had you purchased shares in the open market on the same day the executive exercised his option grant. If that executive, or you, then held that stock for a year and sold it, the difference between the price on the day of exercise or your purchase, would be taxed at long term capital gains rates. Once exercised the executive becomes an ordinary shareholder subject to the same tax provisions as any other shareholder. However, all of his economic gain up to that point has been taxed at earned income rates.

          I have received non-qualified stock options, granted non-qualified stock options, been the chairman of the compensation committee of several public companies, and have consulted the best tax lawyers and accountants in the US on this topic. If non-qualified stock options could be structured to generate long term capital gains income I would have done it many times. PLEASE stop writing that senior executives in Fortune 1000 companies have their equity awards taxed at long term capital gains rates. IT IS NOT TRUE.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:00:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Actually CEOS (4+ / 0-)

    and others who are paid with stock based or options based compensation are taxed at the rate of earned income for their tax bracket. I too was under the assumption that this was not the case but was set straight last week by VCLib.

    If they hold a portion of the stock and are paid dividends on it , then it comes in at 23.8% which it's probably  best to hold of criticizing since that was just increased from 15% - a 63% increase

    What will always be a fair target will be the rate of pay as compared to the rest of the workforce.

    Generally speaking, total taxes for 20 Million in a state like New York or CA would be over 10 Million.  In a State like Indiana slightly under 10 Million.

    That's why, getting any increase at the Federal level is going to be like pulling on hens teeth from here on out. It probably won't happen unless we have full on asset confiscation like Cyprus did, but that wasn't an internal decision. That was made in a major fuck-job by the EU and Germany.

    I also highly recommend people go back to the days of Taxes like 70%-91% and see how much was actually collected from high income earners. There isn't a huge difference . Confiscatory tax rates seems to be a far left liberal dream that will never happen here . Talking about it may feel good, but also understand that there are penalty of Liberals who make enough money that they too would fall under a confiscation level tax rate. That means the far left loses important support where it counts the most and that's financially.

    There is just as much a sense of entitlement on the left as there is on the right.

    At some point one has to be realistic about this.
    We have a huge Public Corruption problem.

    Especially when we see things like Lanny Breuer proudly announcing his return to Covington and Burling after a period of less than 30 days after he left the Justice dept for a new salary of 4 Million/year plus return of his Partnership shares which one can be reasonably certain has increased substantially in value while he was gone. The fact that some are treating this as some kind of "new hire" should be brought  down with a large steaming flinging pile of Batshit.

    As far as I could see there was only one diary on it as people had either forgotten that huge scandal, or didn't attach any importance to going back to the same firm that Eric Holder is a partner of, the very firm that came up with the MERS legal structure which was the foundation of so many illegal foreclosures.

     

    “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

    by Dburn on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:33:46 PM PDT

    •  You are correct about the "confiscatory" rates (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, VClib, nextstep

      not resulting in "the rich" paying more.  That's because the system of 70 - 90% top marginal rates (1) kicked in on income that, in today's dollars, would be in the millions a year, and -- more importantly -- had so many deductions and loopholes that only very rich people who were too stupid to have a good tax accountant paid it on very much of their income.  

      Beginning in 1979 the CBO because publishing "effective" tax rates for various income levels.  In 1979, the top marginal rate was 70%, and the top 1% paid LESS in effective tax rates than they did under Clinton, when the top marginal rate was 39.6.  For details on the individual income tax rates, see the SECOND chart here.

    •  Confiscatory taxes are those on wage earners (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica, unfangus

      who also pay SS, Medicare, sales tax, property tax, etc. while those poor poor millionaires only get to take home hundreds of thousands of dollars a week.

      If the average CEO is making $13mm/year the average wage earner has to work forty hours a week for ten years to make what that millionaire makes in one week. That's five hundred weeks to one week.  

      To call it confiscatory to them is truly a manipulation of the English language. It should be called their PRIVILEGED  COST for living in a civilized country and it's very very cheap for them as they have absolutely the very best modern human civilization has to offer.

      They are benefiting from the labors of millions who built the sanitation systems, airports, roads etc. for them to never have to think about while the millionaires whine about giving the working poor health care or a living SS income (since they've already stolen defined benefit retirement plans from ninety percent of workers). Figures lie and liars figure but the average worker has to suffer daily. Call it what you like but it's the cost of not having it taken from them by force.

      "I freed a thousand slaves, I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves" Harriet Tubman

      by BrianParker14 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:16:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  According to Forbes Mag. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lostinamerica

        Seven in ten of the top 400 were born into that list.
        So called "confiscatory taxes" would never remove them from that list. Those are PRIVILEGED costs of winning the DNA lottery.

        "I freed a thousand slaves, I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves" Harriet Tubman

        by BrianParker14 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:27:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BrianParker14

          ...because people like Mitt Romney's sons (e.g. Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, the Waltons,  etc.) can inherit the first $10 million tax free, but as a bartender I was taxed on ever tip I ever earned (tips are "wages", not "gifts") It's been a constant generational hoarding of the wealth in those 7 out of 10 families you mention.

  •  Many years ago the SF author F.M. Busby (0+ / 0-)

    in his novel Rissa Kerguelen delivered a few wickedly prescient notions. One was the idea that national elections would become contests between corporations who would enter bids for the right to run the country for X years. Eventually one winning firm (UET) just seizes power. (Welcome to the ultimate privatization!)

    Another was that UET won power on a promise of building mega-Projects-like "Total Welfare Centers" where those who couldn't support themselves would be housed, fed & put to work in order to pay what it cost to house & feed them. It was in theory a benevolent institution--no one would be homeless or starve--& in theory one could save enough from the miserly pay to buy one's way free; in fact the Centers were living hells & no one ever even broke even--

    Unless you won one of the big lotteries everyone was entered in--then you could buy your way out right away. And of course UET made big publicity out of each drawing's lucky winner, as if to say See, there is hope for you TW clients! You could get lucky!

    Ah, but there was a catch: Once outside, the lucky winner would find him/herself beset with taxes & fees & confidence games & legal wrangles that would quickly suck the loot away--& s/he would soon find her/himself back in Total Welfare...

    Scary, innit?

    (FTR Busby's eponymous heroine, Welfared after her investigative-journalist parents are murdered [in all likelihood by UET, IIRC] wins a lottery & is smart enough to pay for a disguise & escape to the last part of the planet not under UET control...& then the space-operatic fun begins...)

    BALTIMORE RAVENS--SUPER BOWL XLVII CHAMPIONS! WOOO-HOOO!

    by Uncle Cosmo on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:27:01 PM PDT

  •  HR - for a diary title that is a LIE (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, coffeetalk

    Non-Qualified Stock Options CANNOT QUALIFY for long term capital gains treatment. The diary author has now been told this at least ten times by me and other tax experts here at DKOS. Please stop writing things that are not factual and add to the echo of misinformation here at DKOS and the Internet generally. There is no way to structure non-qualified stock options, the type that executives receive, that qualifies the income as long term capital gains. ALL INCENTIVE EQUITY COMPENSATION of Fortune 1000 executives is taxed at the top marginal earned income rates and is reported as W2 income.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:37:06 PM PDT

    •  Stupid me :( (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unfangus

      Ok then --- Mitt Romney didn't REALLY pay a 13.9% tax rate on his $20+ million in deferred interest either. Everybody was lying, and the CEOs like Mitt Romney REALLY DO pay the top marginal income tax rates...and we were all lying...including the IRS --- and Warren Buffett, who was also lying when he said his tax rate was lower than his secretary's. Everybody is lying. The Wall Street Journal was lying when they said more and more CEOs were being paid this way. Forbes is lying, and after stock option grants are vested for one year, they REALLY AREN'T sold and taxed as long-term capital gains --- but are taxed at the top marginal rate. And SWAG investments are also taxed at the top marginal rate...NOBODY is getting a tax break and the Bush take cuts (and the 15% capital gains tax rate) was all one big frigging lie. Stupid me, and to think I believed all those damn liars.

    •  More liars, spreading false information.... (0+ / 0-)

      If  I were you I would write the liars at Forbes and tell them that Facebook is NOT getting back tax refunds worth $429 million.

      “Due to the stock option loophole, Facebook may not pay any corporate income taxes on its profits for a generation,” said Senator Carl Levin. I would write the Senator to accuse him of lying too.

      http://www.forbes.com/...

      •  Ignorance must be bliss (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, johnny wurster

        and you must be very, very happy.

        Do you understand the difference between Facebook, which is an employer, and its employees?  Compensation paid to employees is generally deductible, which reduces the employer's taxable income.  The compensation is taxable (at ordinary income rates) to the employees.

        "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

        by Old Left Good Left on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:06:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bud - that's a completely difference issue (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny wurster, nextstep

        When options are exercised and sold the option holder pays ordinary income rates. Under the current tax rules the company receives a credit for the taxes paid by the option holders. That is true. It has nothing to do with the tax characteristics of options to the option holder other than the fact that by paying ordinary income rates the credit is larger. In the Facebook example some of the founders and early employees were holding shares and not options. Those shares qualified for long term capital gains treatment, but the company received no tax credit.

        The problem is that you have no fundamental understanding of the tax code, particularly as it relates to equity awarded as compensation. Because you have no background you misinterpret the material you read. And that's OK, once or twice, but you have had real tax professional here at DKOS inform you that you continue to write about things that aren't true, thereby misinforming the other readers here. You are more than welcome to write about the inequity in the tax code, and there is plenty, but please stop writing that executive stock options are taxed at long term capital gains rates. It's not true.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:08:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I posted this JUST for you (0+ / 0-)

          "Tax Advantages for the CEO with Stock Options" -- and I left a comment. (Sourced from the IRS) http://bud-meyers.com/...

          •  Bud - I went to your site and read it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            unfangus, nextstep

            Please understand that executives receive only Non-statuatory (Non-qualified) stock options, not ISOs available to most employees. There is nothing in the material on your site that is in conflict with what I have written. This really goes back to your fundamental lack of knowledge of tax law and the IRS code. You continue to misunderstand what you are reading and write incorrect diaries about tax issues. There is only one place where you continue to make mistakes, the issue of the taxation of equity incentive compensation. You write about many useful topics. Just drop the part that isn't true.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 07:13:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  ---- (0+ / 0-)

      Changed title...will that make people happy campers?

  •  FTR, Tim Cook didnt even get options. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, coffeetalk, VClib

    his gazillion dollars of equity comp comprises RSUs.  all W-2 comp, just like nonqual options.

    http://www.sec.gov/...

    •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

      Tim Cook was just an example. I read from multiple sources (Bloomberg, etc)  they were stocks options for "performance", so that if the stock goes up, so does the value of his stock that was awarded to him at the strike price. And that it was a 5-year compensation plan....but all of that is besides the point anyway. Basically what you're trying to convince me of is that the whole deal about the bush tax cuts favoring the rich was one big farce, and that the average CEO on the S&P 500 pays a progressively higher tax rate than everybody else who earns much less. Besides myself, you will certainly have a lot of people to convince otherwise.

    •  Oh? (0+ / 0-)

      "Tax Advantages for the CEO with Stock Options" (Sourced from the IRS) http://bud-meyers.com/...

      •  Bud - I think the lack of understanding is between (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep

        Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) which most employees receive and Non-Qualified Stock Options (Non-Quals) which executives receive. The two types of options have dramatically different tax consequences and structure.

        You are also confusing taxes on the investment income of very wealthy people, which was reduced dramatically under the Bush tax cuts and the earned income of senior corporate executives which was reduced, but not nearly as much as the income taxes on investment income. Prior to the changes that will take effect on 1/1/13 senior executives were paying the top marginal income tax rate of approximately 35% on essentially all their income earned from employment. That will rise to just under 40% this year. As johnny notes these people also have investment income, separate from their employment, which can qualify for capital gains treatment.

        There is nothing on the posting on your site that is in conflict with anything johnny has written.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:55:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Trying to (0+ / 0-)

    unrec this diary, but all I see is

    Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
    with no box to affirm the action... A glitch in the software of the GOS?

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:54:49 PM PDT

  •  Fine with me. (0+ / 0-)

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:30:44 PM PDT

  •  When I was working (0+ / 0-)

    At 2 jobs from 1980 to 2009 I was eligable for company bonuses.  At the 1st job originally we had to take it in cash and the taxes were almost 50%.  They then opened up 401K's (after taking away our pensions) and we were allowed to put the bulk (if not all) of our bonuses into our 401K's.  We did not pay tax on this when it went in but, of course, we'll pay tax if we take it out.  

    At the 2nd job, even though we had 401K's, we had to take the entire bonus in cash and this meant that we were taxed on all of it thereby losing about 50% of the bonus.  Believe me, we weren't rich and I along with others would have liked to put that bonus money into our 401K but were not permitted to.  

    At the 2nd job I put part of it into my Rothe IRA but it really bothered me at that time that I had to pay taxes on that money.  

    Never be afraid to voice your opinion and fight for it . Corporations aren't people, they're Republicans (Rev Al Sharpton 10/7/2011)

    by Rosalie907 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:57:59 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site