The CBO said that the average federal income tax rate paid by the top 1 percent has also dropped since 1979—falling from 22.7 percent in 1979 to 20.3 percent in 2011.
Effective tax rates: individual income taxes alone
The media and left love to say, see they are not paying their fail share.
Effective tax rates: individual income and payroll taxes combined
Then they say, add in all the payroll taxes and look at how little they pay.
And of course little is said about all the other taxes the the top tiers pay.
Effective tax rates: income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes combined
Isn’t the narrative of the left and media captivating furthering the politics of jealousy and envy?
Of course the distraction is ‘who pays what in taxes’… so as not to have to talk about all the things government shouldn’t be spending our money on in the first place…
Neither side want to talk about the real issue, over spending.
Neither side wants to talk about the 2 major spending activities and figure out a way to reduce spending, Healthcare and retirements.
As I said it’s percentage of income that counts !
If the government paid as much attention to the well being working class as it does to the banking wall street crooks it protects life would be better for all of Americas citizens not just one tenth of one percent .
Many of America’s largest corporations paid NO federal income taxes in 2017 and some managed to get a refund some how !
The report concludes that the Federal Reserve Board’s intimate relations with the leading powers of Wall Street—the same banks that benefited most from the government’s massive bailout—influenced its strategic decisions on AIG. The panel accuses the Fed and the Treasury Department of brushing aside alternative approaches that would have saved tens of billions in public funds by making these same banks “share the pain.”
Bailing out AIG effectively meant rescuing Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch (as well as a dozens of European banks) from huge losses. Those financial institutions played the derivatives game with AIG, the esoteric practice of placing financial bets on future events. AIG lost its bets, which led to its collapse. But other gamblers—the counterparties in AIG’s derivative deals—were made whole on their bets, paid off 100 cents on the dollar. Taxpayers got stuck with the bill.
How did a boring, ultra-safe insurance company become one of the largest bailouts in the 2008 financial crisis? To boost its profit margin, AIG had become a major seller of credit default swaps. These swaps insured the assets that supported corporate debt and mortgages. If AIG went bankrupt, it would trigger the bankruptcy of many of the financial institutions that had bought these swaps.
AIG was so large that its demise would impact the entire global economy. For example, the $3.6 trillion money-market fund industry invested in AIG debt and securities. Most mutual funds owned AIG stock. Financial institutions around the world were also major holders of AIG’s debt.https://www.thebalance.com/aig-bailout-cost-timeline-bonuses-causes-effects-3305693
Deutsche Bank to Pay $55 Million to Settle Derivatives Inquiry
Deutsche Bank “overstated” the value of a multibillion-dollar portfolio of sophisticated derivatives during the height of the financial crisis, leading it to file inaccurate financial statements for at least a six-month stretch, securities regulators in the United States said on Tuesday.https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/business/dealbook/sec-says-deutsche-bank-misvalued-derivatives.html
The near-collapse of AIG was an office in London. A division of the company, called AIG Financial Products (AIGFP), nearly led to the downfall of a pillar of American capitalism. For years, the AIGFP division sold insurance against investments gone awry, such as protection against interest rate changes or other unforeseen economic problems. But in the late 1990s, the AIGFP discovered a new way to make money.
A new financial tool known as a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) became prevalent among large investment banks and other large institutions. CDOs lump various types of debt—from the very safe to the very risky—into one bundle. The various types of debt are known as tranches. Many large investors holding mortgage-backed securities created CDOs, which included tranches filled with subprime loans.
The AIGFP was presented with an option. Why not insure CDOs against default through a financial product known as a credit default swap? The chances of having to pay out on this insurance were highly unlikely, and for a while, the CDO insurance plan was highly successful. In about five years, the division’s revenues rose from $737 million to over $3 billion, about 17.5% of the entire company’s total.
One large chunk of the insured CDOs came in the form of bundled mortgages, with the lowest-rated tranches comprised of subprime loans. AIG believed that what it insured would never have to be covered. Or, if it did, it would be in insignificant amounts. But when foreclosures rose to incredibly high levels, AIG had to pay out on what it promised to cover. This, naturally, caused a huge hit to AIG’s revenue streams. The AIGFP division ended up incurring about $25 billion in losses, causing a drastic hit to the parent company’s stock price.
Accounting problems within the division also caused losses. This, in turn, lowered AIG’s credit rating, which caused the firm to post collateral for its bondholders, causing, even more, worries about the company’s financial situation.
It was clear that AIG was in danger of insolvency. To prevent that, the federal government stepped in. But why was AIG saved by the government while other companies affected by the credit crunch weren’t?
I found this years ago and copied it for future reference. Forgot to include the source but is is accurate.
Yea I got that but who bundled security’s and who rated them AAA ?
The unfortunate thing here is that while the FED could not prevent AGI from selling insurance for which they had no assets, the FED had every right as part of its oversight from preventing investment houses from buying the junk… They didn’t… They like the SEC were watching porn…
Banks bundled mortgages into tranches and they were labeled with risk factors known as tranches.
Financial institutions then went even further and they developed another type of security called collateralized debt obligation(CDO), which is an even more complex investment product. It packages together a variety of loans, including, especially, MBS making it a “bundle of bundles” of mortgages.
Private investment banks bought were selling large quantities of MBSs, and the share of residential mortgages that were bundled into MBSs grew from 50 percent in 1995 to more than 80 percent by 2008.
But financial institutions then went even further. they developed another type of security known as a collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which is an even more complex investment product. It packages together a variety of loans, including, especially, MBSs—thus making it a “bundle of bundles” of mortgages.
After packaging mortgages into MBSs, and MBSs into CDOs, investment banks also sought to further insure the most senior tranches of each of them against default risk. Companies such as American International Group sold what are known as credit default swaps (CDSs), which are a form of insurance policy against defaults related to MBSs or CDOs. In such an arrangement, the buyer of the CDS (usually an investment bank) pays a fee to the seller (an insurance company), which agrees to cover losses in case of a default.
And all was well until the magic day when Greenspan began raising interest rates. The house of cards began as the people who could not afford to buy a house saw their interest rates rise dramatically forcing mass defaults in loans.
Who was at fault?
The insurance companies?
Or could it have been the people convinced that real estate never goes down in value.
Was the government responsible. Yes, the main player in the game.
Kind of like buying fire insurance in your neighbors home isn’t it.
They conspired never thinking it would ever get as big as it did and never thinking it could collapse .
When you think about it, the housing market was on fire.
People were demanding loans, mortgage companies needed money to finance the loans, what better way.
If you remember the people who wee being foreclosed on and there was no lender as their loans are part of several MBS’s as no mortgage company appeared at the foreclosure hearing. They were allowed to stay in their homes. I remember one who lived in a house for over 2 years at no cost until they sorted it all out.
The banks, mortgage companies the people that financed the loans had the responsibility to insure the people borrowing the money had the ability make the loan payments !
It was a free for all a money grab everyone involved made a lot of money everyone but the people that bought the useless paper and the poor that weren’t smart enough or to trusting to see the truth ! The bankers made billions paid millions in fines and are bigger then ever !
Yep, exactly. Use to be that way too. Never understood why some people oppose regulations, shrug.
People are responsible for their actions.
Personal and financial responsibility, yes. Way to close a derailed bit of a thread about horrible democrat rule, thank you. And before @imjimo (also, you know youre far off the left end about all these empty redistributionist rhetoric when the illiterate bernie bot started liking all of your comments) circles back with the “Muh 1%”, I will leave him with this (took a while to find, I should organize my materials more):
Sometimes I cannot resist rising to the challenge.
The housing bubble was about persona; responsibility just like Chicago’s problems, the lack of personal responsibility among the people and secondly a complete breakdown in government.
As a former Detroiter, I recognize the same issues of bad government, poor decisions, and of course people.
Chicago didn’t get this way over night as Detroit didn’t fall apart in a year.
Thanks again for chiming in. I got tiring after posting my 3rd comprehensive overview of the problem: forced diversity quota, hiked taxes, PC treatment to social problems, social welfare, and ultimately the growing welfare-dependent population perpetuating their own crimes and poverty while voting to be kept down in the “democratic plantation” and helping the democratic government expanded in oversight and deficit. The problem to poverty / crime is many-fold like an onion, and so needs there be many solutions : cutting back entitlements, slash tax for business, stabilize the fundamental family unit, restore public safety without being afraid of being PC-mobbed, limit govt involvement etc…
Aaaaaaand your opponent just keeps circling back to the “1%” shipping jobs to China bc they can make more money… Its like blaming your “rich” neighbor, an orchard owner:
“Hey, why are you moving away to Switzerland, leaving your house roach-infested, your weeds are overgrowing into my yard, and you dont come share your fruit of labors with me anymore?”
"The mayor forces me to give 40% of my harvest over, he allows stranger to wander into my yard and loiter, and the police doesnt help with that. By new regulations, my trucks have to be made from Tesla and my energy from “renewable (but not nuclear) certified-organic ™ sources for environmental purposes, my grass trimmed to a certain heights, and i cant hire my nephew and pay what i want for him to learn the trade, but i have to hire this quota with a certain percentage of woman, POCs, LGBTQRSTUVWSYZ+, pay them a certain (and changed on a whim sporadically) minimum wage, and my Christmass tree had a $0.15 tax on it. Im moving to somewhere else where i dont have to do anything of the things my forefathers didnt have imposed upon them.”
“WHY ARE YOU OPPRESSING ME AND KILLING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BIGOT, IM PAYING AS MUCH TAX AS YOU DO LOOK?”
@imjimo in a nutshell.
And now said mayor is outsourcing the job of protecting his own constituents to Switzerland, the same way the orchard owner fled there. Hence the OP and the point of this thread.
Yes people are responsible for their actions !!!
The people the took out mortgages they coudn’t afford lost their homes !
The people that wrote the bad loans lost nothing .
The banks that bundled the bad loans and misrepresented them lost nothing !
My question is how is it that the only people who were held responsible were the people that may or may not have falsified the loan documents ?
How is it not the responsibility of the institutions that originated the loans to do diligence and make sure the loan documents were true ?
Why did no one go to jail ? Shrug,
Chicago like Detroit depended on manufacturing for a large percentage of their tax base !
When this government allowed dumping and then offshoring the die was cast !
The federal government is responsible for the decline in American manufacturing the destruction of the middle class and poverty in America today !
Of course they did and a properly functioning government could have and should have put people from bottom to top in jail for forging loan documents, changing documents after the fact, robo signing documents and selling knowingly deficient product to investors… but that didn’t happen. Law is suppose to deter bad behavior but when the FDIC did force banks of all sized to adhere to minimum reserves to loan ratios and the FED didn’t force investment backs to stop taking buying unbacked CDS’s and mark to market was suddenly changed to mark to infinity and still no one went to jail… don’t be surprised if people don’t try it again.
One of the biggest stories that people are fed is that the markets always go up… that real estate values always go up… and of course, your home is your biggest ‘investment’… Those presumptions cause people to make a lot of very unwise decisions…