Gingrich backer willing to give $100M to benefit former House speaker
Last edited Tue Feb 21, 2012, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57381758-503544/gingrich-backer-willing-to-give-$100m-to-benefit-former-house-speaker/The billionaire casino magnate backing Newt Gingrich said he is prepared to give $100 million to help the former House speaker in his quest for the White House if he decides it is necessary.
Sheldon Adelson, who has already given $11 million to the outside group backing Gingrich and is expected to give another $10 million in the coming days, told Forbes magazine he is prepared to spend five times that amount.
....
Forbes estimated Adelson's net worth at $25 billion, making the $11 million already given to "Winning our Future" a mere 0.044 percent of his fortune. The Huffington Post has calculated Adelson makes about $3.3 million per hour.
"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections," Adelson said.
Edited, because the link thingy wasn't working.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)are centurys old while this guy wastes money on a dead end candidate...
humblebum
(5,881 posts)SARCASM
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)allan01
(1,950 posts)and what about paying thier fair share of taxes?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)is after tax money. He had to earn $166 million to keep $100 million.
Top 10% pay 70.5% of taxes,
Bottom 50% pay 2.3% of taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)It would take most of us hundreds if not thousands of years to earn what most of the 1% earn.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)where any one can hope to reach the top 1%. There are only a handful of countries
in the world today where that kind of success is achievable.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)Mitch Daniels, is that you?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)that imo in our nation we should not have 40+ million people living at or below the poverty level especially if those same people are working full time and the 1% might want to consider addressing the issue before we get to the point of trying the French answer to the problem.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)where 99% of people are living better than US average living standard?
Please exclude some small countries with enormous oil & gas deposits,
such as Kuwait, Bahrain, Norway etc.
My point is, countries which have tried to equalize incomes have caused
general reduction in living standards....examples: formerly USSR, Mao's China,
Nehru's India, Formerly East Germany, etc. Amazingly, all have improved average
standards of living since accepting nascent capitalism. China created more new
millionaires last year than any other country. Some Indians now boast to be in
the top 10 richest people in the world. No system is perfect but if standards of
living for most people is the criterion, then capitalism has the best historical record.
cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)xocet
(3,873 posts)Actually, "any one (sic)" living anywhere can "hope" to reach the top 1%. Hoping for a goal to be achieved and actual achievement of a goal are substantially different things.
bluedigger
(17,087 posts)Actually achieving that success is another matter.
In 2008, when 29.4 percent of the population held a college degree, the bottom 90 percent got less than 52 percent of the national income, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. But in 1970, when only 11 percent of the population had a degree, the bottom 90 percent got 67 percent of the national income.
These findings seem to be in line with the earlier international report American Exceptionalism in a New Light: A Comparison of Intergenerational Earnings Mobility in the Nordic Countries, the United Kingdom and the United States by Germanys Institute for the Study of Labor, which claims:
The main driver of the difference in the pattern of male intergenerational mobility in the U.S. from that of each of the other countries in our study is the low mobility out of the lowest quintile group in the United States. Indeed, it is very noticeable that while for all of the other countries persistence is particularly high in the upper tails of the distribution, in the U.S. this is reversed with a particularly high likelihood that sons of the poorest fathers in the U.S. will remain in the lowest earnings quintile.
http://www.nationofchange.org/republicans-and-myth-upward-mobility-1329412132
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)Hugabear
(10,340 posts)You honestly expect us to believe that anyone could reach the top 1% in this country?
Please, don't peddle that bullshit here. It is simply not true. Go tell that to someone struggling through 2-3 jobs trying to make ends meet and take care of their family.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)Second, usually people that get paid that much, make it gambling in the market, through stocks and hedge funds, and they only have to pay 15 percent, no payroll taxes, and such.
Third, while to me and the poster above, sales, gas, tolls, fees, interest on various things, utility taxes, property taxes, alcohol and cigarette taxes, along with the hefty 15 percent payroll taxes (and let's face it, that's pretty much FIT anyway, as it's tossed into and spent from the same pile), represent an incredibly significant portion of income, it's a relatively small percent of income to the rich. Plus they only pay the 15 percent on amounts up to 108,000/year anyway.
So I think those guys need to pay MORE taxes, and I'm not crying for them one bit. We need a maximum wage, all earnings in any way including capital gains should be subject to the same tax rates and payroll taxes with no cap, as anyone else too. And on amounts over ten million, we should just tax the rich at least 75%.
Anything we can do to fix maldistributed incomes and wealth, we should do. It's broken, and we should fix it!
golfguru
(4,987 posts)such as short term paper transaction in stocks & options. Granted they are risking their
own cash to make a profit, but it serves not much useful purpose to anyone.
However people who "invest" in a company stock for a long time provide very
valuable service to the company by providing capital without which no business can
operate.
I think long term capital gains should be taxed same as earned income provided there
is a factor allowed for inflation.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)And that isn't the point. The point is that there are people who NEED that money and Newt Gingrich is NOT one of them.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Newt Gingrich is the least deserving person of $100 donation.
My $166 million estimate was based on old tax rates, since that Adelson dude
has been making money for a very long time.
$166 million x 40% tax bracket = aprox $100 million
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)Top Tax Bracket is 36%, not 40%, according to every EA I've ever spoken to.
If his wages are Super Long Term Cap Gains, is tax rate is 15%.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)He has made money through 35%, 39.6%, 50% rates. He has been at this a
very long time. I assumed 40% average tax rate, 166 at 40% tax = 100 net.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)golfguru
(4,987 posts)I am 70 and I have paid much much more on capital gains. Adelman is older than me.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)Father is an Enrolled Agent tax accountant, uncle is a tax Attorney, grandfather was a CPA.
I'm getting my PhD in Economics as we speak from Johns Hopkins, which has an outreach program for Americans here in Nanjing at Nanjing University, so I can go to NJU using John Hopkins standards and get a Johns Hopkins PhD through NJU.
And I'm 35.
Being in the top 10% that pays 70% of the income tax that is collected by the government does not mean you pay a 70% income tax rate.
The bottom 50% that pays 2.3% (many of them performing labor that is exploited by the owners) makes less than $33k. You can't get blood from a turnip.
The question we should be asking isn't why do billionaires pay so much in taxes, it's why are so many people making so little while a few are accumulating astronomical sums of wealth. Do you have any theories or do you think it's because they just don't work hard enough?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)I did not say top 10% pay at 70% rate. What i said is top 10% pay 70% of federal
income tax dollars collected by US Treasury.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)one has to earn a lot more to donate a big amount.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)So the tax and wealth disparity issues aside, if your point is that one has to make a lot to donate a lot, then I can't disagree.
I do have a problem with the way wealthy people can influence elections. In this case he is just throwing his money away. In other cases the rich can influence elections for their own benefit.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)Are you kidding me?
golfguru
(4,987 posts)If he is using this it is news to me. I Only listen to him for a few seconds when
my radio dial accidentally hits his station.
And by the way this material is factual.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)I am asleep.
I just know that this Tax Foundation organizations are composed of right wing thinkers and its two leaders are former advisers to Bush and McCain, while another is Bill Reynolds (see link #1), a former Blue Dog that too over George Bush's CD in 1969 and switched to be a Republican.
So, anything they say are completely unreliable, as noted, and respected, economist Paul Krugman (see links #2 and 33) proved.
Again, I ask, why are you using an organization Rush Limbaugh proudly quotes on his website?
1: link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Reynolds_Archer,_Jr.
2: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/the-tax-foundation-is-not-a-reliable-source/
3: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/stocks-flows-and-fuzzy-math/
golfguru
(4,987 posts)last time I hear IRS was not a vast right wing conspiracy.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)on Democratic Underground. Be prepared for people to call BS.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)there is no such thing as right wing facts or left wing facts.
gateley
(62,683 posts)they still have plenty of money left to live on. There are many of us who don't. That is what needs to be addressed, IMO.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)but SCOTUS will need new faces to accomplish that.
gateley
(62,683 posts)quakerboy
(13,921 posts)he paid 66 million in taxes. That would be 40%. Seeing as most unearned income is gotten at a lower tax rate than that for which the rest of us work, I seriously doubt that he paid anything like 40%.
golfguru
(4,987 posts)and I am almost certain you are much younger, I was in 42% tax bracket
while earning an average salary in late 1960's before tax brackets were indexed
for inflation. This Adelman bloke is older than me, so his past income has seen
some pretty high tax brackets. 40% is what I assumed as well.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)Billionaires do not make their money on salary. They make it on money. They pay a different tax rate.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)lark
(23,166 posts)Totally excellent picture.
Bozita
(26,955 posts)cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)go west young man
(4,856 posts)The shit rises to the top.
pwb
(11,294 posts)It was people like you.
Tansy_Gold
(17,877 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)n/t
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)$7 a day for 2 million people for 1 whole week. And the money would STILL end up back in rich people's hands.
That's what I don't get. Rich people gotta know that when they give poor people money, the poor people are going to spend it, so they will end up with even MORE profits.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)DFW
(54,448 posts)"Gee, how can I get in on some of that?"
(Easy--retire, go to work for some PAC that gets "anonymous" donations from Adelson, and collect a $5 million
a year salary for "consulting work."
Mz Pip
(27,454 posts)That's an awful lot of money to get one guy a job. I wonder how much his employees earn?
fantomas
(94 posts)$90 million dollars more of mud against Romney is OK in my book! His negatives can only go higher the longer and dirtier this goes.
thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)Yet this is absurd. A fool and his money................
JHB
(37,163 posts)BadGimp
(4,021 posts)Is SCOTUS listening to this shit? the question is rhetorical of course..
CindyT44
(6 posts)if you read the whole article, he didn't really commit to spending $100 million. He just said "I might give $10 million or $100 million;" to me, it read as just a hypothetical range, not a firm commitment.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)He got rich taking advantage of others misfortune, so naturally he's republican.
When people like him with no scrupals are still becoming masters of the universe, it's obvious we need more Democratic government.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> He got rich taking advantage of others misfortune, so naturally he's republican.
He got rich taking advantage of other people's gullibility, their stupidity and
their ignorance but not particularly their "misfortune".
The ones who deserve that label are those who've got filthy rich from the
medical insurance scam (kills thousands every year yet is still supported
by loads of politicians of every shade) and those who've got rich from the
armaments industry (kills millions every year yet still being praised as one
of the most profitable American export industries).
Simply holding your pocket open to allow idiots to pour their money into it
isn't even as lacking in scruples as working as a lawyer (who relies on the
misfortune of others to provide a case for them to which they book their fees.)
wordpix
(18,652 posts)& supports Ging-Rich. Something is wrong with this picture of Amerika.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts){Newt opens door}
Here's $100 million. Divide the Republican Party for me and keep this going.
Newt looks at the money.
CALLISTA!!! I'm going out for a while."
Newt closes the door.
"Sheldon, can I be your mistress? My wife will never know."
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)Sheldon's business is gambling. One would think he'd know when he's betting on a sure thing or when he's got an ace up his sleeve. Like it's been conjectured, he might want to keep Gingrich in the race to keep splitting the vote between Santorum and Romney so that no clear winner would emerge from the primaries and maybe back his own favored dark horse in a brokered convention. Hell, he might want Obama to win at the rate he's dragging this whole business out and weakening his opponents. But, I'm giving him too much credit. Intelligent Machiavellian thinking got washed out of the GOP gene pool by too much inbreeding a generation or so ago.
Beartracks
(12,821 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)That money could do so much good. What a vile waste
Historic NY
(37,454 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)this shitbag.
Perfect.
donheld
(21,311 posts)diane in sf
(3,919 posts)Turbineguy
(37,375 posts)want a bought and paid for President?
Nihil
(13,508 posts)... and it's certainly all voters in the post-Kennedy decades have got.
(Applies to many other countries too BTW but the subject was US Presidents.)
jimmac1959
(5 posts)money thrown around in GOP presidential nomination process is beyond obscene. if the fat cats donating all this cash had used it to get people hired....we'd much better off. however, clown car patrol could never go for that- it would make OBAMA a hero or something. it's so sad.
Botany
(70,614 posts)Latest poll out of Michigan
Santorum 35
Romney 37
Paul 13
Gingrich 8
mudstump
(342 posts)Why is Gingrich talking so much about Iran? He said Iran is going to attack the US and he supports an Israeli strike on Iran. I guess a war with Iran can be bought for the right price.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)an American uniform."
squicked
(18 posts)I wish I could afford that kind of speech.
eringer
(460 posts)Tell those diplomats to pack their bags -- they are moving from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem! Hope they told the architects to include a bomb shelter.