From the front page of The New York Times, January 25, 2012:
Prince Fielder, a slugging first baseman, agreed to a nine-year, $214 million deal with the team his father, Cecil, played for in the 1990s
Also from the front page of The New York Times, January 25, 2012:
Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, made $27 million in 2010.
I suppose, if you are a Democrat, this would also disqualify Prince Fielder from running for President of the United States.
That’s basically what Al Gore spends on donuts in any given year.
C.L.
28 Jan 12 at 1:44 am
Unless Fielder is a Democrat – in which case he’s one of the 99% in spirit.
That’s how it works.
Fleeced
28 Jan 12 at 2:01 am
If you were a democrat and Fielder had dropped his load onto a woman, not his wife, whilst married, he could go straight into the top job
Tiny Dancer
28 Jan 12 at 2:29 am
Thanks for the graphic image, TD… but I think you meant if *he* was a Democrat. There are no barriers for Dems. Hell, he could drive one into a river, and he’d still be a hero.
Fleeced
28 Jan 12 at 2:44 am
I thought it was the current Republican front runner (Newt) that dumped on his first wife while she had cancer, and his second wife while she had MS. Seems like Repub’s don’t mind ethical lapses either.
WadeJ
28 Jan 12 at 3:53 am
The difference is that most people understand what Fielder gets paid to do and why he gets paid a lot. They probably have little idea where Romneys money comes from. If people can’t easily understand something they are more likely to be suspicious of it. And of course the media likes to feed into these fears.
TerjeP
28 Jan 12 at 5:59 am
Good point, Terje. May explain why big incomes for company directors, investors etc are seen by some as “unfaaaaair,” while similarly big incomes for sportsmen and actors are seen as “Well, they earned it.”
spot
28 Jan 12 at 6:47 am
$27 million in one year is more than $214 million over nine years.
Johnno
28 Jan 12 at 7:30 am
Yeah, it’s impossible for high-profile ex-baseball players to get elected to the US Senate. Like Jim Bunning.
Both Fielder and Romney create jobs through what they do, but only Romney also has the potential to destroy some jobs. I don’t think Fielder would have the same problems.
m0nty
28 Jan 12 at 8:46 am
Well done with the maths. The $214 million is a contract and guaranteed. It also doesn’t take in to account how it may be invested and earn additional income. (Or spent on steroids, dog-fighting etc…)
ar
28 Jan 12 at 9:38 am
Those jobs are already destroyed. Romney just hands out the pinks.
ar
28 Jan 12 at 9:41 am
I remember Dennis Lillie saying that he toured England for 5 months in 1972 and was paid 1,200 pounds.
He toured for 3 months in 1975 and was paid the same. Inflation for you.
Jim Rose
28 Jan 12 at 2:28 pm
Putting things into “perspective” by taking things out of content. The NYT article Steve referred to, but did not link to, is a straight news report of the release of Romney’s tax returns (a regular event in Presidential campaigns). The report does not suggestion nor imply that Romey’s income disqualifies him from office. Nor does it suggest that he has done anything improper. In fact, the second paragraph says very much the opposite: “Yet the hundreds of pages of tax documents released by Mr. Romney’s campaign on Tuesday morning did not readily reveal any elaborate financial legerdemain or exotic tax shelters. What Mr. Romney’s returns illustrated, instead, was the array of perfectly ordinary ways in which the United States tax code confers advantages on the rich, allowing Mr. Romney to amass wealth under rules very different from those faced by most Americans who take home a paycheck. “
Anyone actually following the current campaign would know it is not the Democrats making the most noise about Romney’s income, the sources of that income, the level of tax he paid or complaining about the conduct of Bain or even demanding the release of his tax returns in the first place – it has been fellow Republicans. Indeed, the fact that these income and tax related attacks have been coming other Republicans has been a source of distress for a number of conservative commentators. They see it as being an attack from the “left”, as demonising the “creative destruction” element of the free market and as making Obama’s job easier when he does start campaigning against Romney if he wins the GOP nomination.
Romney is a wealthy man. But then so too were John Kerry (extremely so by virtue of marriage), Al Gore and even, by most standards, Obama himself. Wealth is not a disqualifier for the office of Prez, its a necessity both in terms of being able to fund one, and to be able to display competence US-style.
1080
28 Jan 12 at 3:00 pm
Is there more than one tax codes in the USA? did someone other than congress vote for the other code?
Jim Rose
28 Jan 12 at 3:29 pm
You know, 27 million bucks ain’t what it use to be. Beside, Romney won’t make his first billion at that rate for, like, ~40 years at which time a flat white will put a $75 hole in your pocket change.
Today in the US you don’t really enter the upper middle (for a family of four) without a household income of more than 200 grand. And if you live in Manhattan, DC or SF add on another 100 grand.
Even in the Lucky Country having assets worth a few million hardly makes you “rich” today.
That’s the joy of inflation under a fiat currency. We’ll always “feel” richer than our parents.
wes george
28 Jan 12 at 4:38 pm
Mitt is taxed at a higher rate than wage and salary earners because he did not inherit wealth.
all of Mitt’s investment income is based on investments he made out of his after-tax savings.
his was taxed once on his earnings and then on his investment income from his savings before he spent a cent on himself, assuming the investments panned out.
I am with John Rawls and oppose progressive income taxes as unjust. progressive consumption taxes “imposes a levy according to how much a person takes out of the common store of goods and not according to how much he contributes”.
A simple way to have a progressive consumption tax instead is to exempt all savings from taxation. A taxable consumption is calculated as income minus savings minus a large standard deduction.
what does Mitt pay in taxes relative to his consumption? How much does Mitt take out of the common store of goods and how much does he contribute in per cent terms?
Jim Rose
28 Jan 12 at 8:16 pm
So it suggests instead that he has participated, to his profit, in something immoral. Insinuation is the primary tool of the character hatchet-job.
wreckage
28 Jan 12 at 8:43 pm
Jim
A simple way to have a progressive consumption tax instead is to exempt all savings from taxation.
I’m missing something. How does a tax exemption for savings make for a progressive consumption tax?
sdfc
28 Jan 12 at 9:27 pm
That sentence is an entire economic debate in itself…
Rabz
28 Jan 12 at 10:00 pm
exempt all (earnings from) savings from taxation
i.e. Interest.
Rabz
28 Jan 12 at 10:01 pm
sdfc,
rawls also said that ‘taxable consumption is calculated as income minus savings minus a large standard deduction’.
a flat rate consumption tax with a standard deduction or tax-free consumption threshold is progressive because taxes paid rise with consumption. those with low to modest levels of consumption pay little or no tax.
Jim Rose
28 Jan 12 at 11:19 pm
LOL. Wes, millionaires are still considered rich.
m0nty
28 Jan 12 at 11:25 pm
Hey, I have a 500 billion dollar note, Mont. Does it make me rich?
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 11:41 pm
It does make you a wanker.
m0nty
29 Jan 12 at 12:07 am
Levels of consumption tend to be a function of income, and those with low to modest levels of income pay less income tax.
Therefore income and consumption taxes are a double whammy for high income earners.
And, to add insult to injury, grubments simply end up wasting/misallocating the taxes they thieve anyway.
The best way to stop being plugged by grubment is to minimise income tax, as one of the few real pleasures we have in life is being able to enjoy spending our money.
Individuals will always allocate their money more efficiently than grubments.
Rabz
29 Jan 12 at 12:10 am
I’m not disagreeing with what you’re proposing but a consumption or expenditure tax is not progressive. In fact it’s the opposite. It’s regressive.
JC
29 Jan 12 at 12:12 am
m0nty – please cease contributing to teh dullard’s climate of hate™, Squire!
Rabz
29 Jan 12 at 12:14 am
Alternatively, it makes you a Zimbabwean.
m0nty
29 Jan 12 at 12:19 am
Monster:
Stop irritating the shit out of people here, you fat headed child. Grow up.
JC
29 Jan 12 at 12:22 am
Yes.
First there’s AMT.
Then every state has its own tax code. Some counties do too. Most school distrits levy property taxes. There’s small sales taxes all oevr the place.
I understand that 89,000 different entities have the power to levy fees and taxes in the US.
It’s why statements like “Americans are overtaxed” or “Americans are undertaxed” are meaningless. Maybe California citizens are overtaxed and Wyoming citizens are undertaxed.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 1:31 am
or, Monty, it makes me someone a mate sent a Zim banknote to with a note attached saying that this was what a loaf of bread was worth in Harare as a result of Mugabe’s wondrous socialist society!
How interesting that your first response was as it was.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 9:18 am
“Today in the US you don’t really enter the upper middle (for a family of four) without a household income of more than 200 grand.”
Utter tosh. The median US household income is $49,445. $200,000 makes a household richer than 94% of the country. At what point does ‘upper middle’ just become ‘upper’?
Jarrah
29 Jan 12 at 10:16 am
Utter tosh. The median US household income is $49,445.
A lot depends on what state you’re in. The median income for a family of four in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey is over $100,000. BTW, I don’t see any state (save Puerto Rico) where the median income for a family of four is under $50,000. [US Census]
spot
29 Jan 12 at 11:23 am
Or, put it this way: A family of four on an income of 200 grand in Toad Suck, Arkansas is laughing. A family of four on the same income in Manhattan or San Fransisco, notsomuch.
spot
29 Jan 12 at 11:37 am
Seriously spot.. an income of $200,000 in Manhattan means you have to be seriously careful with your pennies.
Federal, state and city taxes amount to 50%, which leaves $100,000.
That kind of income means a family of four, would be living in a sub-standard apartment, the kids going to public school and no holidays except Grandma’s in the burbs.
You’d be paying $3,500 to $4,000 a month in rent unless the apartment was rent controlled.
JC
29 Jan 12 at 11:43 am
Spot, I’m not denying that some places have higher costs of living than others, so I suppose we have to establish what level of abstraction we want to consider. US-wide – which is what Wes started with – he’s way, way off, as I showed. In considering more expensive and richer areas, he added another $100,000 (making a total of $300,000) to be “upper middle”. Utter tosh, as I said.
“BTW, I don’t see any state (save Puerto Rico) where the median income for a family of four is under $50,000.”
I got my figures from here, reporting on a US Census Bureau report in September 2011.
“Seriously spot.. an income of $200,000 in Manhattan means you have to be seriously careful with your pennies.”
This just goes to show how much people can be influenced in their perceptions by their peer group. You were employed in the financial industry, were very rich, and hung out with other rich people. It’s no wonder you don’t know the actual median household income in Manhattan is roughly $63,800 (according to the US Census Bureau). Someone on more than three times this income is only going to be “watching their pennies” in the sense that consumption typically rises to meet one’s level of income.
Jarrah
29 Jan 12 at 7:38 pm
When do we have a referendum that allows each State of Australia to be sovereign?
Denis, formerly of Perth
29 Jan 12 at 10:21 pm