Texas Debt

[Cr1028]

Thanks for breaking it down. My question is (if I'm understanding your breakdown correctly) if 49 million is principal adding to that state debt does this mean the state is acting as an "investor" by backing up the bond?? Does this mean we are paying back the state (like an investor of a bond) at roughly 6% interest rate hence the $46 million?

The University of North Texas System issues state debt for its own projects with approval from the Bond Review Board. The debt it issues is self-supporting. The debt on the stadium is issued by UNT on the state's behalf. The anticipated revenue from the new dedicated athletics fee is what is securing that debt. The athletics fee returns to the state and funds the bond. UNT is just an extension of the state, just as all state public universities and agencies are. Universities have to submit a budget request just like everyone else. The University collects the money, sends it to Austin and then it is appropriated and sent back to the university.

[glick1980]

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and go on down the road...case in point, glick1980.

You probably contribute to Social Security tax yes? Yet you have no problem wasting over 6% of the money you earn on something that you will never see. But you do have a problem with large multinational corporations and millionaires maintaining ridiculous tax breaks while your Social Security goes out the door. It is strange, I don't even contribute to Social Security Tax yet I am the only one in here that doesn't want to see all of you lose YOUR money while rich corporations and millionaires keep theirs. You sir are a total moron. Enjoy wasting your money while rich people and corporations benifit off your social security contributions. Luckily because I don't have to give my money away like you do, I will have a grand retirement while you will probably live off cat food. But don't worry there genius your precious rich people will be wiping their asses with your money.

[glick1980]

You are free to send a check to the Treasury. As for me, I pay enough damn taxes.

Wealthy people and corporations carry the rest of the country and you want to bleed them for even more?

What you really want is for others to give more while you contribute little to nothing.

Oh yeah your totally right, those rich people are being bled dry. Take this guy for instance... http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/case_opc.cfm

What in the hell would he do without that $76+ million dollars a year he is making? He sure as hell isn't passing it on to the consumer in the form of lower gas prices. You can make the case that this country carries wealthy people and corporations. There is no other country in the world where corporations and Wall Street Bankers tell the elected leaders what to do...

Edited August 2, 2011 by glick1980

[UNTFan23]

Oh yeah your totally right, those rich people are being bled dry. Take this guy for instance... http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/case_opc.cfm

What in the hell would he do without that $76+ million dollars a year he is making? He sure as hell isn't passing it on to the consumer in the form of lower gas prices. You can make the case that this country carries wealthy people and corporations. There is no other country in the world where corporations and Wall Street Bankers tell the elected leaders what to do...

Just for clarity sake, $40 million of the $76 million is in stock. So with that 40 million, you still get taxed the regular rate you pay for a regular salary plus whatever the rate is for capital gains you may have made if you happen to sell the stock. Typically with equity awards, you have to hold on to the stock for a period of time and then you have the option to sell your stock award.

Edited August 2, 2011 by UNTFan23

[glick1980]

Just for clarity sake, $40 million of the $76 million is in stock. So with that 40 million, you still get taxed the regular rate you pay for a regular salary plus whatever the rate is for capital gains you may have made if you happen to sell the stock. Typically with equity awards, you have to hold on to the stock for a period of time and then you have the option to sell your stock award.

Just the same if there was a capital loss on the sale of the stock that would reduce his tax liability. The point was that these corporations aren't being bled dry, it is quite the opposite actually. Small business are the ones needing tax breaks, not Fortune 500 companies.

[UNTFan23]

Just the same if there was a capital loss on the sale of the stock that would reduce his tax liability. The point was that these corporations aren't being bled dry, it is quite the opposite actually. Small business are the ones needing tax breaks, not Fortune 500 companies.

A good reason why corporations aren't spending cobs of cash is there is too much uncertainty within the business environment. A lot of that is due to the regulatory environment created by our federal government.

Raising taxes on businesses only encourages them to re-evaluate their budgets. One of the quickest things to get axed on a budget is payroll, which either means layoffs or pulling job openings. Most companies are pretty lean with their work force, so you'd likely see fewer job openings.

The company I work for finally got around to hiring someone to replace a guy that left our team something like 2 years ago. I was actually shocked we put in a job requisition to fill the hole as my team has just gotten used to having 1 less person to handle the workload.

[UNT90]

Oh yeah your totally right, those rich people are being bled dry. Take this guy for instance... http://www.aflcio.or...ch/case_opc.cfm

What in the hell would he do without that $76+ million dollars a year he is making? He sure as hell isn't passing it on to the consumer in the form of lower gas prices. You can make the case that this country carries wealthy people and corporations. There is no other country in the world where corporations and Wall Street Bankers tell the elected leaders what to do...

Your right, we should just get rid of corporations and wealthy people, seize their assets, and set maximum income levels. Really wouldn't solve anything, but it sure would make you feel better, right?

We could even change the country's name to something catchy, like the USSAR.

I know, it's been done.

[UNTflyer]

Oh yeah your totally right, those rich people are being bled dry. Take this guy for instance... http://www.aflcio.or...ch/case_opc.cfm

What in the hell would he do without that $76+ million dollars a year he is making? He sure as hell isn't passing it on to the consumer in the form of lower gas prices. You can make the case that this country carries wealthy people and corporations. There is no other country in the world where corporations and Wall Street Bankers tell the elected leaders what to do...

Are you really this naive, or is it an act?

[glick1980]

Are you really this naive, or is it an act?

You do know that Goldman Sach's has had a high level member of our treasury department for the last 20 years right? They also received 12.9 billion dollars in bailout money.

[glick1980]

Your right, we should just get rid of corporations and wealthy people, seize their assets, and set maximum income levels. Really wouldn't solve anything, but it sure would make you feel better, right?

We could even change the country's name to something catchy, like the USSAR.

I know, it's been done.

Nobody said get rid of anything. If the choice is getting rid of social security which YOU have paid into and medicare which YOU have paid into, or removing the tax breaks given to the wealthiest 1% of americans and corporations. I choose the to remove the tax breaks. I don't really understand why people are arguing this, or why they perfer big businesses and government keep their money. Would you really prefer forture 500 compaines get richier while your money goes to fund their tax breaks?

[DoubleEagle]

Nobody said get rid of anything. If the choice is getting rid of social security which YOU have paid into and medicare which YOU have paid into, or removing the tax breaks given to the wealthiest 1% of americans and corporations. I choose the to remove the tax breaks. I don't really understand why people are arguing this, or why they perfer big businesses and government keep their money. Would you really prefer forture 500 compaines get richier while your money goes to fund their tax breaks?

The wealthiest 1% of Americans paid 38% of all federal income taxes in 2008 (latest data available) and their effective tax rate of 23.3% was the highest of any income group. At the same time, their share of AGI was 20.0%.

You obviously think they aren't paying enough, so I ask you...how much should they pay? If we all paid our "fair share" shouldn't they pay 20% of the total liability?

Also, for the record, corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Any tax liability assumed by a corporation is simply passed onto the consumer (higher prices) or labor (lower wages).

[glick1980]

The wealthiest 1% of Americans paid 38% of all federal income taxes in 2008 (latest data available) and their effective tax rate of 23.3% was the highest of any income group. At the same time, their share of AGI was 20.0%.

You obviously think they aren't paying enough, so I ask you...how much should they pay? If we all paid our "fair share" shouldn't they pay 20% of the total liability?

Also, for the record, corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. Any tax liability assumed by a corporation is simply passed onto the consumer (higher prices) or labor (lower wages).

Corporate profits have risen by over 30% since 2008, while wages for workers has risen 0%. Whether you like it or not, these corporations control the country and politicians help them increase profits while keeping wages down.

[Army of Dad]

glick almost makes me miss McCarthy.

[TheTastyGreek]

glick almost makes me miss McCarthy.

Fine work on Singled Out, but less captivating on the big screen and definitely has some weird thoughts on autism.

[MeanGreenTexan]

[Quoner]

glick almost makes me miss McCarthy.

I still can't believe we gave up Danks for him. JD suckz.

[UNT90]

Nobody said get rid of anything. If the choice is getting rid of social security which YOU have paid into and medicare which YOU have paid into, or removing the tax breaks given to the wealthiest 1% of americans and corporations. I choose the to remove the tax breaks. I don't really understand why people are arguing this, or why they perfer big businesses and government keep their money. Would you really prefer forture 500 compaines get richier while your money goes to fund their tax breaks?

I prefer an economy where there are jobs. Do it your way, also known as the Spanish way, and unemployment would be at 20%. You will never see social security payments. It ain't gonna happen. Biggest ponsi scheme ever. But you just keep paying away, demanding no accountability for money you will never see again (assuming you are 40 or under).

That whole distrust of government thing must have gone right past you in American History, or do they even still teach that?

[yyz28]

The thing I would most like to see is it made illegal for political candidates to accept donations from businesses. I think when government officials are allowed to accept campaign funds from businesses, they have to cater to their interests rather that those of the general population.

Yup... that first amendment sure is a bitch, ain't it?

There is some economics 101 stuff being missed. Double Eagle mentioned them here, and I have in about 50 threads over the years here, but they are worth repeating -

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CORPORATE TAXES - If you raise taxes on corporations, workers or consumers or both end up taking up the slack. The investors or the evil "wealthy corporations and rich investors" aren't going to be the ones absorbing these tax cuts. You (and other fellow average Americans) will be when you don't get that raise, or the cost of a company subsidized benefit goes up, or you get laid off. YOU and other Average Americans take it in the shorts as prices for necessities and consumer goods go up so that profit margins can be maintained. So when you increase corporate tax rates and/or close tax loopholes that businesses take advantage of, you are in effect raising taxes on the working class and the consumer.

THE UPPER 1% OF TAX PAYERS EARN 20% OF THE INCOME and PAY 38% OF THE TAXES. So again, I ask you and anyone who buys into this "end the tax cuts for the rich" class warfare stuff, "HOW MUCH IS FAIR? WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?" If the upper 1% is covering 38% of the tax burden for all of us, and that isn't enough, how much SHOULD they be kicking in? I'm not looking for more words, more class warfare, more why these people suck (all of which is completely irrelevant) I'm looking for a number.

SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE! - Social Security is not in the condition it is now because the Rich have had all this money, or because we're not taxing enough, or because the Estate Tax has too large a exemption - it is broke because generation after generation of politician of all stripes and from all parties, have taken the money paid into Social Security, and against the rules of the original legislation, have placed the money in the general treasury and spent it, instead of saving it as an investment as was promised the American People. These politicians were aided in this crime (which is exactly what it is, and any private citizen or investment house that did this would be shut down and their executives would be behind bars) by the Supreme Court who sided with the Government when this was challenged back in the 40's and again in the 50's. No amount of additional revenue can fix this or any other entitlement program. The only way to deal with these systemic problems is to reform, from the foundation up, how they are funded and paid, and then for future congresses to have their hands tied on these structures so that they may not STEAL the money again.

Glick, I admire your passion and respect your opinion. That being said, some of the things you said to Kram, including some pretty personal shots at his smarts, really shows a lack of class. We can all disagree, but calling names and treating someone who doesn't agree with you like they are stupid doesn't do much for your credibility, IMHO. ...but that's just me.

Good thread.