The richest 70 members of China’s legislature added more to their wealth last year than the combined net worth of all 535 members of the U.S. Congress, the president and his Cabinet, and the nine Supreme Court justices.The net worth of the 70 richest delegates in China’s National People’s Congress, which opens its annual session on March 5, rose to 565.8 billion yuan ($89.8 billion) in 2011, a gain of $11.5 billion from 2010, according to figures from the Hurun Report, which tracks the country’s wealthy. That compares to the $7.5 billion net worth of all 660 top officials in the three branches of the U.S. government.
The wealth gap between legislatures holds with statistically comparable samples. The richest 2 percent of the NPC — 60 people — had an average wealth of $1.44 billion per person. The richest 2 percent of Congress — 11 members — had an average wealth of $323 million.
The wealthiest member of the U.S. Congress is Representative Darrell Issa, the California Republican who had a maximum wealth of $700.9 million in 2010, according to the center. If he were in China’s NPC, he would be ranked 40th. Per capita income in China is about one-sixth the U.S. level when adjusted for differences in purchasing power.
I personally don't believe in the legitimacy of campaigns because it sounds like people say whatsoever to please the public rather than vocalizing what is relevant to their potential actions. If the "next generation" should not contribute in reducing the national debt, then who should? There has been too many times that the president doesn't follow what he promissed his citizens during the campaign.
Do you take these speeches seriously? What do you take out off the candidates' messages and what do you disregard? And What do you think about Romney's views?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/politics/congress-acts-to-extend-payroll-tax-cut-and-aid-to-jobless.html?ref=us
This is a new article talking about congress's decision to extend the payroll tax cuts that were so highly debated recently, and seems like it could become central to the presidential race. There is no doubt that by extending these tax cuts it promises to help out many citizens ( 160 million according to the article). But what I find interesting is that we are continuing to attempt to cut taxes, yet everyone still expects that the government to not only save the economy (and bail out businesses) but also to deal with its national debt. Do you think the government is prioritizing the US citizens through passing this bill as it should, or are they shying away from other issues? How do we deal with the public conception that the government should be able to save everything? And what kind of impact will this have upon the presidential race?
This is an interesting article that concludes by saying, "Therefore, as the US has one of the highest corporate income tax rates among OECD countries, and already has the most progressive income tax system of any industrialized nation, the TF concludes that 'the evidence strongly suggests that the key to boosting long-term economic growth in the US is to cut tax rates on corporate and (higher) individual income'." It is arguing against the use of payroll tax cuts, as it stimulates short term growth, but actually has no effect on long term growth. At the same time, high corporate income taxes and and high individual income taxes have a negative effect on long term growth. The author goes on to say that "Estimates suggest that cutting the corporate rate by 10% could be associated with an increase in total real gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 11.1% over the period. High individual income taxes...cutting the top rate by 10% is associated with an increase in total real GDP growth of 7.5% over the period." Do you think these numbers are accurate, or overstated? It kind of sounds like it is too good to be true for everyone involved - corporations, the federal government, and high income individuals. But who will this hurt?
Russian presidential candidate and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has announced that, if elected, his government would increase taxes on luxury items as part of a larger reform of the tax system to reduce the country's over-dependence on oil revenues and fund ballooning government expenditure.
Without elaborating on the measures at length, Putin said that new taxes should be imposed on "excessive personal consumption" such as purchases of superyachts, private aircraft, supercars and luxury real estate. Levies should also be increased on alcohol and tobacco, Putin said.
Putin underscored that his government would not seek to tax companies' reinvested profits as part of the plan, but did not clarify whether private aircraft used for business purposes would be subject to the levy.
Putin faces the challenge of reforming the nation's fiscal regime, to compensate for the massive increases in government expenditure witnessed in recent years. Russian coffers are highly dependent on revenues from the oil sector and taxes on employment, such as social security contributions. An incoming government in Russia faces the challenge of shifting the tax burden towards consumption to revenue sources that are simple to enforce and are not commonly subject to evasion.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
">