Massive Wave Of Resignations From Top Level Bankers.
Here are the recent resignations in chronological order:
February 6, 2012: Dhanlaxmi Bank CEO Amitabh Chaturvedi quits
February 10, 2012: Tamilnad Mercantile Bank MD resigns
February 13, 2012: Kuwait central bank chief resigns amid political tensions
February 14, 2012: Nicaragua’s Central Bank President Antenor Rosales quit admist row
February 15, 2012: Slovenia’s Two Biggest Banks’ CEOs Step Down
February 15, 2012: World Bank President Zoellick Resigns
February 16, 2012: CFO of ANZ Bank Resigns Amid Turmoil
February 16, 2012: Royal Bank of Scotland’s Stephen Williams quits the role
February 17, 2012: Credit Suisse’s Private Bank Chief Asian Economist Tan Resigns
That’s 9 resignations in eleven days, we have not included the other resignations from the likes of the head of the central bank in Switzerland a month ago, and the talk of the head of Goldman Sachs leaving. Why are the heads of very large financial instutitions resigning? Corporate governance experts would say that people resign to make room for new policies, but this is a peculiar situation of contagion amongst those with key exposure.
The first to see the flame usually leave the building first…maybe this is not the case, nonetheless, such events with obvious patterns should be taken note of.
And many, many more:
Super-PAC’s: Would You Like to See Who’s Buying Our 2012 Election?
The 2008 presidential election was the most expensive on record, with candidates, parties, and outside groups dropping $5.3 billion. This year’s contest promises to break that record, due in part to the new rules of political fundraising: Donors can pour unlimited cash into outside-spending groups that can freely boost or attack the candidates of their choice. Which means that wealthy donors who have maxed out on their gifts to candidates or just want a lot more bang for their political buck can write massive checks to any of the new super-PACs that are popping up as proxies for politicians and parties.
Throughout the year, we’ll be keeping tabs on these superdonors (many of them couples who double up or spread out their gifts). As primary season heats up, we’ve tallied the current top 20 political givers based on donation data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Here’s a quick look at how they’re giving, starting with their partisan tilt: 17 out of 20 are giving to Republican or conservative groups and candiates.
And half of the top 20 are major donors to the pro-Mitt Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future:
The full list (don’t worry, I’m sure your vote will have just as much influence on the results of the election and, subsequently, the policies that follow):
Source: Mother Jones
Unsurprisingly, the New York metropolitan area has the largest number of very high-income households. Nearly 12 percent of top-income households live in the New York region, compared to about 7 percent of all households. Second-place Los Angeles is home to about 5 percent of the very rich, compared to about 4 percent of all households.
There are 54 metropolitan areas whose share of very high-income households exceeds their share of all households. These include 18 of the 20 metropolitan areas with the most very high-income households, several others among the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas (including Hartford, Austin, Raleigh, Charlotte, New Haven, Poughkeepsie and Richmond), some smaller university towns (Trenton, which includes Princeton, plus Boulder, Ann Arbor, Santa Cruz, Charlottesville, Durham, Ithaca, and Iowa City), and some other small metropolitan areas (Naples, Florida; Midland, Texas; Sebastian, Florida; Napa, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Reno, Nevada; Barnstable Town, Massachusetts; Manchester, New Hampshire; Lafayette, Louisiana; Tyler, Texas and Rochester, Minnesota).Courtesy Brookings Institution
A drill-down to the zip code level shows that the zip code with the largest number of very rich households is 10023 on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, with 7,621 such households. That zip code, plus one other on the Upper West Side, one on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and the Washington suburb of Potomac, Maryland, each have about 0.2 percent of all the nation’s very high-income households.
Rounding out the 20 zip codes with the most very high-income households are several in Manhattan (on the Upper East and Upper West Sides, Midtown East, and Greenwich Village), the New York suburb of Scarsdale, Chicago’s Lincoln Park, Cupertino in Silicon Valley, the Houston suburb of Sugar Land, part of Houston’s west side, the Chicago suburb of Barrington, Princeton, a suburban area north of San Diego, and the Washington suburb of Bethesda, Maryland. Wall Street itself doesn’t make the list, since few people live there.
There are Occupy movements in nearly all the metropolitan areas where the top 3 percent are concentrated. All of the 20 metropolitan areas with the most top-income households have groups listed in the directory on the Occupy Together Web site. So do all but six of the 54 metropolitan areas where the very rich are disproportionately located. (The missing six are Bridgeport, Connecticut; Naples, Florida; Sebastian, Florida; Lafayette, Louisiana; Midland, Texas; and Tyler, Texas.)
Yet movements in support of Occupy Wall Street also exist in many places other than those where the very rich are concentrated, including such seemingly unlikely locales as Anderson, Indiana, and Texarkana, Texas. Geographically, their reach is greater than that of the very rich.
What ‘Percent’ Are You? The Numbers Behind the Tax Divide Debate
When it comes to dividing up our class structure, the middle is a good place to start — namely, the 60% of households wedged between the poorest 20% and the richest 20%. These families make between $20,001 and $100,065 a year, and were the group hardest hit by the recession: In 2008, their average income fell by 3.6%, thebiggest single-year dropin history. At the same time, they were also devastated by rising unemployment, mass foreclosures, soaring tuitions and frozen wages. By comparison, households below the 20% line often qualify for social welfare programs, were far less likely to own real estate, and were less affected by massive layoffs. In other words, they had less to lose, and ended up losing less.
On the other end of the spectrum, many of those above the 80% line were shielded from the harsher effects of economic downturns. And over the last 30 years, the top 20% have done quite well: Their share of all wages paid in the U.S. has gone from 50% to 60%. Everyone else has lost ground.
The 53% vs. the 47%
The dividing line between the 99% and the 1% is stark, but some argue there’s a better one: The boundary between those who pay income taxes and those who don’t. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 53% of households pay federal income tax; the rest either break even or get back more in refunds than they pay.
In fact, thesecond-to-lowest20% of the country — households making between $20,001 and $38,043 — get back about 0.4% more income tax than they pay; for families who make less than $20,000, it’s about 6.8%.
Some conservatives — notably on the Tumblr blogWe are the 53%— have taken these numbers to heart, arguing that this means the bottom 47% is getting a free ride. But the 53%/47% division is a bit misleading.
To begin with, almost all households pay state taxes, Medicare tax, Social Security tax, excise taxes, sales taxes, and a raft of other government fees. When this broader, and more accurate, assessment of taxation is used, the 47% doesn’t look to be getting off so easy: Thesecond poorest quintile— the ones that got 0.4% of their income tax back — still paid more 10% of their incomes in various federal taxes.
In fact, when everything is factored in, 86% of the country pays more than it gets back in federal taxes.As for the rest, it’s not the split you might expect: More than half (8% of Americans) are senior citizens receiving Social Security.
And that last 6% — the ones who really pay nothing to the federal government? They are unemployed, disabled, in school, or making very low incomes. But even this small group pays state and local taxes, sales taxes, and other government fees.
Where the Poor Pay More
When it comes to percentage of income, the line is even clearer: For some taxes, the bottom 20% of the Americans pay more than the top 20%. For example, a household on the bottom pays almost 54% more of its income into Social Security than a household on the top. The same goes for excise taxes — fees attached to certain commodities like gasoline and alcohol: As a percentage of income, the poorest 20% pays more than four times as much as the richest 20%.
My heart might literally break from depression if I read any more of these comments. People so don’t get it and I really don’t know how to communicate with such people. I would never dream of telling anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with their opinions, to go die, go to hell, or even such petty and immature name calling as libtards…why? I would say live and let live, who am I to attempt to educate them on my ethics or beliefs, but I cannot help but feel their ignorance and complacency adds to an overall societal problem that is hurting so many innocent people (themselves included). Of course, I suppose from their perspective, we are the ignorant and immature ones ruining their country. *sigh*
It truly is an affliction to care and think beyond yourself, isn’t it?
Fox News offers a suggestion for what to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.
Please tell me this is a joke!
UPDATE: It’s not!
Well isn’t it obvious who Fox supports and belongs to?
They don’t even try to pretend anymore.
being american poor isnt like being somalian poor
My personal favorite:
I honestly cannot believe Fox. It’s a giant joke being played on - and against - humanity.