A couple points. First, Newt backed off his attack on capitalism because it was hurting him. IOW, this is a bad line of attack on Romney. Second, most employees don't want the risk of being owners (equities). They generally want to be paid a return on their labor (that's what they are selling) no matter how the business does.
Finally, it sure looks like a lot of envy that some guy has done well, been smart with his money and now when he makes a good return the complaint is he doesn't pay enough. This is a Rat line of attack. We should be rejoicing that we have been so blessed to live in a country where the opportunity exists to become incredibly successful. For all of you who want to attack Romney on the money side think about the other side of this sword.
Newt made an incredible amount of money because he had influence at the highest levels of power in our govt. Was Newt wrong to use his greatest assets to make money after he left govt employment? I don't think so. Should we attack Newt because he made a lot of money and "should have paid more" in taxes? I don't think so.
I did not say that Newt or I should have paid “more” in taxes. I said that anything given to an employee is the 1st tier income and all first tier income should be taxed at the same rate.
The value of the stock given should be totaled on the day it is given, and that is the first tier income.
If they give a 1000 shares at 60 bucks, then you just received 60,000 dollars and should pay “income tax” on that 60,000.
If that 60 grand happens to bring 10% that year, then the 2d tier tax of 15% should apply to that 6000 bucks.
That’s what I said.
I’ve read at times of CEOs who receive a million shares of common stock (or preferred). That is 1st tier income.