zen- yes, the middle class tax rate is high in comparison to what the rich pay. If we all paid our fair share (like it used to be till Bush cut the corporate tax rate, dividends, estate tax) it would be a much fairer playing field, among other things.
Displaced - yup... this stuff is nothing new - the 'new world' was all about getting rich. The bs idea that 'we' came to the new world to be 'free' of persecution is such a load of crap.
There is no equality, the rich should pay same tax % as the middle class
So are you arguing for a flat tax? I highly doubt that. Under the progressive tax structure in the US the rich do pay more taxes than the middle class - as a percentage of income. Currently the top tax bracket is 35%. You pay 35% of your income regardless if it's $400k or $4 million. Meanwhile the lowest braket is 10%. So the rich pay a higher % of their income to taxes than the middle class.
The difference is that wealth is not taxed the same way. So, as a percentage of total assets the rich pay relatively low taxes.
Yes, a flat tax wouldn't make it better... however, the rich do NOT pay the same tax rate as the middle class. They USED to, but with tax loopholes, paying less in dividends, etc., the wealthy no longer pay their 'fair' share. 35% may be the starting point, but once the accountant works out what to deduct, etc., the wealthy pay about 15% average, or else, your taxman sucks! The rich never pay the 35%. That's the name of the game!
I just heard from our contractor they laid off a couple of their staff today, engineers mostly (not architects yes, but affiliated with our industry)...I don't know if it's an accurate representation though as the company is undergoing acquisition by a bigger company and selling out their contract.
The Rich folks don’t pay the 35% because there are lots of loopholes and deductions that they take advantage of. If there were a progressive tax with no deductions we would probably be better off in the long run as a nation. The other thing is those tax deductions have helped our industry in short unstable growth spurts such as the housing bubble fueled by cheap loans and deductions for your mortgage. Some people would forego a home with a mortgage is there were no means to use it to shelter your income from the tax man. Most of the time the people whom the tax credits and deductions benefit the most are the ones with 6-7 figures in their income and are the ones likely to need our services. We as a profession have not done a good job providing valuable services to the middle class and have allowed builders and other characters, for better or worse, take up that huge market over the last few years.
Has anyone here designed a home that was at or under the mean home value for you region? Thrifty and Architect rarely appear in the same sentence.
PJN26, you are wrong. About 30% of the US pays no taxes, but it is the low income people who do not pay taxes. I flat tax would hurt that 305, as they currently pay no taxes whatsoever. There are very few loopholes and deductions for the rich. If you make a high income, you are not eligible for nearly every tax deduction: they phase out to zero for people who make over several hundred thousand. I have had this discussion many times with my accountant, and yes, the majority of his high end clients pay PLENTY of taxes unless they have some kind of huge legitimate business loss.
Archie, where do you get that the wealthy have almost no tax loopholes? What do you think the low tax on dividends are? Estate tax exemptions (recall the guy who died with 9 billion bucks and paid nothing in taxes?). Not to mention that most wealthy put their money into trusts or corporate umbrellas, which are LOADED with tax breaks.
What do you think the low tax on dividends are? Estate tax exemptions
roobqt, as I mentioned above, the gov't taxes wealth differently than income.
That said, starting in 2011, dividends are going to be taxed as ordinary income. Oh, and those top marginal tax brackets are going up as well. So the rich will be paying 40% tax on those dividends. Feel better?
Estate taxes are a different story all together. Some guy works his whole life building up a nest egg paying his income taxes annually. Why should the gov't get a second bite just because he dies?
roobqt, you have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, it is better to be rich and pay lots of taxes than to be poor and not have to pay any, but believe me, the rich pay plenty, probably more than your income.
All of the money in an estate HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED once. Estate taxes are just taxing that same money again when the person dies and someone else inherits it. The guy who died paid money on that cash when he first got it. AND HE IS DEAD!
Lower tax rates on dividends are done to encourage investments. The poor and middle class get the same advantage. All earned money is still taxed at the higher 37% rate, including money earned from a company. Once you have made the money, PAID THE TAX ON IT, and invested it, then the double tax on the interest and dividends is at a lower rate.
You put your money into a trust AFTER YOU HAVE PAID TAXES ON IT!
Corporate umbrellas!! You make me laugh. Corporations mean you pay taxes twice, once as the corporation, and then again as the shareholders of the corporation. Every heard people whine about the double taxation of corporations?? it is why people do LP's .
aquanet - I believe we're all talking about the 'rich' - who are 'wealthy' - not on 'wealth' alone. If wealth were looked at alone, yes, there are few 'loopholes,' but that's not what happens, now does it?
Dividends will RETURN to their former taxed levels in 2011, before the Bush era. And, again, tax brackets are RETURNING to their former selves pre-Bush. I do feel better. I think that ALL of us were doing pretty well in the 90's when these levels existed. The rich were getting richer, but so was everyone else.
The point, which I think you missed, is that the rich are getting richer even MORE, while the rest of us are doing worse. You think I'm making this up? Wages stagnated for the entire decade, while cost of living went up. Recall that wage earners are YOU AND ME.
You think that these tax breaks for the rich are for you as well? - I got news for ya, unless you are a mult-millionare, you are NOT getting any of the breaks the wealthy get. Also, your little story of the 'guy' who builds his 'nestegg' to be taxed when he dies? This applies again to the multi-millioniars who transfer their wealth to their offspring, who then live off the money via dividends - yes, and only paying 15% on it (till 2011).
You should learn a little about history, and stop listening to Libertarian rhetoric.
The rich are getting richer because they have spare cash to invest (which by the way, HELPS the economy, and make it possible to do things like hire architects to design new buildings....)
The poor do not get richer because by necessity, they spend all that they make. It is impossible to build wealth by spending as much or more than you make. Pretty much anyone over poverty level can save money, and can build wealth, even if at a slow pace.
And why shouldn't a multimillionaire be able to leave money to his kids? He earned it, paid taxes on it, saved it, invested it wisely.... Why shouldn't his kids benefit if that is what he wants? Could it be that the thought of someone 'getting money for nothing' just eats at you? If your parents had a couple of million socked away, would you be pleased as punch to give half of it back to the government when they passed?
It is a double edge sword, for our industry tax the rich and build public works like schools and fire stations or let them hold on to their money and hope they will spend it on a new weekend house or condo renovation or other non for profit cause like a museum or opera house. A lot of the architectural innovations of the late 20th century are the result of wealthy clientele risking huge amounts of money on new ideas in design. We also have New deal projects in almost every town or city that was established during the 30s so what will it be public or private projects?
The big challenge we as a profession face in this era of declining home values is how to be thriftier and more sustainable in what we do. A home can cost less than the neighbors and still have comparable amenities and space. Thrifty private sector and safe modest public works are the realities we need to face right now, all other work will remain scarce until real-estate prices start to climb again.
The other thing we should look to for future work now and 5-10 years from now is improving the energy efficiency of existing building stock. Now more than ever rentals and buyers look at energy performance just as much as any other factor and a lot of small things can be done to homes, businesses, and other structures to make them energy efficient.
Has anyone done any energy efficiency upgrades lately?
We just did $6 million of energy upgrades on a housing development (public) including geothermal heat and cooling, all new energy star appliances, energy star roofing, new windows and doors, LED street lighting, low water flow fixtures, etc.
Government funded, from taxing the rich.
PJN26, keep in mind that the rich also invest in the stock market and as angel investors which allows private commercial ventures to grow and expand- they don't just fund vacation homes. The savings sitting in banks allow banks to lend to small businesses to expand.
Thom Yorke- I heard this Wed. on the news...very depressing indeed.
I wonder if I could sell my Architecture degree to some idiot that is thinking about going to architecture school. I suppose I would have to sell my identity as well. Hmmm...I suppose I could just give it away and that would release all of my debt as well. Perfect!
Ad will read: "Thinking of going to Architecture school? Look no further. I will allow you to assume my identity with a B.Arch degree, 700+ hours logged on NCARB IDP, and LEED A.P. All you have to do is take on my student loan debt. Save yourself 5 years of mind-numbing desk crits. After all any architecture school graduate will tell you everything they teach you in school, for all intents and purposes, is worthless the day you get your first job in an office."
"Discriminate" is such an ugly word and ugly concept. What the article really says is "The unemployed stay unemployed because there's no fit." This statement addresses the important relationship between job requirements and candidate skills.
Employers always want to fill vacant positions with the most qualified and experienced candidates available, regardless of economic conditions. That's hardly "discrimination".
"They don't have the skills to switch industries. [In regards to those who have been out of work for a long time will find it more difficult to land a new job, particularly if they are in sectors that will likely remain depressed, such as manufacturing and construction.]"
Employers always want to fill vacant positions with the most qualified and experienced candidates available, regardless of economic conditions.
Most employers have crappily run businesses with awful business models. The reality is most businesses don't even deserve "best" or "better" employees. This whole business mantra of "my shit don't stink" has really driven a lot of businesses to bankruptcy over the last decade.
I know this article didn't say it directly, but I have seen others recently that indicated that employers are finding people with extended periods of unemployment undesirable. If they have the choice between hiring someone who is already employed vs. hiring someone currently unemployed, they will likely hire the already employed person.
The reasoning is that unemployed persons have now lost some level of skill, and at the very least have become unfamiliar with office life/protocol. Their transition back into the workplace will likely be awkward. Additionally the unemployed person NEEDS the job where the already employed person doesn't need the job- they are applying to further their career, which looks more attractive to the employer. There have been studies that show that periods of unemployment just don't reflect well on interviews and resumes. The easiest way to avoid it is to establish a business name for yourself and indicate that you have been working as a consultant, independent contractor, etc. It's not great but it's something to fill the gap.
I also don't exactly agree with the "employers always want to fill vacant positions with the most qualified and experienced candidates available, regardless of economic conditions" statement. Although that is true, it's not the absolute truth. Many employers now seem to be prefacing that statement with "the cheapest applicant who is the most qualified..." Or if you live in New Mexico "the most ethnic applicant who is the most qualified."
the rich is not an individual issue- it is the "rich" as a collective that is the issue.
btw- all of us lowly "workers" also help to fund the gambling of Wall Street with our life savings in our 401k's.
and don't forget the rich have sweep accounts, as do the banks, and "sweep" money every night into investments to "hedge", overnight in foreign markets and ventures. investments- or gambling as it should be called- happens 24/7, not just when the markets are "open" on this side of the ocean. this is advantageous because they can now multiply their wealth, literally overnight, while they're sleeping. this is not something the average investor can do. it is an advantage of the wealthy. i worked for a bank for almost five years. the branch is not there to help you, they're there to sell you- on ira's, investments, or shoot, just to collect fees. then invest your money to make more money- not for you. they get paid to make more money for the bank- and the primary way to do so is by betting against their customers.
and as far as business owners go... there are so many benefits it's not even funny. especially when you own more than one business. my father owns 5- for a reason (and smart enough to not be an architect).
on an ARCHITECTURE LAYOFF note- the one thing every firm I've interviewed post-economic eruption has said the same- they were all very conservative during the "boom" years. both with money and with new hiring. this is completely opposite from the firm i worked for. some of the firms that are hiring now - and check to be sure- are doing so because they did NOT use lines of credit to stave off the economy. they did not hire extra people they could not support for the long run. they ran conservatively then, and still do so now. so they CAN afford to hire now, not just to give a "lowly" person like me a job, but because they actually have work and want to hire for the long run. that's admirable IMO- irregardless of the "type" of design work.
I think the unemployment benefits extension won’t come about because all the unemployed will show up to be counted and receive some form of compensation. Dems and republicans both want the numbers of unemployed to appear to be on a downward trend leading up to the election. A better economic indicator is the rise in food stamps and housing assistance.
Yes combined rich pay more tax then the whole middle and poor class, but its not fair. By taxing middle class 30% its discrimination against that class, this tax will always keep middle class in the middle. While rich earn millions and pay only 11% they will always be rich.
I just don't see any justice until we are will pay equal percent on our earned incomes!
"As thousands of anti-tax protesters rallied across the nation yesterday (April 2009) and the president promised tax cuts for most, new data showed that the federal income tax burden is already hovering near its lowest level in three decades for all but the wealthiest Americans.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average family forked over barely 9 percent of its earnings to the IRS in 2006, the most recent year for which information is available. The effective tax rate hit its all-time low in 2003 and has since crept up only slightly.
Middle-class families -- to whom President Obama has delivered even more tax relief since he took office in January -- have fared especially well, according to the CBO. The middle fifth of taxpayers, who earned an average of $60,700 per household in 2006, paid just 3 percent in federal income tax that year, down from a high of 8.3 percent in 1981. "
Archie - not sure where the NTU got their numbers - but the IRS, and Wikipedia show that tax rates for incomes over the $410,096 mark was max. 35%. This was the RATE - not what was actually paid -
Please note on the Wiki site the table which shows a comparison of the "ordinary income (tax) rate, to Long and short term capital gain rate (dividends), gains on real estate, collectibles, and business stock. This table starts to show the real picture... and what I was arguing about earlier in this thread - the wealthy may have a higher tax rate, but their taxed LESS on what they truly 'earn' because usually the income is in the form of these listed catagories, and not ordinary income tax. I had noted that currently, capital gains tax is at a 15% rate. That number was higher till the Bush administration cut it to the current amount.
The Obama administration is trying to restore the previous rate - that rate was in effect during the 90's - and, some of you may recall, the mid-latter part of that decade was pretty prosperous.
As well, I think what Zen and others are saying here is that the tax burden is leveraged more on the middle class than the multi-national corporations and elites, as a ratio, and that the playing field needs a little more leveling.
yes, that is correct, the rate maximum is 35% on the wealthy. And that 35% of the wealthy wages plus 15% of the wealthy capital gains still equals 40.2% of ALL TAXES PAID. My point is that 1% of the people are paying the burden of 40% of the population, while the lower 50%of the population pays virtually nothing. That does not seem fair to me.
Why does it matter to you if they paid 35% on what they actually got working and less on what they got as a return on their investments? They still are paying 40% of the US taxes.
The wealthy should pay less on investment income, just as you should. They already paid tax when they earned the original money they invested. Now they are investing back in the economy, just like to middle class does in their 401K's. Would people really risk their savings to invest in stocks and start up companies if they knew that even if they were successful, 35% of it would go to taxes? I think you would see a lot less risk (and investment) made.
This was in the wiki article you linked to:
Some argue that the current income tax system, which is the government's largest revenue source, is too progressive and redistributive.[35] In 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid over half of the federal income tax revenue.[36] Forty seven percent of Americans pay no federal income tax,[38][36] which raises moral concerns regarding wealth redistribution and the economics for controlling the size and spending of government. Note, though, that this percentage does include some people without job income (e.g. children, retirees) along with the low-income workers to whom this moral hazard applies[35].
uhm... Archie - it's not 35% AND 15% - it's the source of income of the weatlhy person - if they have ordinary income - that is 35%, dividends are 15% - the total depending on how much income came from what source.
Where do you get the 1% paying 40% of all revenue? I must argue your assumption that 50% pay almost nothing!
It matters that investments and dividends be taxed more fairly because that is the majority of where the income the wealthy comes from. The more money you have, the more goes into these investments, the less tax they pay - however, at the same time, the wealthy use the same infastructure, services, etc., as the rest of us who pay per capita more in taxes because we don't have as much (or at all) money put into dividend producing, lower taxed income.
Your putting yourself and I in the same class as the wealthy saying that the wealthy should pay less in investment income. The middle and lower classes have an almost impossible ability to earn enough money to invest to begin enjoying the tax breaks these investments provide. This is where the imbalance comes in.
Face it, seed ... most of the radical complainers here wish desparately they were part of the "privileged elite" and are pissed off because they aren't.
After a small and short flurry of activity in the early part of the year, we are watching as every lead, job or talk of jobs literally evaporates into thin air. It appears the second leg down is starting.
file - thank you so much for your opinion in what the 'radical' complainers are wishing for. My 'desparate' wish is that the playing field be leveled; that multi-national corporations, banks, and elite, are prevented from fleecing the masses. I know that's a pipe dream, and thus, radical, but I wish it nonetheless.
I suppose you are perfectly fine with how things are - "buckup, pull yourself up from your boot straps, get on with it!" Is that right? Just because things are the way they are, doesn't make them right. I guess the alternative to 'complaining' is to just shut up.
Oh, when you say 'they' do you exclude yourself? You must be one of the 'privleged' then. Good for you. Hey, why not take some of those dividends you earned last year and invest in a new building or remodel? We sure could use some of that money you're hording to invest back into the system, put some of us to work, eh? Heaven knows that's not what the banks are doing. But, there I go again, radically complaining again....
on an ARCHITECTURE LAYOFF note- the one thing every firm I've interviewed post-economic eruption has said the same- they were all very conservative during the "boom" years. both with money and with new hiring.
One thing that concerned me greatly back in 2006-07 and even into 2008 was the level of hiring. There seemed to be want ads posted indefinately for staff Architects all over the place, even at times when work was steady, not increasing. Good times don't last forever and why should any company hire staff in anticipation of better times ahead.
A thought on places we might go to look for work in the next few months.
1 retail, up and coming chains that have to stay at the front of the latest wave of design trends. Chains like: Banana Republic, Urban Outfitters, Pottery Barn, H&M, American Apparel (which finished a huge Chicago expansion last year) and Walgreens (soon to be as frequent as Starbucks).
2 Restaurants and bars that are a national chain: MacDonald’s (think of all the Mc Café renovations planned in the next year), Old Chicago, Cold Stone Creamery, and Flat Top grille.
3 hotels and casinos look to Indian reservations
So just a thought, these competitive service sector businesses are growing and or are making significant changes in their brand thus renovations and new stores are a given. If these businesses stop improving they will lose market share remember K mart and Arby’s chains that have fallen from their all time high some time ago.
So I am done with the census for now, sigh. It was a good run April 12th through August 1 and a few weeks of full time work. The skills I learned doing the door to door that might help me in the future are primarily selling people on an idea while avoiding unnecessary jargon, a lot of folks did not want to or did not even know about the reason they should participate in the Census, It also reaffirmed my belief in believing but verifying what people say, not for any nefarious reasons but people are forgetful or lazy and have other things than filling out the census on their agenda.
If you were hiring a candidate who was out of the architecture profession for two to three years what experiences would you look for Retail, Some kind of labor in manufacturing, education, restaurant or hotel service?
Also anyone heading back to school this fall?
I think I am going to go back next fall if there is no recovery for a degree in urban planning, the higher the degree earned the easier it is to emigrate to countries with a more stable economy.
Marketplace from American Public media had an interesting story on their Wednesday show on how job seekers used adds to direct people to their online résumé. These people targeted Google ads for the firms and or principals that they want to work for. Since most people in high powered positions also have a bit of an ego they probably check in and see what the world is thinking of them. The example in the story was an advertising job seeker. The total cost of the Google ads that got him a job $6.00
Next month will be the two year aniversary of this thread. At this point, I don't see pre-recession levels of employment in this profession coming back.
Ever.
And given the significant realignments in incomes for Architects, I am very frightened for recent and upcoming graduates.
if you want a small spike of optimism in your coffee (I always like to take the bad news with the good news). private sector growth is not as bad as the unemployment numbers indicate. some economists say this is the beginning a growth period, but expect it to be modest.
and i've held this all along, real estate was the first to go during crash, but it's always the first to come back after a recession. it's what people always invest in first....but yeah, it still sucks out there.
dot- i was in international commercial architecture before the bust. one thing our vp always stressed was that during a recession commercial real estate is the first to go up and the last to come back- because people get more focused on improving what they already have (small renos not big mixed-use or commercial projects). on the flip side of that, my "recession" job was at a small firm doing ALL retail commercial arch and they are VERY busy. so maybe my old vp was just a moron (i wouldn't be surprised), or maybe he's right- because my recession position is all suburban low-end (i say low-end in terms of types of retail- ie. stuff that will never go in my portfolio- chain retail). but none of the high end stuff (the 5-6 star resort hospitality work) has really come back.
HOWEVER--- a lot of developers are in the planning stages of new projects. this limbo can last as long as the recession, because they can afford the fees for planning and just keep jerking you around (which is fine as long as they pay) and not build until there's a recovery. ironically in terms of an investment strategy this is the exact opposite of what you would want to do... you want to build when rates are low and materials are cheap and have it already up and running once the economy recovers.
but i hope you're right... and i hope there's other developers and owners out there who see the Warren Buffet approach and get off the sidelines...
"ironically in terms of an investment strategy this is the exact opposite of what you would want to do... you want to build when rates are low and materials are cheap and have it already up and running once the economy recovers.
but i hope you're right... and i hope there's other developers and owners out there who see the Warren Buffet approach and get off the sidelines..."
I think many developers out there would love to jump on the deflated real estate market, with all the deals out there right now. The problem is that they cant get any credit toward the multimillion dollar purchases that they seek to acquire or fund new construction with, because of the fucking banks who would rather borrow money to themselves instead of borrowing any capital to savvy developers or real estate investors...
^ that is very true. I've seen a lot of projects go bust pretty quick when they find out the banks will give them maybe 30% of what they need for construction, and that is probably on the high end. I don't think too many developers or even individuals looking for remodels or commercial TI's are going to be willing (or able) to front 70%, 80%, 90% of the costs out of pocket.
My friend is a 3d renderer and he got a full time job recently, he says that if renderers are starting to get jobs then things are getting better. Because renderers were the first to let go when the economy crashed.
Layoffs....layoffs......
zen- yes, the middle class tax rate is high in comparison to what the rich pay. If we all paid our fair share (like it used to be till Bush cut the corporate tax rate, dividends, estate tax) it would be a much fairer playing field, among other things.
Displaced - yup... this stuff is nothing new - the 'new world' was all about getting rich. The bs idea that 'we' came to the new world to be 'free' of persecution is such a load of crap.
When will we evolve? lol
So are you arguing for a flat tax? I highly doubt that. Under the progressive tax structure in the US the rich do pay more taxes than the middle class - as a percentage of income. Currently the top tax bracket is 35%. You pay 35% of your income regardless if it's $400k or $4 million. Meanwhile the lowest braket is 10%. So the rich pay a higher % of their income to taxes than the middle class.
The difference is that wealth is not taxed the same way. So, as a percentage of total assets the rich pay relatively low taxes.
Yes, a flat tax wouldn't make it better... however, the rich do NOT pay the same tax rate as the middle class. They USED to, but with tax loopholes, paying less in dividends, etc., the wealthy no longer pay their 'fair' share. 35% may be the starting point, but once the accountant works out what to deduct, etc., the wealthy pay about 15% average, or else, your taxman sucks! The rich never pay the 35%. That's the name of the game!
I just heard from our contractor they laid off a couple of their staff today, engineers mostly (not architects yes, but affiliated with our industry)...I don't know if it's an accurate representation though as the company is undergoing acquisition by a bigger company and selling out their contract.
Which part of the country did the layoffs occur?
The contractor is based in New Jersey and the contract is with the NYC government.
The Rich folks don’t pay the 35% because there are lots of loopholes and deductions that they take advantage of. If there were a progressive tax with no deductions we would probably be better off in the long run as a nation. The other thing is those tax deductions have helped our industry in short unstable growth spurts such as the housing bubble fueled by cheap loans and deductions for your mortgage. Some people would forego a home with a mortgage is there were no means to use it to shelter your income from the tax man. Most of the time the people whom the tax credits and deductions benefit the most are the ones with 6-7 figures in their income and are the ones likely to need our services. We as a profession have not done a good job providing valuable services to the middle class and have allowed builders and other characters, for better or worse, take up that huge market over the last few years.
Has anyone here designed a home that was at or under the mean home value for you region? Thrifty and Architect rarely appear in the same sentence.
PJN26, you are wrong. About 30% of the US pays no taxes, but it is the low income people who do not pay taxes. I flat tax would hurt that 305, as they currently pay no taxes whatsoever. There are very few loopholes and deductions for the rich. If you make a high income, you are not eligible for nearly every tax deduction: they phase out to zero for people who make over several hundred thousand. I have had this discussion many times with my accountant, and yes, the majority of his high end clients pay PLENTY of taxes unless they have some kind of huge legitimate business loss.
Not to stray from the current convo, but unfortunately it looks like we may need to further brace ourselves..
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66033M20100701
Archie, where do you get that the wealthy have almost no tax loopholes? What do you think the low tax on dividends are? Estate tax exemptions (recall the guy who died with 9 billion bucks and paid nothing in taxes?). Not to mention that most wealthy put their money into trusts or corporate umbrellas, which are LOADED with tax breaks.
roobqt, as I mentioned above, the gov't taxes wealth differently than income.
That said, starting in 2011, dividends are going to be taxed as ordinary income. Oh, and those top marginal tax brackets are going up as well. So the rich will be paying 40% tax on those dividends. Feel better?
Estate taxes are a different story all together. Some guy works his whole life building up a nest egg paying his income taxes annually. Why should the gov't get a second bite just because he dies?
roobqt, you have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, it is better to be rich and pay lots of taxes than to be poor and not have to pay any, but believe me, the rich pay plenty, probably more than your income.
All of the money in an estate HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED once. Estate taxes are just taxing that same money again when the person dies and someone else inherits it. The guy who died paid money on that cash when he first got it. AND HE IS DEAD!
Lower tax rates on dividends are done to encourage investments. The poor and middle class get the same advantage. All earned money is still taxed at the higher 37% rate, including money earned from a company. Once you have made the money, PAID THE TAX ON IT, and invested it, then the double tax on the interest and dividends is at a lower rate.
You put your money into a trust AFTER YOU HAVE PAID TAXES ON IT!
Corporate umbrellas!! You make me laugh. Corporations mean you pay taxes twice, once as the corporation, and then again as the shareholders of the corporation. Every heard people whine about the double taxation of corporations?? it is why people do LP's .
aquanet - I believe we're all talking about the 'rich' - who are 'wealthy' - not on 'wealth' alone. If wealth were looked at alone, yes, there are few 'loopholes,' but that's not what happens, now does it?
Dividends will RETURN to their former taxed levels in 2011, before the Bush era. And, again, tax brackets are RETURNING to their former selves pre-Bush. I do feel better. I think that ALL of us were doing pretty well in the 90's when these levels existed. The rich were getting richer, but so was everyone else.
The point, which I think you missed, is that the rich are getting richer even MORE, while the rest of us are doing worse. You think I'm making this up? Wages stagnated for the entire decade, while cost of living went up. Recall that wage earners are YOU AND ME.
You think that these tax breaks for the rich are for you as well? - I got news for ya, unless you are a mult-millionare, you are NOT getting any of the breaks the wealthy get. Also, your little story of the 'guy' who builds his 'nestegg' to be taxed when he dies? This applies again to the multi-millioniars who transfer their wealth to their offspring, who then live off the money via dividends - yes, and only paying 15% on it (till 2011).
You should learn a little about history, and stop listening to Libertarian rhetoric.
The rich are getting richer because they have spare cash to invest (which by the way, HELPS the economy, and make it possible to do things like hire architects to design new buildings....)
The poor do not get richer because by necessity, they spend all that they make. It is impossible to build wealth by spending as much or more than you make. Pretty much anyone over poverty level can save money, and can build wealth, even if at a slow pace.
And why shouldn't a multimillionaire be able to leave money to his kids? He earned it, paid taxes on it, saved it, invested it wisely.... Why shouldn't his kids benefit if that is what he wants? Could it be that the thought of someone 'getting money for nothing' just eats at you? If your parents had a couple of million socked away, would you be pleased as punch to give half of it back to the government when they passed?
It is a double edge sword, for our industry tax the rich and build public works like schools and fire stations or let them hold on to their money and hope they will spend it on a new weekend house or condo renovation or other non for profit cause like a museum or opera house. A lot of the architectural innovations of the late 20th century are the result of wealthy clientele risking huge amounts of money on new ideas in design. We also have New deal projects in almost every town or city that was established during the 30s so what will it be public or private projects?
The big challenge we as a profession face in this era of declining home values is how to be thriftier and more sustainable in what we do. A home can cost less than the neighbors and still have comparable amenities and space. Thrifty private sector and safe modest public works are the realities we need to face right now, all other work will remain scarce until real-estate prices start to climb again.
The other thing we should look to for future work now and 5-10 years from now is improving the energy efficiency of existing building stock. Now more than ever rentals and buyers look at energy performance just as much as any other factor and a lot of small things can be done to homes, businesses, and other structures to make them energy efficient.
Has anyone done any energy efficiency upgrades lately?
We just did $6 million of energy upgrades on a housing development (public) including geothermal heat and cooling, all new energy star appliances, energy star roofing, new windows and doors, LED street lighting, low water flow fixtures, etc.
Government funded, from taxing the rich.
PJN26, keep in mind that the rich also invest in the stock market and as angel investors which allows private commercial ventures to grow and expand- they don't just fund vacation homes. The savings sitting in banks allow banks to lend to small businesses to expand.
you do realize that not only 'the rich' pay taxes in this country, correct?
corporations skipping out on their share is pretty awesome, too.
Thom Yorke- I heard this Wed. on the news...very depressing indeed.
I wonder if I could sell my Architecture degree to some idiot that is thinking about going to architecture school. I suppose I would have to sell my identity as well. Hmmm...I suppose I could just give it away and that would release all of my debt as well. Perfect!
Ad will read: "Thinking of going to Architecture school? Look no further. I will allow you to assume my identity with a B.Arch degree, 700+ hours logged on NCARB IDP, and LEED A.P. All you have to do is take on my student loan debt. Save yourself 5 years of mind-numbing desk crits. After all any architecture school graduate will tell you everything they teach you in school, for all intents and purposes, is worthless the day you get your first job in an office."
That's a fair price right?
I especially like that employers are now more likely to discriminate against the unemployed. Double indemnity!
"Discriminate" is such an ugly word and ugly concept. What the article really says is "The unemployed stay unemployed because there's no fit." This statement addresses the important relationship between job requirements and candidate skills.
Employers always want to fill vacant positions with the most qualified and experienced candidates available, regardless of economic conditions. That's hardly "discrimination".
"They don't have the skills to switch industries. [In regards to those who have been out of work for a long time will find it more difficult to land a new job, particularly if they are in sectors that will likely remain depressed, such as manufacturing and construction.]"
Employers always want to fill vacant positions with the most qualified and experienced candidates available, regardless of economic conditions.
Most employers have crappily run businesses with awful business models. The reality is most businesses don't even deserve "best" or "better" employees. This whole business mantra of "my shit don't stink" has really driven a lot of businesses to bankruptcy over the last decade.
I know this article didn't say it directly, but I have seen others recently that indicated that employers are finding people with extended periods of unemployment undesirable. If they have the choice between hiring someone who is already employed vs. hiring someone currently unemployed, they will likely hire the already employed person.
The reasoning is that unemployed persons have now lost some level of skill, and at the very least have become unfamiliar with office life/protocol. Their transition back into the workplace will likely be awkward. Additionally the unemployed person NEEDS the job where the already employed person doesn't need the job- they are applying to further their career, which looks more attractive to the employer. There have been studies that show that periods of unemployment just don't reflect well on interviews and resumes. The easiest way to avoid it is to establish a business name for yourself and indicate that you have been working as a consultant, independent contractor, etc. It's not great but it's something to fill the gap.
I also don't exactly agree with the "employers always want to fill vacant positions with the most qualified and experienced candidates available, regardless of economic conditions" statement. Although that is true, it's not the absolute truth. Many employers now seem to be prefacing that statement with "the cheapest applicant who is the most qualified..." Or if you live in New Mexico "the most ethnic applicant who is the most qualified."
the rich is not an individual issue- it is the "rich" as a collective that is the issue.
btw- all of us lowly "workers" also help to fund the gambling of Wall Street with our life savings in our 401k's.
and don't forget the rich have sweep accounts, as do the banks, and "sweep" money every night into investments to "hedge", overnight in foreign markets and ventures. investments- or gambling as it should be called- happens 24/7, not just when the markets are "open" on this side of the ocean. this is advantageous because they can now multiply their wealth, literally overnight, while they're sleeping. this is not something the average investor can do. it is an advantage of the wealthy. i worked for a bank for almost five years. the branch is not there to help you, they're there to sell you- on ira's, investments, or shoot, just to collect fees. then invest your money to make more money- not for you. they get paid to make more money for the bank- and the primary way to do so is by betting against their customers.
and as far as business owners go... there are so many benefits it's not even funny. especially when you own more than one business. my father owns 5- for a reason (and smart enough to not be an architect).
on an ARCHITECTURE LAYOFF note- the one thing every firm I've interviewed post-economic eruption has said the same- they were all very conservative during the "boom" years. both with money and with new hiring. this is completely opposite from the firm i worked for. some of the firms that are hiring now - and check to be sure- are doing so because they did NOT use lines of credit to stave off the economy. they did not hire extra people they could not support for the long run. they ran conservatively then, and still do so now. so they CAN afford to hire now, not just to give a "lowly" person like me a job, but because they actually have work and want to hire for the long run. that's admirable IMO- irregardless of the "type" of design work.
I think the unemployment benefits extension won’t come about because all the unemployed will show up to be counted and receive some form of compensation. Dems and republicans both want the numbers of unemployed to appear to be on a downward trend leading up to the election. A better economic indicator is the rise in food stamps and housing assistance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03foodstamps.html
But I’m doing ok got promoted to the next phase of the census so 4-6 more weeks of full time work.
For the folks here who worked the census, did that slow down your job search at all?
archie - I think you missed the point:
Poor pay almost no tax
Middle class pay 30% tax
Rich pay 11% tax
Yes combined rich pay more tax then the whole middle and poor class, but its not fair. By taxing middle class 30% its discrimination against that class, this tax will always keep middle class in the middle. While rich earn millions and pay only 11% they will always be rich.
I just don't see any justice until we are will pay equal percent on our earned incomes!
Zen, where do you get your numbers??? Make them up? The REAL Number for 2007 were as follows:
The top 1% of earners, defined as an income of over $410,096 paid 40.42% of ALL TAXES PAID. The top 1% paid nearly half of all taxes collected!!!!
Meanwhile, the bottom 50%, which was filers earning less than $32,819 collectively paid 2.89% of all taxes paid.
so half the people pay nearly nothing, and 1% of the people pay nearly half of all the taxes collected. So what is fair about that???
check it out:
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
"As thousands of anti-tax protesters rallied across the nation yesterday (April 2009) and the president promised tax cuts for most, new data showed that the federal income tax burden is already hovering near its lowest level in three decades for all but the wealthiest Americans.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average family forked over barely 9 percent of its earnings to the IRS in 2006, the most recent year for which information is available. The effective tax rate hit its all-time low in 2003 and has since crept up only slightly.
Middle-class families -- to whom President Obama has delivered even more tax relief since he took office in January -- have fared especially well, according to the CBO. The middle fifth of taxpayers, who earned an average of $60,700 per household in 2006, paid just 3 percent in federal income tax that year, down from a high of 8.3 percent in 1981. "
Archie - not sure where the NTU got their numbers - but the IRS, and Wikipedia show that tax rates for incomes over the $410,096 mark was max. 35%. This was the RATE - not what was actually paid -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
Please note on the Wiki site the table which shows a comparison of the "ordinary income (tax) rate, to Long and short term capital gain rate (dividends), gains on real estate, collectibles, and business stock. This table starts to show the real picture... and what I was arguing about earlier in this thread - the wealthy may have a higher tax rate, but their taxed LESS on what they truly 'earn' because usually the income is in the form of these listed catagories, and not ordinary income tax. I had noted that currently, capital gains tax is at a 15% rate. That number was higher till the Bush administration cut it to the current amount.
The Obama administration is trying to restore the previous rate - that rate was in effect during the 90's - and, some of you may recall, the mid-latter part of that decade was pretty prosperous.
As well, I think what Zen and others are saying here is that the tax burden is leveraged more on the middle class than the multi-national corporations and elites, as a ratio, and that the playing field needs a little more leveling.
yes, that is correct, the rate maximum is 35% on the wealthy. And that 35% of the wealthy wages plus 15% of the wealthy capital gains still equals 40.2% of ALL TAXES PAID. My point is that 1% of the people are paying the burden of 40% of the population, while the lower 50%of the population pays virtually nothing. That does not seem fair to me.
Why does it matter to you if they paid 35% on what they actually got working and less on what they got as a return on their investments? They still are paying 40% of the US taxes.
The wealthy should pay less on investment income, just as you should. They already paid tax when they earned the original money they invested. Now they are investing back in the economy, just like to middle class does in their 401K's. Would people really risk their savings to invest in stocks and start up companies if they knew that even if they were successful, 35% of it would go to taxes? I think you would see a lot less risk (and investment) made.
This was in the wiki article you linked to:
Some argue that the current income tax system, which is the government's largest revenue source, is too progressive and redistributive.[35] In 2007, the top 5% of income earners paid over half of the federal income tax revenue.[36] Forty seven percent of Americans pay no federal income tax,[38][36] which raises moral concerns regarding wealth redistribution and the economics for controlling the size and spending of government. Note, though, that this percentage does include some people without job income (e.g. children, retirees) along with the low-income workers to whom this moral hazard applies[35].
uhm... Archie - it's not 35% AND 15% - it's the source of income of the weatlhy person - if they have ordinary income - that is 35%, dividends are 15% - the total depending on how much income came from what source.
Where do you get the 1% paying 40% of all revenue? I must argue your assumption that 50% pay almost nothing!
It matters that investments and dividends be taxed more fairly because that is the majority of where the income the wealthy comes from. The more money you have, the more goes into these investments, the less tax they pay - however, at the same time, the wealthy use the same infastructure, services, etc., as the rest of us who pay per capita more in taxes because we don't have as much (or at all) money put into dividend producing, lower taxed income.
Your putting yourself and I in the same class as the wealthy saying that the wealthy should pay less in investment income. The middle and lower classes have an almost impossible ability to earn enough money to invest to begin enjoying the tax breaks these investments provide. This is where the imbalance comes in.
Ah ... let the class wars begin. This discussion reminds me of the seventies. Bad, bad memories.
“We must confront the privileged elite who have destroyed a large part of the world.”
Hugo Chavez
Face it, seed ... most of the radical complainers here wish desparately they were part of the "privileged elite" and are pissed off because they aren't.
for those of us ending our census work do you have any plans?
After a small and short flurry of activity in the early part of the year, we are watching as every lead, job or talk of jobs literally evaporates into thin air. It appears the second leg down is starting.
file - thank you so much for your opinion in what the 'radical' complainers are wishing for. My 'desparate' wish is that the playing field be leveled; that multi-national corporations, banks, and elite, are prevented from fleecing the masses. I know that's a pipe dream, and thus, radical, but I wish it nonetheless.
I suppose you are perfectly fine with how things are - "buckup, pull yourself up from your boot straps, get on with it!" Is that right? Just because things are the way they are, doesn't make them right. I guess the alternative to 'complaining' is to just shut up.
Oh, when you say 'they' do you exclude yourself? You must be one of the 'privleged' then. Good for you. Hey, why not take some of those dividends you earned last year and invest in a new building or remodel? We sure could use some of that money you're hording to invest back into the system, put some of us to work, eh? Heaven knows that's not what the banks are doing. But, there I go again, radically complaining again....
"for those of us ending our census work do you have any plans?"
no. not really.
One thing that concerned me greatly back in 2006-07 and even into 2008 was the level of hiring. There seemed to be want ads posted indefinately for staff Architects all over the place, even at times when work was steady, not increasing. Good times don't last forever and why should any company hire staff in anticipation of better times ahead.
i don't really know why i'm getting involved with this, but to address archie's point about the wealthiest 1% paying 40% of total u.s. taxes, you have to understand that the wealthest 1% also controls 38% of the total wealth in the u.s. and that the wealthest 10% controls 71% of the total wealth, i.e. that is why the wealthy are paying disproportionately more taxes, from a population standpoint, but from a wealth standpoint (apples-to-apples), in a equitable system, the wealthiest 10% should be paying 71% of total taxes.
A thought on places we might go to look for work in the next few months.
1 retail, up and coming chains that have to stay at the front of the latest wave of design trends. Chains like: Banana Republic, Urban Outfitters, Pottery Barn, H&M, American Apparel (which finished a huge Chicago expansion last year) and Walgreens (soon to be as frequent as Starbucks).
2 Restaurants and bars that are a national chain: MacDonald’s (think of all the Mc Café renovations planned in the next year), Old Chicago, Cold Stone Creamery, and Flat Top grille.
3 hotels and casinos look to Indian reservations
So just a thought, these competitive service sector businesses are growing and or are making significant changes in their brand thus renovations and new stores are a given. If these businesses stop improving they will lose market share remember K mart and Arby’s chains that have fallen from their all time high some time ago.
So I am done with the census for now, sigh. It was a good run April 12th through August 1 and a few weeks of full time work. The skills I learned doing the door to door that might help me in the future are primarily selling people on an idea while avoiding unnecessary jargon, a lot of folks did not want to or did not even know about the reason they should participate in the Census, It also reaffirmed my belief in believing but verifying what people say, not for any nefarious reasons but people are forgetful or lazy and have other things than filling out the census on their agenda.
If you were hiring a candidate who was out of the architecture profession for two to three years what experiences would you look for Retail, Some kind of labor in manufacturing, education, restaurant or hotel service?
Also anyone heading back to school this fall?
I think I am going to go back next fall if there is no recovery for a degree in urban planning, the higher the degree earned the easier it is to emigrate to countries with a more stable economy.
Marketplace from American Public media had an interesting story on their Wednesday show on how job seekers used adds to direct people to their online résumé. These people targeted Google ads for the firms and or principals that they want to work for. Since most people in high powered positions also have a bit of an ego they probably check in and see what the world is thinking of them. The example in the story was an advertising job seeker. The total cost of the Google ads that got him a job $6.00
Next month will be the two year aniversary of this thread. At this point, I don't see pre-recession levels of employment in this profession coming back.
Ever.
And given the significant realignments in incomes for Architects, I am very frightened for recent and upcoming graduates.
if you want a small spike of optimism in your coffee (I always like to take the bad news with the good news). private sector growth is not as bad as the unemployment numbers indicate. some economists say this is the beginning a growth period, but expect it to be modest.
and i've held this all along, real estate was the first to go during crash, but it's always the first to come back after a recession. it's what people always invest in first....but yeah, it still sucks out there.
I hope you're right dot. I've tried to stay upbeat through all this but I'm starting to experience severe Optimism Fatigue.
dot- i was in international commercial architecture before the bust. one thing our vp always stressed was that during a recession commercial real estate is the first to go up and the last to come back- because people get more focused on improving what they already have (small renos not big mixed-use or commercial projects). on the flip side of that, my "recession" job was at a small firm doing ALL retail commercial arch and they are VERY busy. so maybe my old vp was just a moron (i wouldn't be surprised), or maybe he's right- because my recession position is all suburban low-end (i say low-end in terms of types of retail- ie. stuff that will never go in my portfolio- chain retail). but none of the high end stuff (the 5-6 star resort hospitality work) has really come back.
HOWEVER--- a lot of developers are in the planning stages of new projects. this limbo can last as long as the recession, because they can afford the fees for planning and just keep jerking you around (which is fine as long as they pay) and not build until there's a recovery. ironically in terms of an investment strategy this is the exact opposite of what you would want to do... you want to build when rates are low and materials are cheap and have it already up and running once the economy recovers.
but i hope you're right... and i hope there's other developers and owners out there who see the Warren Buffet approach and get off the sidelines...
"ironically in terms of an investment strategy this is the exact opposite of what you would want to do... you want to build when rates are low and materials are cheap and have it already up and running once the economy recovers.
but i hope you're right... and i hope there's other developers and owners out there who see the Warren Buffet approach and get off the sidelines..."
I think many developers out there would love to jump on the deflated real estate market, with all the deals out there right now. The problem is that they cant get any credit toward the multimillion dollar purchases that they seek to acquire or fund new construction with, because of the fucking banks who would rather borrow money to themselves instead of borrowing any capital to savvy developers or real estate investors...
^ that is very true. I've seen a lot of projects go bust pretty quick when they find out the banks will give them maybe 30% of what they need for construction, and that is probably on the high end. I don't think too many developers or even individuals looking for remodels or commercial TI's are going to be willing (or able) to front 70%, 80%, 90% of the costs out of pocket.
My friend is a 3d renderer and he got a full time job recently, he says that if renderers are starting to get jobs then things are getting better. Because renderers were the first to let go when the economy crashed.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.