Moștenitoarea imperiului Disney cere o taxă pe averile super-clasei care ucide „visul american”

EXCLUSIV Câți bani pentru investiții au primit în ultimii 10 ani spitalele-vedetă ale pandemiei. Care a fost cel mai "răsfățat" spital din prima linie
Katalin Karikó, biochimista care a dezvoltat tehnologia mRNA, despre durata de eficacitate a vaccinului BioNTech - Pfizer, pentru HotNews.ro: „Dacă cei vaccinați nu se infectează, nu vom avea nevoie de o altă doză”
Profesorul Radu Gologan, după prima etapă a Olimpiadei de Matematică, organizată online: „Am descoperit uluiți extrem de multe fraude. Părinți care contestă corupția din România își impun copiii prin corupție”
INTERVIU Paun Rohovei, însărcinatul cu afaceri al Ucrainei: Rusia a pregătit infrastructura militară din Crimeea pentru desfășurarea armelor nucleare / Obiectivul Moscovei - transformarea Crimeii într-un „portavion de nescufundat”
„Recensământul bugetarilor”. Liviu Mălureanu, președinte ANFP: Prin proiectul bugetar vrem să mapăm toți bugetarii, câți sunt, ce salariu au și ce fac / Concursuri naționale pentru posturile din administrație INTERVIU
"From 1930 to 1980, the top marginal income tax rate averaged 78 percent; it exceeded 90 percent from 1951 to 1963. What’s important to realize is that these rates applied to extraordinarily high incomes only.
The view that excessive income concentration corrodes the social contract has deep roots in America — a country founded, in part, in reaction against the highly unequal, aristocratic Europe of the 18th century. Sharply progressive taxation is an American invention: The United States was the first country in the world, in 1917 — four years after the creation of the income tax — to impose tax rates as high as 67 percent on the highest incomes.
An extreme concentration of wealth means an extreme concentration of economic and political power. Although many policies can help address it, progressive income taxation is the fairest and most potent of them all, because it restrains all exorbitant incomes equally, whether they derive from exploiting monopoly power, new financial products, sheer luck or anything else.
A common objection to elevated top marginal income tax rates is that they hurt economic growth. But let’s look at the empirical evidence. The United States grew more strongly — and much more equitably — from 1946 to 1980 than it has ever since. The United States, which occupied Japan after the war, imposed democracy and a top marginal tax rate of 85 percent on it (almost the same rate as at home — 86 percent in 1947). The goal was obviously not to generate much revenue. It was to prevent, from that tabula rasa, the formation of a new oligarchy. This policy was applied for decades: In 1982, the top rate was still 75 percent. Yet between 1950 and 1982, Japan grew at one of the fastest rates ever recorded, one of the most striking economic success stories of all time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/opinion/ocasio-cortez-taxes.html
În plus, nu ar mai exista avioane private care să emită CO2 și să contribuie la efectul de seră.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html
Tarile nordice au taxe mari si un nivel de trai foarte ridicat.
Noapte buna, America!
"From 1930 to 1980, the top marginal income tax rate averaged 78 percent; it exceeded 90 percent from 1951 to 1963. What’s important to realize is that these rates applied to extraordinarily high incomes only.
The view that excessive income concentration corrodes the social contract has deep roots in America — a country founded, in part, in reaction against the highly unequal, aristocratic Europe of the 18th century. Sharply progressive taxation is an American invention: The United States was the first country in the world, in 1917 — four years after the creation of the income tax — to impose tax rates as high as 67 percent on the highest incomes.
An extreme concentration of wealth means an extreme concentration of economic and political power. Although many policies can help address it, progressive income taxation is the fairest and most potent of them all, because it restrains all exorbitant incomes equally, whether they derive from exploiting monopoly power, new financial products, sheer luck or anything else.
A common objection to elevated top marginal income tax rates is that they hurt economic growth. But let’s look at the empirical evidence. The United States grew more strongly — and much more equitably — from 1946 to 1980 than it has ever since. The United States, which occupied Japan after the war, imposed democracy and a top marginal tax rate of 85 percent on it (almost the same rate as at home — 86 percent in 1947). The goal was obviously not to generate much revenue. It was to prevent, from that tabula rasa, the formation of a new oligarchy. This policy was applied for decades: In 1982, the top rate was still 75 percent. Yet between 1950 and 1982, Japan grew at one of the fastest rates ever recorded, one of the most striking economic success stories of all time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/opinion/ocasio-cortez-taxes.html
bogatii isi propun taxe mai mari de frica sa nu intervina guvernul pentru dezmembrarea monopolurilor.
practic orice afacere mica nu mai poate rezista in zilele noastre. ori o cumpara un gigant monopolist ori actioneaza de asa fel incat micul intreprinzator sa dea faliment.
Oricum, daca Walt Disney (mare talent) ar fi stiut in ce gunoaie de afaceri a fost tarat numele lui de catre nepoata fratelui nici n-ar mai fi discutat cu Abigail.
Walt Disney Company repezinta acum un mare gunoi publicitar si lacom dupa bani si nu are acum nici o legatura cu ce a vrut Walt Disney de la compania lui la vremea sa..
Obraznicatura de Abigail Disney ar fi ultima persoana care sa aiba dreptul moral sa faca morala societatii.
Din ce stiu Abigail Disney nu mai detine compania, ci doar o mica fractiune din actiuni. Practic si-a vandut numele pentru bani.
Singura scuza a lui Abigail este ca acea mica fractiune pe care acum o mai o are (sa zicem 5 %) scoate acum mai multi bani dacat scotea toata compania lui Walt Disney cand acesta traia.
Scoate doar bani, pentru ca si-a vandut onoarea.
Categoric nu detine ,,pachetul de control".
Deci, nu un ,,urmas Disney" controleaza compania.
,,Urmasii Disney " sunt doar ,,dusi de valul" inertiei finaciare a companiei.
Directorul Robert Iger are 1.06 millioane actiuni (cel mai mare actionar individual). A dirijat actiunile de cumparare a altor companii in ultimii ani). Se pare ca va pleca din postul de director in 2019 sau 2020.
Institutii:
Vanguard Group, Inc. 7.05%
Blackrock Inc. 2019 6.06%
State Street Corporation 4.15%
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 2.35%
FMR, LLC 1.88%
Northern Trust Corporation 1.40%
Bank of America Corporation 1.36%
Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation 1.29%
Geode Capital Management, LLC 1.25%
Morgan Stanley 1.19%
Fonduri Mutuale de Insvestiti:
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund 2.10%
Vanguard 500 Index Fund 2018 1.57%
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust 1.12%
Vanguard Institutional Index Fund-Institutional Index Fund 0.78%
Fidelity 500 Index Fund 0.76%
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 0.70%
Vanguard Growth Index Fund 0.55%
Parnassus Core Equity Fund 0.37%
Price (T.Rowe) Growth Stock Fund Inc. 0.33%
Fidelity Contrafund Inc 0.33%
Chiar considerand ca toti banii ei sunt in actiuni
(cu siguranta ca nu e tocmai asa) avem din cele 130 MILIARDE $ valoare a Disney Company : Abigail Disney fiind in poesesia a numai ....... 0, 38 %
din DISNEY COMPANY !. Adica aproape nimic.
Asta a ajuns tot ,,Imperiul Disney" !
Deci, cand cumparati o hainuta de copil -marca ,,Disney", o perche de pantofi de copil marca ,,Disney" sau va uitati la un film marca ,,Disney" bagati numai 0,38 % din profilt in buzunarul ,,urmasilor" lui Disney !!!!! , restul banilor merg catre tot felul de profitori care s-au agatat de Compania Disney de prin 1960 de cand a murit Marele Walt Disney !
De amintit ca Walt Disney era proprietar, impreuna cu fratele sau, la toata Compania ! ............. Mai saraci, dar erau cu adevarat niste ,,Disney" !
Ca in valoare absoluta 1% o fi mare, dpdv al unui sarman, o fi ... dar cum deblocheaza asta visul american?
Faptul ca stiu ca un miliardar e mai sarac cu 1% imi da aripi!!!
Asta intra in marja de aproximare. In realitate nu cred ca astia pot sa stie cu asemenea precizie ce avere au.
De la o zi la alta valorile pot fluctua cu mai mult de atat.