danivon wrote:Actually, I don't think we should take an op-ed in a newspaper at face value ever, regardless of who owns it. Apart from the 'opinion' be being an expression of the writer's opinions. That part I would usually accept (although some do take positions for effect).

Gee, I wonder why that Wall Street journal writer did not include state and local taxes in figuring out tax burdens...

I find his contention that the top 1% paid 32% of their income in federal taxes hard to believe. The tax chart I consulted said 22.1% Given that any social security taxes and other non-income federal taxes would constitute a very small percentage of the income of a person making over 1.2 million dollars, that the top marginal rate is 35%, and they hold a disproportionate amount of stock (meaning if their income came from selling stock it would be taxed at 15%)it seems impossible that they would be paying a total of 32% in federal taxes.

Of course I don't know what data is citing to because he does not provide any links or footnotes so that we can check his data.

But he works for the Wall Street Journal so I guess we should trust him on it.

danivon wrote:Dunno. He doesn't continually quote Krauthammer as if it's the gospel though, so I guess he's not the only one, eh?

danivon wrote:Krauthammer's truth is only the truth if you regard it as gospel. To the critical of mind, it is 'opinion'.

Ray Jay wrote:You two want to call a truce?

In the early 1980s, Paul J. Castellani, a former official at the state agency, was overseeing the design of an algorithm that determined reimbursement rates for each developmentally disabled individual, based on his or her level of impairment. The formula was supposed to be closely held. But state officials suspected that a consultant to the providers had learned that vision problems greatly increased the rates paid.

Suddenly, the nonprofit providers began reporting a big increase in the number of individuals in their care who had trouble seeing. “We called it the day everyone went blind,” said Mr. Castellani, the author of a book about the New York system of caring for the developmentally disabled.

...

Inflated Costs

On the 11th floor inside the Young Adult Institute’s busy West 34th Street headquarters in Manhattan, a team of fund-raisers works year-round to plan the organization’s biggest annual events: a gala dinner at the Pierre hotel off Fifth Avenue that attracts celebrities like Al Roker and Harry Smith, and a Central Park fun run and walk.

But at the end of each year, from 1999 to 2010, when it came time for the organization to seek its Medicaid reimbursements, those fund-raising employees suddenly became group home administrative workers on accounting records, allowing for federal reimbursement of their salaries, according to federal prosecutors.

Prosecutors also said the organization submitted documents falsely asserting that all of its group home regional directors were licensed social workers — again inflating reimbursements for their salaries from Medicaid. ...

Mr. Fagan, who was involved in the preparation of the documents, told prosecutors that for years expenses had been pumped up on annual financial reports to win higher reimbursements from Medicaid. ...

At the Young Adult Institute, there were other elements of compensation within those big numbers, like the tuition compensation: for eight years ending in 2004, the organization directly covered the costs of college for children of several senior-level executives, including Philip Levy and Mr. Freeman. ...

After The Times discovered property records showing the purchase of the co-op apartment for Philip Levy’s daughter, the organization confirmed that the money from the tuition program had been used to buy her the West 12th Street home.

The Young Adult Institute spokesman declined to say how much was spent on education expenses, but in its final year, the program provided $132,611 to cover tuition for four children of three executives, including Philip Levy.

Ray Jay wrote:If you listen to the end, he actually won the case, which wasn't about the taxpayer money.