6/16/2014 12:39 PM
BL, You're missing the point.  Even if my next $5,000 means "less" to me than it does to a homeless man.... IT'S IRRELEVANT.

IT'S MINE.

I EARNED IT BY WORKING.

The government should not decide that "Well, Todd is wealthier than BL, so he should have to give up his money until he is just as destitute and miserable as BL, and their marginal utility of their next dollar is equal."

If you think that's the function of government, then you're on the wrong continent.

6/16/2014 12:42 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I've never been in a position where the money I earn today has less value than the money I earned last week, last month, or last year.

And I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to assume that others are indeed in that position, or to determine "Yeah, you have enough money.  Let's take some of it away".

So no, I don't agree.

Maybe it's on me for not explaining it well enough, but you not understanding doesn't make it less real.

The shift is easiest to see at astronomical incomes. If you made $100 million a year, making another $5,000 probably doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't change your standard of living at all. That $5,000 has an extremely low marginal utility for you.

Obviously, at incomes most of us make, the shift is much more subtle. Instead of thinking of "first dollar" as money earned in January and "last dollar" as money earned in December, think of it as how you prioritize your budget. "First dollar" is what you use to buy what you absolutely have to have. "Last dollar" is what you use to buy* your least important thing.

*For the sake of this discussion, consider savings as "buying" something that falls somewhere on the list of priorities depending on the person.

 

I understand what you're saying perfectly.

I just disagree completely with your premise that it's acceptable to take away from some and not from others based on some arbitrary imaginary line of "you have too much" or "you're OK, carry on".  Which is exactly what you're trying to do with the last 40 pages or so of this thread..

It's lunchtime.  Why don't you go away, eat a cheeseburger or six, checkup on your $100b retirement fund, and contemplate the stupidity of your Robin Hood system of wealth redistribution and class warfare?
6/16/2014 12:52 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I've never been in a position where the money I earn today has less value than the money I earned last week, last month, or last year.

And I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to assume that others are indeed in that position, or to determine "Yeah, you have enough money.  Let's take some of it away".

So no, I don't agree.

Maybe it's on me for not explaining it well enough, but you not understanding doesn't make it less real.

The shift is easiest to see at astronomical incomes. If you made $100 million a year, making another $5,000 probably doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't change your standard of living at all. That $5,000 has an extremely low marginal utility for you.

Obviously, at incomes most of us make, the shift is much more subtle. Instead of thinking of "first dollar" as money earned in January and "last dollar" as money earned in December, think of it as how you prioritize your budget. "First dollar" is what you use to buy what you absolutely have to have. "Last dollar" is what you use to buy* your least important thing.

*For the sake of this discussion, consider savings as "buying" something that falls somewhere on the list of priorities depending on the person.

 

If you are looking at marginal utility still you are looking at the wrong thing. What is the ROI on the current tax revenue already collected? Debt is piling up... We lost the war in Iraq.... We lost the war on poverty.... We lost the war on drugs.... Our schools and movie theaters aren't safe and we can't pay our police.... We send billions to other countries for what?... Spend a trillion annually on both govt pensions and govt healthcare. Infrastructure you say.... We passed an $840 billion infrastructure/jobs bill... Go check out how that was spent. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-23/news/ct-met-inauguration-stimulus-20130123_1_federal-stimulus-shovel-ready-projects-stimulus-money

Since we currently collect record tax revenues ..... can you see why the spending side is soooo important? right now the majority benefactors of our taxes go to the lobby groups. Not the people.
6/16/2014 12:57 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I've never been in a position where the money I earn today has less value than the money I earned last week, last month, or last year.

And I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to assume that others are indeed in that position, or to determine "Yeah, you have enough money.  Let's take some of it away".

So no, I don't agree.

Maybe it's on me for not explaining it well enough, but you not understanding doesn't make it less real.

The shift is easiest to see at astronomical incomes. If you made $100 million a year, making another $5,000 probably doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't change your standard of living at all. That $5,000 has an extremely low marginal utility for you.

Obviously, at incomes most of us make, the shift is much more subtle. Instead of thinking of "first dollar" as money earned in January and "last dollar" as money earned in December, think of it as how you prioritize your budget. "First dollar" is what you use to buy what you absolutely have to have. "Last dollar" is what you use to buy* your least important thing.

*For the sake of this discussion, consider savings as "buying" something that falls somewhere on the list of priorities depending on the person.

 

I understand what you're saying perfectly.

I just disagree completely with your premise that it's acceptable to take away from some and not from others based on some arbitrary imaginary line of "you have too much" or "you're OK, carry on".  Which is exactly what you're trying to do with the last 40 pages or so of this thread..

It's lunchtime.  Why don't you go away, eat a cheeseburger or six, checkup on your $100b retirement fund, and contemplate the stupidity of your Robin Hood system of wealth redistribution and class warfare?
I just disagree completely with your premise that it's acceptable to take away from some and not from others based on some arbitrary imaginary line of "you have too much" or "you're OK, carry on".  Which is exactly what you're trying to do with the last 40 pages or so of this thread. 

We have marginal tax brackets because of this. We decided 100+ years ago that the first X amount of income is more important to someone than the second, third, and fourth X amount of income. I'm not trying to do anything other than explain the rational behind it. Sorry you don't like reality.
6/16/2014 12:58 PM
Posted by moy23 on 6/16/2014 12:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I've never been in a position where the money I earn today has less value than the money I earned last week, last month, or last year.

And I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to assume that others are indeed in that position, or to determine "Yeah, you have enough money.  Let's take some of it away".

So no, I don't agree.

Maybe it's on me for not explaining it well enough, but you not understanding doesn't make it less real.

The shift is easiest to see at astronomical incomes. If you made $100 million a year, making another $5,000 probably doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't change your standard of living at all. That $5,000 has an extremely low marginal utility for you.

Obviously, at incomes most of us make, the shift is much more subtle. Instead of thinking of "first dollar" as money earned in January and "last dollar" as money earned in December, think of it as how you prioritize your budget. "First dollar" is what you use to buy what you absolutely have to have. "Last dollar" is what you use to buy* your least important thing.

*For the sake of this discussion, consider savings as "buying" something that falls somewhere on the list of priorities depending on the person.

 

If you are looking at marginal utility still you are looking at the wrong thing. What is the ROI on the current tax revenue already collected? Debt is piling up... We lost the war in Iraq.... We lost the war on poverty.... We lost the war on drugs.... Our schools and movie theaters aren't safe and we can't pay our police.... We send billions to other countries for what?... Spend a trillion annually on both govt pensions and govt healthcare. Infrastructure you say.... We passed an $840 billion infrastructure/jobs bill... Go check out how that was spent. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-23/news/ct-met-inauguration-stimulus-20130123_1_federal-stimulus-shovel-ready-projects-stimulus-money

Since we currently collect record tax revenues ..... can you see why the spending side is soooo important? right now the majority benefactors of our taxes go to the lobby groups. Not the people.
The best way to spend the money is an entirely different argument.
6/16/2014 1:01 PM
Maybe it's as simple as "I don't have as good of a grasp on human nature as I thought I did."  But it seems to me, that someone with $100 dollars in their bank account, rent due tomorrow and their next paycheck of $500 coming next week would make the next dollar he made more valuable and make him more likely to pick up the dollar on the sidewalk than the guy with $1 million in the bank and a paycheck of $10,000 coming this week would.  And I'm not only talking about perceived value by both people, I'm talking about actual value.  One guy needs every penny, the other doesn't.  But maybe it's legit me not understanding people as well as I thought I did. 

As for the argument of "I'm not a saver" maybe I don't have the exact mentality as moy does, but I do save money.  I save more money now than I did 5-10 years ago because I make more money.  My mindset really hasn't changed too much, except that I have the ability to save money, so I do.  I don't buy many material items, I don't smoke, and with more money I earn, my lifestyle likely won't change much.  But there was a period of time where if I saw a quarter on the ground, I grabbed it, because it was 1/4 of the way to me getting a burger at McDonalds for lunch.  I'm not necessarily going out of my way to pick up a quarter anymore, because I don't NEED to.  Money still have value to me, I do want to retire one day, but the value of each dollar isn't as strong as it was.  If you want to blame me for taking my experiences and applying them to society, making for a bad argument, that's fair, I suppose.

If your argument is "I don't care what's necessarily better or worse for the economy, it's my ******* money, and I'm going to do what I want with it, don't tax me more just because I can afford it"  I can actually appreciate that argument more.  Especially when it's true that there are many people who ARE poor partially because they spend money poorly.  
6/16/2014 1:13 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I've never been in a position where the money I earn today has less value than the money I earned last week, last month, or last year.

And I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to assume that others are indeed in that position, or to determine "Yeah, you have enough money.  Let's take some of it away".

So no, I don't agree.

Maybe it's on me for not explaining it well enough, but you not understanding doesn't make it less real.

The shift is easiest to see at astronomical incomes. If you made $100 million a year, making another $5,000 probably doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't change your standard of living at all. That $5,000 has an extremely low marginal utility for you.

Obviously, at incomes most of us make, the shift is much more subtle. Instead of thinking of "first dollar" as money earned in January and "last dollar" as money earned in December, think of it as how you prioritize your budget. "First dollar" is what you use to buy what you absolutely have to have. "Last dollar" is what you use to buy* your least important thing.

*For the sake of this discussion, consider savings as "buying" something that falls somewhere on the list of priorities depending on the person.

 

I understand what you're saying perfectly.

I just disagree completely with your premise that it's acceptable to take away from some and not from others based on some arbitrary imaginary line of "you have too much" or "you're OK, carry on".  Which is exactly what you're trying to do with the last 40 pages or so of this thread..

It's lunchtime.  Why don't you go away, eat a cheeseburger or six, checkup on your $100b retirement fund, and contemplate the stupidity of your Robin Hood system of wealth redistribution and class warfare?
I just disagree completely with your premise that it's acceptable to take away from some and not from others based on some arbitrary imaginary line of "you have too much" or "you're OK, carry on".  Which is exactly what you're trying to do with the last 40 pages or so of this thread. 

We have marginal tax brackets because of this. We decided 100+ years ago that the first X amount of income is more important to someone than the second, third, and fourth X amount of income. I'm not trying to do anything other than explain the rational behind it. Sorry you don't like reality.
100 years ago blacks and women couldn't vote. Doesn't mean its right.
6/16/2014 1:17 PM
Posted by moy23 on 6/16/2014 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I've never been in a position where the money I earn today has less value than the money I earned last week, last month, or last year.

And I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to assume that others are indeed in that position, or to determine "Yeah, you have enough money.  Let's take some of it away".

So no, I don't agree.

Maybe it's on me for not explaining it well enough, but you not understanding doesn't make it less real.

The shift is easiest to see at astronomical incomes. If you made $100 million a year, making another $5,000 probably doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't change your standard of living at all. That $5,000 has an extremely low marginal utility for you.

Obviously, at incomes most of us make, the shift is much more subtle. Instead of thinking of "first dollar" as money earned in January and "last dollar" as money earned in December, think of it as how you prioritize your budget. "First dollar" is what you use to buy what you absolutely have to have. "Last dollar" is what you use to buy* your least important thing.

*For the sake of this discussion, consider savings as "buying" something that falls somewhere on the list of priorities depending on the person.

 

I understand what you're saying perfectly.

I just disagree completely with your premise that it's acceptable to take away from some and not from others based on some arbitrary imaginary line of "you have too much" or "you're OK, carry on".  Which is exactly what you're trying to do with the last 40 pages or so of this thread..

It's lunchtime.  Why don't you go away, eat a cheeseburger or six, checkup on your $100b retirement fund, and contemplate the stupidity of your Robin Hood system of wealth redistribution and class warfare?
I just disagree completely with your premise that it's acceptable to take away from some and not from others based on some arbitrary imaginary line of "you have too much" or "you're OK, carry on".  Which is exactly what you're trying to do with the last 40 pages or so of this thread. 

We have marginal tax brackets because of this. We decided 100+ years ago that the first X amount of income is more important to someone than the second, third, and fourth X amount of income. I'm not trying to do anything other than explain the rational behind it. Sorry you don't like reality.
100 years ago blacks and women couldn't vote. Doesn't mean its right.
Well those things weren't right. A progressive tax structure seems to be OK, though.
6/16/2014 1:27 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 6/16/2014 12:39:00 PM (view original):
BL, You're missing the point.  Even if my next $5,000 means "less" to me than it does to a homeless man.... IT'S IRRELEVANT.

IT'S MINE.

I EARNED IT BY WORKING.

The government should not decide that "Well, Todd is wealthier than BL, so he should have to give up his money until he is just as destitute and miserable as BL, and their marginal utility of their next dollar is equal."

If you think that's the function of government, then you're on the wrong continent.

Am I on the wrong continent? Because we have tax brackets that tax upper income brackets at a higher rate.

Is it your argument that you shouldn't have to pay any taxes because "IT'S MINE/I EARNED IT?"
6/16/2014 2:04 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 6/16/2014 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):
I've never been in a position where the money I earn today has less value than the money I earned last week, last month, or last year.

And I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to assume that others are indeed in that position, or to determine "Yeah, you have enough money.  Let's take some of it away".

So no, I don't agree.

Maybe it's on me for not explaining it well enough, but you not understanding doesn't make it less real.

The shift is easiest to see at astronomical incomes. If you made $100 million a year, making another $5,000 probably doesn't do anything for you. It doesn't change your standard of living at all. That $5,000 has an extremely low marginal utility for you.

Obviously, at incomes most of us make, the shift is much more subtle. Instead of thinking of "first dollar" as money earned in January and "last dollar" as money earned in December, think of it as how you prioritize your budget. "First dollar" is what you use to buy what you absolutely have to have. "Last dollar" is what you use to buy* your least important thing.

*For the sake of this discussion, consider savings as "buying" something that falls somewhere on the list of priorities depending on the person.

 

I understand what you're saying perfectly.

I just disagree completely with your premise that it's acceptable to take away from some and not from others based on some arbitrary imaginary line of "you have too much" or "you're OK, carry on".  Which is exactly what you're trying to do with the last 40 pages or so of this thread..

It's lunchtime.  Why don't you go away, eat a cheeseburger or six, checkup on your $100b retirement fund, and contemplate the stupidity of your Robin Hood system of wealth redistribution and class warfare?
I just disagree completely with your premise that it's acceptable to take away from some and not from others based on some arbitrary imaginary line of "you have too much" or "you're OK, carry on".  Which is exactly what you're trying to do with the last 40 pages or so of this thread. 

We have marginal tax brackets because of this. We decided 100+ years ago that the first X amount of income is more important to someone than the second, third, and fourth X amount of income. I'm not trying to do anything other than explain the rational behind it. Sorry you don't like reality.
100 years ago blacks and women couldn't vote. Doesn't mean its right.
Well those things weren't right. A progressive tax structure seems to be OK, though.
Ah, yes.  Your trusty fallback argument.

"Because I said so".

6/16/2014 2:20 PM
Right now, we collect most of our income taxes from the upper income brackets. Assuming we continue funding the government at current level, do you have a more effective way to collect the money?
6/16/2014 2:20 PM
Only 71 pages to get to that.   'bout ******* time. 
6/16/2014 2:33 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/16/2014 1:01:00 PM (view original):
Maybe it's as simple as "I don't have as good of a grasp on human nature as I thought I did."  But it seems to me, that someone with $100 dollars in their bank account, rent due tomorrow and their next paycheck of $500 coming next week would make the next dollar he made more valuable and make him more likely to pick up the dollar on the sidewalk than the guy with $1 million in the bank and a paycheck of $10,000 coming this week would.  And I'm not only talking about perceived value by both people, I'm talking about actual value.  One guy needs every penny, the other doesn't.  But maybe it's legit me not understanding people as well as I thought I did. 

As for the argument of "I'm not a saver" maybe I don't have the exact mentality as moy does, but I do save money.  I save more money now than I did 5-10 years ago because I make more money.  My mindset really hasn't changed too much, except that I have the ability to save money, so I do.  I don't buy many material items, I don't smoke, and with more money I earn, my lifestyle likely won't change much.  But there was a period of time where if I saw a quarter on the ground, I grabbed it, because it was 1/4 of the way to me getting a burger at McDonalds for lunch.  I'm not necessarily going out of my way to pick up a quarter anymore, because I don't NEED to.  Money still have value to me, I do want to retire one day, but the value of each dollar isn't as strong as it was.  If you want to blame me for taking my experiences and applying them to society, making for a bad argument, that's fair, I suppose.

If your argument is "I don't care what's necessarily better or worse for the economy, it's my ******* money, and I'm going to do what I want with it, don't tax me more just because I can afford it"  I can actually appreciate that argument more.  Especially when it's true that there are many people who ARE poor partially because they spend money poorly.  
"If you want to blame me for taking my experiences and applying them to society, making for a bad argument, that's fair, I suppose."

Correct.

I've been all over the income spectrum over the last 16 years.  I've always picked up the quarter(or nickel).   I assume I always will.   But I don't apply that to everyone else.  



6/16/2014 2:34 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Right now, we collect most of our income taxes from the upper income brackets. Assuming we continue funding the government at current level, do you have a more effective way to collect the money?
I believe a couple of options have been discussed in this thread.

I believe you've participated in those discussions with your empty and dismissive "**** the wealthy, they have too much money, they won't miss it" arguments.

Have you forgotten those?
6/16/2014 2:38 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Right now, we collect most of our income taxes from the upper income brackets. Assuming we continue funding the government at current level, do you have a more effective way to collect the money?
I believe a couple of options have been discussed in this thread.

I believe you've participated in those discussions with your empty and dismissive "**** the wealthy, they have too much money, they won't miss it" arguments.

Have you forgotten those?
I didn't forget. Your two bracket system wasn't bad but I'm not sure how it addresses this specific complaint, since upper income dollars will still be taxed at a different rate than lower income dollars.
of 123

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.