6/16/2014 4:46 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):
So you're saying Clinton and Clooney have plenty of money but keep doing what they do because it pays so well?
Got to be a large part of it, sure.  I imagine they also have jobs they enjoy.  

The counter argument, of course, is that these men have put themselves in situations where they may have large mortgages to pay, kids to take care of the way they want, etc, so they aren't retiring because they're forced to work to maintain the lifestyles they have now.  Maybe if Clooney was not allowed to make one more cent, he wouldn't be able to afford to keep his house, I don't know.  If forced to guess, based on the amount of money he's earned in his life, that Clooney is in a better position than most other 53 year olds.

This is when you tell me DONT ASSUME ANYTHING ABOUT THE 53 YEAR OLD MILLIONAIRE 
6/16/2014 4:49 PM
I'm not assuming anything.  You listed some examples of people who took money off the table and said "No thanks."   I listed people we know have made a lot of money and are saying "I'd like some more please."
6/16/2014 4:50 PM
Posted by moy23 on 6/16/2014 4:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/16/2014 2:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):
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.  



It seems so obvious to me.  People are talking about LeBron and Wade taking pay cuts to get Melo to play in Miami because they have all the money in the world, already, what's the difference? Yankee fans ******** at Cano taking more money (ironic, but anyway...) because "what's the difference?" Many athletes taking less money to go somewhere else/stay where they are because the money doesn't matter as much.  Gil Meche(?) retiring and walking away from $12M because he was tired of playing baseball.  So it seems obvious enough that the extra million that many others make may not matter as much as the extra thousand that the less wealthy make.  If you don't see it, then we're arguing over something that I can't prove to you.  What makes all the sense in the world to me may not to you, or most others in this thread.
Sounds more like opportunity cost than the law of marginal utility.

I.e. lebron making more money might mean his buddy won't be winning championships with him because of a salary cap structure of some sort. That does not necessarily mean every future dollar is worth less, rather that other things like winning a championship with melo are worth more.

We see this every day with people turning promotion opportunities because it'd require too much travel, or not wanting to work for a tyrannical boss despite the financial upside. There are more important things than money - no one is disputing that.
Winning championships could be equally important to someone like LeBron as it is to the 7th man on the Pistons, but if the Pistons offer the 7th man $5M more than the Heat do, the 7th man is more likely to take that deal than if the Pistons offered the same deal to LeBron ($5M more than Heat), because LeBron has more money than he knows what to do with.
6/16/2014 4:58 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 4:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm not assuming anything.  You listed some examples of people who took money off the table and said "No thanks."   I listed people we know have made a lot of money and are saying "I'd like some more please."
Yea, they have a lot of money and also still want a lot more.
6/16/2014 5:04 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/16/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 4:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm not assuming anything.  You listed some examples of people who took money off the table and said "No thanks."   I listed people we know have made a lot of money and are saying "I'd like some more please."
Yea, they have a lot of money and also still want a lot more.
The only people who say no to big money are the people who have big money.  People with little money would never say no to big money.
6/16/2014 5:04 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/16/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 4:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm not assuming anything.  You listed some examples of people who took money off the table and said "No thanks."   I listed people we know have made a lot of money and are saying "I'd like some more please."
Yea, they have a lot of money and also still want a lot more.
So why do you insist the 2nd million is less important than the first?    Or that they miss their tax money less than you do?
6/16/2014 5:07 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 5:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/16/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 4:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm not assuming anything.  You listed some examples of people who took money off the table and said "No thanks."   I listed people we know have made a lot of money and are saying "I'd like some more please."
Yea, they have a lot of money and also still want a lot more.
So why do you insist the 2nd million is less important than the first?    Or that they miss their tax money less than you do?
Everyone has a price.  Would you be a lead actor in a movie for $100?

No.

$1000?
No.

$50000?
Ehhh.....

$500,000?
Yes.

But Clooney's number is higher.  It's likely because he has a shitton of money already and doesn't need to put in that work for a measly $500K.  He'll just stop making movies.  The value of his next dollar probably isn't as high as yours.

Make sense?
6/16/2014 5:08 PM
And yes, I'm making the assumption that's he's been smart with his money and his luxurious life wouldn't completely fall apart if he could never work again.
6/16/2014 5:08 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Would you prefer that I take it away?

I'll do that if you wish.

Let me know.

A quick check, and I found 2012 numbers.

Total gross income for the U.S. was around $15.7 trillion dollars.  Total individual income tax revenues was around $1.132 trillion.  That comes out to around 7.2%.

So that works for me.

No exemption, and EVERYBODY pays a 7.2% tax rate.

DONE!

A) I think you read whatever income chart you used incorrectly, total AGI for personal income taxes in 2011 was $8,374,143,000,000 (irs.gov). Obviously a different year than 2012, but I don't think it would have almost doubled in 2012.

B) You need to include payroll taxes in the tax revenue part, unless you think social security is free?

For 2011, the numbers are the $8.374 trillion above and $2,163,000,000,000 in tax revenue from income and payroll taxes. That leaves a total rate of 25.83%.

Collecting 25.83% from everyone would be a significant tax increase on the poor and middle class and a big tax cut for the upper class. Is that what you're advocating?
6/16/2014 5:09 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 3:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Would you prefer that I take it away?

I'll do that if you wish.

Let me know.

No, honestly. Why give it?

If all money is equal in utility, why allow the first $60,000 to not be taxed?
You also didn't answer the question.
6/16/2014 5:10 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/16/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 5:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/16/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 4:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm not assuming anything.  You listed some examples of people who took money off the table and said "No thanks."   I listed people we know have made a lot of money and are saying "I'd like some more please."
Yea, they have a lot of money and also still want a lot more.
So why do you insist the 2nd million is less important than the first?    Or that they miss their tax money less than you do?
Everyone has a price.  Would you be a lead actor in a movie for $100?

No.

$1000?
No.

$50000?
Ehhh.....

$500,000?
Yes.

But Clooney's number is higher.  It's likely because he has a shitton of money already and doesn't need to put in that work for a measly $500K.  He'll just stop making movies.  The value of his next dollar probably isn't as high as yours.

Make sense?
Then why doesn't Lebron, with more money than he knows what to do with per you, just take the league minimum?
6/16/2014 5:14 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Would you prefer that I take it away?

I'll do that if you wish.

Let me know.

A quick check, and I found 2012 numbers.

Total gross income for the U.S. was around $15.7 trillion dollars.  Total individual income tax revenues was around $1.132 trillion.  That comes out to around 7.2%.

So that works for me.

No exemption, and EVERYBODY pays a 7.2% tax rate.

DONE!

A) I think you read whatever income chart you used incorrectly, total AGI for personal income taxes in 2011 was $8,374,143,000,000 (irs.gov). Obviously a different year than 2012, but I don't think it would have almost doubled in 2012.

B) You need to include payroll taxes in the tax revenue part, unless you think social security is free?

For 2011, the numbers are the $8.374 trillion above and $2,163,000,000,000 in tax revenue from income and payroll taxes. That leaves a total rate of 25.83%.

Collecting 25.83% from everyone would be a significant tax increase on the poor and middle class and a big tax cut for the upper class. Is that what you're advocating?
We're talking income tax, not payroll tax.  Payroll tax is not progressive, and there are no deductions.  I would also take the cap off of payroll tax.  That's dumb.

OK.  I'm fine with a 25.83% flat tax for everybody.  EVERYBODY pays their fair share.
6/16/2014 5:16 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 5:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/16/2014 5:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 5:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/16/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/16/2014 4:49:00 PM (view original):
I'm not assuming anything.  You listed some examples of people who took money off the table and said "No thanks."   I listed people we know have made a lot of money and are saying "I'd like some more please."
Yea, they have a lot of money and also still want a lot more.
So why do you insist the 2nd million is less important than the first?    Or that they miss their tax money less than you do?
Everyone has a price.  Would you be a lead actor in a movie for $100?

No.

$1000?
No.

$50000?
Ehhh.....

$500,000?
Yes.

But Clooney's number is higher.  It's likely because he has a shitton of money already and doesn't need to put in that work for a measly $500K.  He'll just stop making movies.  The value of his next dollar probably isn't as high as yours.

Make sense?
Then why doesn't Lebron, with more money than he knows what to do with per you, just take the league minimum?
Because someone is offering him much more than the league minimum and he wants to buy an island next year.
6/16/2014 5:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 3:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Would you prefer that I take it away?

I'll do that if you wish.

Let me know.

No, honestly. Why give it?

If all money is equal in utility, why allow the first $60,000 to not be taxed?
You also didn't answer the question.
I retract my previous proposal and replace it with a 25.83% flat tax for everybody.

Your continued insistence that there was a problem with my original plan opened my eyes, and helped me see how the exemption was a bad idea.

Thank you for that.
6/16/2014 5:17 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/16/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/16/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
Would you prefer that I take it away?

I'll do that if you wish.

Let me know.

A quick check, and I found 2012 numbers.

Total gross income for the U.S. was around $15.7 trillion dollars.  Total individual income tax revenues was around $1.132 trillion.  That comes out to around 7.2%.

So that works for me.

No exemption, and EVERYBODY pays a 7.2% tax rate.

DONE!

A) I think you read whatever income chart you used incorrectly, total AGI for personal income taxes in 2011 was $8,374,143,000,000 (irs.gov). Obviously a different year than 2012, but I don't think it would have almost doubled in 2012.

B) You need to include payroll taxes in the tax revenue part, unless you think social security is free?

For 2011, the numbers are the $8.374 trillion above and $2,163,000,000,000 in tax revenue from income and payroll taxes. That leaves a total rate of 25.83%.

Collecting 25.83% from everyone would be a significant tax increase on the poor and middle class and a big tax cut for the upper class. Is that what you're advocating?
We're talking income tax, not payroll tax.  Payroll tax is not progressive, and there are no deductions.  I would also take the cap off of payroll tax.  That's dumb.

OK.  I'm fine with a 25.83% flat tax for everybody.  EVERYBODY pays their fair share.
Based on what you've been arguing for days, this makes MUCH more sense and is much less contradictory than the system you came up with in the first place.
of 122

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.