Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 10:40:00 AM (view original):
I don't know what else to say.  The more money you make, the less you value the next dollar you make.  A guy who makes $50K a year is more likely to pick up a dollar off the floor than a guy who makes $100K.  A guy who makes $100K is more likely than a guy who makes $1M.  We tax people differently with this in mind.  It's more efficient.  

If you want to argue "well not EVERY individual who makes $100K values their next dollar less than the guy who makes $50K, so tax them all the same rate" I'd argue that's stupid.  If you argue that every individual should be taxed the same rate because it's what's fair, I wouldn't call it stupid.

No.  "The more money you make, the less you value the next dollar you make."

Very stupid to make a blanket statement like that.  Very, very stupid.


I've argued the last point since the beginning even though I don't really give a **** about fair.   It's just that no one should get a free ride. 

If you think people are just as likely to pick up a dollar they see on a sidewalk, regardless of their income level, I think that's stupid.

We call that "found money" where I come from.     It's free.   I don't know who's just as like to pick it up but I also thinks it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

There is a new softball bat I want.    Softball bats are pricey considering the role they play.    How much angst do I have over buying it?

If you make $1 million a year, you probably have zero angst buying it. If you make $17,000 a year, maybe a lot of angst.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 11:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 10:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 10:01:00 PM (view original):
The $75k and 60% numbers were just for sake of example.  I don't know what "good" numbers, that would work, would be.  But I specifically chose those numbers for the example as a shot at him, knowing that he couldn't flat-out dismiss them as "protecting the rich", which I think he thinks is what I'm trying to do.

He hasn't said what he doesn't like about it.  He's just been arguing for dozens of pages trying to get me to say it's a progressive tax.

So in short . . . he's just arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me, with no other apparent agenda.

Your example was a shot at me? Interesting. I actually don't mind that example. It's probably more progressive than the system we have now. There would likely be a large increase in tax income from the upper class and no taxes would be collected from all of the lower class and some of the middle class.

I just thought that it was hilarious that you cried about the current system being unfair because some money is taxed at a higher rate than other money while, at the same time, proposing a system that taxes some money at a higher rate than other money.

No response at all, tec. Interesting.

Here's my response:

It sounds as if you like my plan.  So why the **** are you arguing about it?

Also, I think it's hilarious about how you have so little self-awareness about how you come across in these forums, and how easy it is to provoke you into argument and string you along.  It's hilarious how you are so sure that you "win" with every post you make.  It's hilarious how much you amuse me.  Like a clown.

That's my response.

I also find you hilarious.

I just thought that it was hilarious that you cried about the current system being unfair because some money is taxed at a higher rate than other money while, at the same time, proposing a system that taxes some money at a higher rate than other money

Nice comeback.  Clever, and well thought out.

Posted by The Taint on 6/12/2014 11:47:00 AM (view original):
I see people walk away from their mortgages all the time. Your values are not someone else's values and to try and pigeonhole everyone is folly.

Exactly.  Financial status and "value of your dollar to you" isn't a one-size-fits-all.     Blanket statements are retarded.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/12/2014 11:47:00 AM (view original):
I see people walk away from their mortgages all the time. Your values are not someone else's values and to try and pigeonhole everyone is folly.

Exactly.  Financial status and "value of your dollar to you" isn't a one-size-fits-all.     Blanket statements are retarded.

Blanket statements are just generalizations.

The tax code isn't a generalization, it is long and complicated in an attempt to deal with all the different situations people are in.

But thank you for arguing against an over simplified, one-size-fits all, tax system.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 11:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 11:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 11:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 11:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 10:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 10:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 10:37:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 10:32:00 AM (view original):
I'd argue that individuals making $100k value EVERY dollar they make, and nobody should have the right to tell them HOW MUCH they should value the last dollar they make.

Everyone values every dollar they make. No one values every dollar they make the same.

Who values their last dollar more?

The 50 year old guy making $100k with a mortgage, one kid in college and a second kid a year away from college, or the 25 year old guy making $50k while living in mom's basement and out partying with his friends 5 nights a week?

It doesn't matter who values their last dollar more. Both value their first dollar more than their last. That's the point.

Of course it matters.  That's the whole crux of your "add another bracket or two to the highest earners because they will miss their last dollars less" argument.

A) Since when is $100,000 with a mortgage and two kids the "highest earners?"

B) even the guy who makes 100k with a mortgage and two kids values his first dollar more than his last.

a) It's not.  But isn't your argument that the more people make, they less they value their last dollar?  By that argument, the older guy values his 100,000th dollar less than the younger guy values his 50,000th dollar.  Correct?

b)  The money I make in December has no less value to me than the money I make in January, because many of my expenses are continuously ongoing, and there are new expenses occurring every week or every month.  So every dollar I make has equal value to me.

a) You've included details that the government accounts for. In reality, the guy with the mortgage and kids in college probably pays an effective rate similar to the kid making less but without those deductions.

b) I'm assuming you have expenses every month that have to get paid. Without the money to pay those expenses, you'd lose your home, you wouldn't eat, etc. After you pay your expenses, you probably have money left over for things like golf and male prostitutes. If, for whatever reason, you were going to have less one month, you wouldn't cut out the mortgage and the food, you'd cut out the golf, because you value the golf less than you do food. Likewise, you value the dollars used on golf less than you value the dollars used on food.

a)  Way to avoid answering the question.  Shocking that you would do that.  Again.

b)  Discretionary spending versus non-discretionary spending.  Glad you brought that up.  Let's talk about poor people.  Specifically the ones who are spending some parts of their money on booze, smokes, weed, etc.  Maybe if we raised taxes on the poor, they'd give up the booze, smokes and weed.  Help the government AND better their lifestyles.  Sounds like a win-win situation to me.  What do you think?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/12/2014 11:47:00 AM (view original):
I see people walk away from their mortgages all the time. Your values are not someone else's values and to try and pigeonhole everyone is folly.

Exactly.  Financial status and "value of your dollar to you" isn't a one-size-fits-all.     Blanket statements are retarded.

Blanket statements are just generalizations.

The tax code isn't a generalization, it is long and complicated in an attempt to deal with all the different situations people are in.

But thank you for arguing against an over simplified, one-size-fits all, tax system.

Do you like the current tax code?  Do you think it can be changed for the better?  If so, any ideas of where to start?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/12/2014 11:47:00 AM (view original):
I see people walk away from their mortgages all the time. Your values are not someone else's values and to try and pigeonhole everyone is folly.

Exactly.  Financial status and "value of your dollar to you" isn't a one-size-fits-all.     Blanket statements are retarded.

Blanket statements are just generalizations.

The tax code isn't a generalization, it is long and complicated in an attempt to deal with all the different situations people are in.

But thank you for arguing against an over simplified, one-size-fits all, tax system.

Do you like the current tax code?  Do you think it can be changed for the better?  If so, any ideas of where to start?

Who the **** is arguing against "an over-simplified, one size fits all tax system"?   I think that is fantastic.

I'm arguing against anyone telling me they know how much I value a dollar.   Or how much anyone, in any tax bracket, values their dollars.

If you're going to respond to me when you know the ONLY time I'll read it if it's quoted, at least respond to the subject matter. 

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/12/2014 11:47:00 AM (view original):
I see people walk away from their mortgages all the time. Your values are not someone else's values and to try and pigeonhole everyone is folly.

Exactly.  Financial status and "value of your dollar to you" isn't a one-size-fits-all.     Blanket statements are retarded.

Blanket statements are just generalizations.

The tax code isn't a generalization, it is long and complicated in an attempt to deal with all the different situations people are in.

But thank you for arguing against an over simplified, one-size-fits all, tax system.

Do you like the current tax code?  Do you think it can be changed for the better?  If so, any ideas of where to start?

It could be improved.

In general, I think we can make it more progressive by taking less money from the middle class and more money from the upper income brackets.

Because they're rich, they can afford it, and they'll miss it less?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Because they're rich, they can afford it, and they'll miss it less?

In general, yes.

I'm sorry if you don't like that but, in my opinion, it's the best way to collect the money needed to run the country.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Because they're rich, they can afford it, and they'll miss it less?

In general, yes.

I'm sorry if you don't like that but, in my opinion, it's the best way to collect the money needed to run the country.

This is part of my issue.  I personally plan for taxes, so the amount I pay is already "factored in".  I don't miss it day-to-day.

My issue is with what that money is spent on, and what some people think is "needed to run the country"

The private sector should work like that.    If you want to buy something, you present your W2.   Then they tell you how much it costs.  

That way everyone will pay a fair price for goods/services. 

Posted by toddcommish on 6/12/2014 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):
Because they're rich, they can afford it, and they'll miss it less?

In general, yes.

I'm sorry if you don't like that but, in my opinion, it's the best way to collect the money needed to run the country.

This is part of my issue.  I personally plan for taxes, so the amount I pay is already "factored in".  I don't miss it day-to-day.

My issue is with what that money is spent on, and what some people think is "needed to run the country"

How the money is spent is an entirely different and, in my opinion, much more complicated issue.

Quote post by bad_luck on 6/6/2014 4:10:00 PM:

Once you accumulate "enough", the rest becomes the property of the govt.  

That would work, right?   Now we just need to determine "enough".