Posted by tecwrg on 6/12/2014 1:04:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by bad_luck on 6/6/2014 4:10:00 PM:

I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top.

This statement was made before any discussion about taxes ever started.  So without the context of "let's take more tax money from the rich" . . . what exactly did you mean by this?

I also believe that some translate a statement like "I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top" as "f*ck the rich!", rather than simply seeing that in the last 20-30 years the current system overly favors the top 20% and puts a lot more of the burden on the middle class which is counterproductive if you would like to see the country thrive again economically.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/12/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):
It seems like there is a big divide. No use to keep going in circles.

I also believe that some translate a statement like "I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top" as "f*ck the rich!", rather than simply seeing that in the last 20-30 years the current system overly favors the top 20% and puts a lot more of the burden on the middle class which is counterproductive if you would like to see the country thrive again economically.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/12/2014 1:52:00 PM (view original):
Seems like when MOST Americans were enjoying nearly the same rate of increase over a 30+ year time frame THAT is WAY more FAIR than what the graph shows happening since the 80s. The gap is STILL widening.

So successful people keep getting more successful while unsuccessful people keep falling further behind?

If only we could limit hard work and intelligence.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/12/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):

 

I also believe that some translate a statement like "I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top" as "f*ck the rich!", rather than simply seeing that in the last 20-30 years the current system overly favors the top 20% and puts a lot more of the burden on the middle class which is counterproductive if you would like to see the country thrive again economically.

Did it ever occur to you that the last 20-30 years represented a "thinning of the herd" where the lazy, shiftless workers begin to separate DOWNWARD at the same time the entrepreneurial, diligent, and hard-working begin to separate UPWARD.  A chasm can be created by the top rising, or the bottom sinking.  Don't penalize the top group for rising faster (even if it was some of it was due to dot-com luck).  

Give some incentives for the lower and middle classes to rise upward.  A graduated tax system DOESN'T give incentive to rise (because you're rising in tax brackets)  Maybe lock the tax bracket based on the previous tax year.  So, if you earned $40K this year, if next year you earn $50K, you still only pay taxes on the $40K.  Next year, your tax basis will be $50K and so on.  That way, every year, you're striving higher (since your personal income growth is essential tax-free for the year).  The increase in purchasing power (and collected sales tax on those purchases) would likely cover any decline in govt revenues.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/12/2014 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/12/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):
It seems like there is a big divide. No use to keep going in circles.

I also believe that some translate a statement like "I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top" as "f*ck the rich!", rather than simply seeing that in the last 20-30 years the current system overly favors the top 20% and puts a lot more of the burden on the middle class which is counterproductive if you would like to see the country thrive again economically.

Even a basic eyeball test shows that the top line growth is linear, while the median and lower line is petering out.

Meaning, the top line is sustaining growth, while the middle and lower class has decided they're FINE where they are.

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?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/12/2014 2:09:00 PM (view original):

 

I also believe that some translate a statement like "I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top" as "f*ck the rich!", rather than simply seeing that in the last 20-30 years the current system overly favors the top 20% and puts a lot more of the burden on the middle class which is counterproductive if you would like to see the country thrive again economically.

Did it ever occur to you that the last 20-30 years represented a "thinning of the herd" where the lazy, shiftless workers begin to separate DOWNWARD at the same time the entrepreneurial, diligent, and hard-working begin to separate UPWARD.  A chasm can be created by the top rising, or the bottom sinking.  Don't penalize the top group for rising faster (even if it was some of it was due to dot-com luck).  

Give some incentives for the lower and middle classes to rise upward.  A graduated tax system DOESN'T give incentive to rise (because you're rising in tax brackets)  Maybe lock the tax bracket based on the previous tax year.  So, if you earned $40K this year, if next year you earn $50K, you still only pay taxes on the $40K.  Next year, your tax basis will be $50K and so on.  That way, every year, you're striving higher (since your personal income growth is essential tax-free for the year).  The increase in purchasing power (and collected sales tax on those purchases) would likely cover any decline in govt revenues.

No one ever says, "gee, I'd like to be rich and successful but I think I'll just stay poor because rich people have to pay a lot if taxes."

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:17:00 PM (view original):

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?

It's not irrelevant since we're talking about the value of the next dollar you make.  That would be the next dollar you'd make.

You don't think it would depend on the amount of money you had? 

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"

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 11:45:00 AM (view original):

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?

I'll answer this for you:
1.  You don't know how much money I make.
2.  You don't know how much money I spend.
3.  You don't know how much the bat I WANT costs.
4.  You don't know how important to me said bat is.

So how the **** do you know how much I value a dollar?   Or if I value the first dollar I make this year more than the last one?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:17:00 PM (view original):

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?

It's not irrelevant since we're talking about the value of the next dollar you make.  That would be the next dollar you'd make.

You don't think it would depend on the amount of money you had? 

You've been telling me how much specific people value their money.

Why can't you tell me whether or not I hesitate to buy that bat?