Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:26:00 PM (view original):

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?

I've never said anything about 1 specific person.

Do you make $150,000?  You probably would have less angst over buying an item for recreational use than you would if you made $50,000.  That's all I've been saying.  That goes for the average person making those salaries.  The guy who makes $150,000 who used to make $500,000 and has 6 kids aged 11-19 and has a mortgage payment of $6000 a month? He's at the extreme, yea, he'll have more angst buying the bat.  I think a progressive tax rate makes much more sense than the same tax rate for everyone, because the 150,000th dollar has less value than the 50,000th dollar to the average person receiving those salaries.

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

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."

Possibly not, but there are thousands of people that say "If the government is gonna give me money, I don't have to work EVER!  So I'll stay home and watch "Honey Boo-Boo" and the "Kardashians meet the Real Housewives of the Jersey Shore"

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
What statement have I said that's incorrect?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
What statement have I said that's incorrect?

That the guy making x-amount values his money more than the guy making more than x-amount. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
What statement have I said that's incorrect?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
What statement have I said that's incorrect?

That the guy making x-amount values his money more than the guy making more than x-amount. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
What statement have I said that's incorrect?

That the guy making x-amount values his money more than the guy making more than x-amount. 

You'll notice whenever I make that statement, I add "most likely" or "generally" or "probably."

You can add "sometimes" or "once in awhile" or "virtually never" and it's still bullshit. 

The value of the dollar you hold in your hand, to you, is affected by countless outside factors.   Some of your doing, some of your circumstances and some from random bullshit.    I've thrown out countless examples and you still insist that a guy making 100k will miss money less than a guy making 50k.    And that's a stupid statement.  People don't live in vacuum.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/12/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

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.

I don't think it means that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
What statement have I said that's incorrect?

That the guy making x-amount values his money more than the guy making more than x-amount. 

You'll notice whenever I make that statement, I add "most likely" or "generally" or "probably."

You can add "sometimes" or "once in awhile" or "virtually never" and it's still bullshit. 

The value of the dollar you hold in your hand, to you, is affected by countless outside factors.   Some of your doing, some of your circumstances and some from random bullshit.    I've thrown out countless examples and you still insist that a guy making 100k will miss money less than a guy making 50k.    And that's a stupid statement.  People don't live in vacuum.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
What statement have I said that's incorrect?

That the guy making x-amount values his money more than the guy making more than x-amount. 

You'll notice whenever I make that statement, I add "most likely" or "generally" or "probably."

You can add "sometimes" or "once in awhile" or "virtually never" and it's still bullshit. 

The value of the dollar you hold in your hand, to you, is affected by countless outside factors.   Some of your doing, some of your circumstances and some from random bullshit.    I've thrown out countless examples and you still insist that a guy making 100k will miss money less than a guy making 50k.    And that's a stupid statement.  People don't live in vacuum.

It's not bullshit.  The average person who makes $100K will value his next dollar less than the average person who makes $50K.  Cry all you want about it, but the government recognizes that, and they budget their tax code accordingly.  I'm not talking about any specific person in a vacuum.  

There are people who work under the books and collect unemployment at the same time.  It's like you'd argue to stop unemployment payments because there are people collecting who are employed. "UNEMPLOYMENT! BULLSHIT! THERE'S THIS ONE GUY..."

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 bad_luck on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):

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

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."

Possibly not, but there are thousands of people that say "If the government is gonna give me money, I don't have to work EVER!  So I'll stay home and watch "Honey Boo-Boo" and the "Kardashians meet the Real Housewives of the Jersey Shore"

Those people are at the extreme and don't represent all lower and middle class people. We shouldn't avoid setting good policy that would benefit the lower and middle classes based on a relatively small amount of people who abuse the system.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
What statement have I said that's incorrect?

That the guy making x-amount values his money more than the guy making more than x-amount. 

You'll notice whenever I make that statement, I add "most likely" or "generally" or "probably."

You can add "sometimes" or "once in awhile" or "virtually never" and it's still bullshit. 

The value of the dollar you hold in your hand, to you, is affected by countless outside factors.   Some of your doing, some of your circumstances and some from random bullshit.    I've thrown out countless examples and you still insist that a guy making 100k will miss money less than a guy making 50k.    And that's a stupid statement.  People don't live in vacuum.

It's not bullshit.  The average person who makes $100K will value his next dollar less than the average person who makes $50K.  Cry all you want about it, but the government recognizes that, and they budget their tax code accordingly.  I'm not talking about any specific person in a vacuum.  

There are people who work under the books and collect unemployment at the same time.  It's like you'd argue to stop unemployment payments because there are people collecting who are employed. "UNEMPLOYMENT! BULLSHIT! THERE'S THIS ONE GUY..."

It is bullshit.   And it's sad that you can't recognize it.

You have 1m to live the rest of your life.  You cannot make more.  It cannot be taken from you without your consent.   You will die once the last penny is spent.

Do you live in the middle of NYC?
Do you move to Wyoming?

Are you going to continue to insist that 1m is the same in both places?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/12/2014 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/12/2014 2:31:00 PM (view original):
What statement have I said that's incorrect?

That the guy making x-amount values his money more than the guy making more than x-amount. 

You'll notice whenever I make that statement, I add "most likely" or "generally" or "probably."

You can add "sometimes" or "once in awhile" or "virtually never" and it's still bullshit. 

The value of the dollar you hold in your hand, to you, is affected by countless outside factors.   Some of your doing, some of your circumstances and some from random bullshit.    I've thrown out countless examples and you still insist that a guy making 100k will miss money less than a guy making 50k.    And that's a stupid statement.  People don't live in vacuum.

It's not bullshit.  The average person who makes $100K will value his next dollar less than the average person who makes $50K.  Cry all you want about it, but the government recognizes that, and they budget their tax code accordingly.  I'm not talking about any specific person in a vacuum.  

There are people who work under the books and collect unemployment at the same time.  It's like you'd argue to stop unemployment payments because there are people collecting who are employed. "UNEMPLOYMENT! BULLSHIT! THERE'S THIS ONE GUY..."

It is bullshit.   And it's sad that you can't recognize it.

You have 1m to live the rest of your life.  You cannot make more.  It cannot be taken from you without your consent.   You will die once the last penny is spent.

Do you live in the middle of NYC?
Do you move to Wyoming?

Are you going to continue to insist that 1m is the same in both places?