Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 7:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 12:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/21/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Like everyone, I'm wrong all the time. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

i can't find 1 credible source that stands behind the marginal utility "of income"... and IN PARTICULAR i can't find anything that compares the marginal utility of income 'spent' vs. the utility of actually 'saving' that money. It just seems you are using a 'spending only' based model that does not include saving as a possible outcome.

its like your cheeseburger analogy... your model doesn't account for someone 'saving' part of the burger for a future meal. It only accounts for eating 4, 5, 6 burgers in one sitting so obviously in that case the 5th and 6th burgers have less marginal utility than the first couple burgers. to put it another way... which has more utility... having enough food for one meal only OR having enough food to last a week?

Take a breath and think it through. If we taxed by taking one cheeseburger from everyone, who will have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 cheeseburgers that he's saving for later or the guy with only one cheeseburger?

So basically short our countries future for today.... You'd make a great politician.

For example - its that money 'on the sidelines' that gets used to fund start up businesses... Is it more important for an angel investor to feed 10 people today or create jobs for 200,000 people tomorrow?

Can you answer the question?

If we taxed everyone one cheeseburger, who would have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 saved for later or the guy with one?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2014 11:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 7:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 12:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/21/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Like everyone, I'm wrong all the time. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

i can't find 1 credible source that stands behind the marginal utility "of income"... and IN PARTICULAR i can't find anything that compares the marginal utility of income 'spent' vs. the utility of actually 'saving' that money. It just seems you are using a 'spending only' based model that does not include saving as a possible outcome.

its like your cheeseburger analogy... your model doesn't account for someone 'saving' part of the burger for a future meal. It only accounts for eating 4, 5, 6 burgers in one sitting so obviously in that case the 5th and 6th burgers have less marginal utility than the first couple burgers. to put it another way... which has more utility... having enough food for one meal only OR having enough food to last a week?

Take a breath and think it through. If we taxed by taking one cheeseburger from everyone, who will have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 cheeseburgers that he's saving for later or the guy with only one cheeseburger?

So basically short our countries future for today.... You'd make a great politician.

For example - its that money 'on the sidelines' that gets used to fund start up businesses... Is it more important for an angel investor to feed 10 people today or create jobs for 200,000 people tomorrow?

Can you answer the question?

If we taxed everyone one cheeseburger, who would have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 saved for later or the guy with one?

What about the guy who doesn't have any cheeseburgers because he's a vegetarian?  Or even the retarded cousin of the vegetarian, the vegan?  Do you sic the IRS on them because they don't have any cheeseburgers to pay their taxes in BL Land?

Could we tax the guy with 1 cheeseburger just the lettuce and the guy with 6 cheeseburgers an entire cheeseburger?    Because, retarded cheeseburger example aside, that's what I'm suggesting.

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 7:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 12:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/21/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Like everyone, I'm wrong all the time. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

i can't find 1 credible source that stands behind the marginal utility "of income"... and IN PARTICULAR i can't find anything that compares the marginal utility of income 'spent' vs. the utility of actually 'saving' that money. It just seems you are using a 'spending only' based model that does not include saving as a possible outcome.

its like your cheeseburger analogy... your model doesn't account for someone 'saving' part of the burger for a future meal. It only accounts for eating 4, 5, 6 burgers in one sitting so obviously in that case the 5th and 6th burgers have less marginal utility than the first couple burgers. to put it another way... which has more utility... having enough food for one meal only OR having enough food to last a week?

Take a breath and think it through. If we taxed by taking one cheeseburger from everyone, who will have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 cheeseburgers that he's saving for later or the guy with only one cheeseburger?

So basically short our countries future for today.... You'd make a great politician.

For example - its that money 'on the sidelines' that gets used to fund start up businesses... Is it more important for an angel investor to feed 10 people today or create jobs for 200,000 people tomorrow?

Can you answer the question?

If we taxed everyone one cheeseburger, who would have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 saved for later or the guy with one?

Depends on a few factors... since we don't live in a vacuum, right?

First - are you referring to now or in the future? immediately it helps the person who has none - absolutely - there's the answer you want. BUT In the future it hurts both people since the person who got one didn't ration it and now the person who saved some for later so he could feed his family at the end of the week just lost his job... or maybe instead of using the money he was going to invest to create jobs he has to now use it to buy more food to support his family and that guy who can't ration. Could this person in your example possibly go to a soup kitchen for a 'burger'? Soup Kitchens are free and most are not funded with tax $$s but with charitable donations and fundraising. There are other options, right?

This is precisely the reason there are more impoverished people today than ever before. Taking 'cheeseburgers' from those who have saved some for later doesn't solve the problem... infact it creates a bigger problem.. that person becomes dependant upon putting their hand out to take the 5th burger from the person that was saving them... then again for the 4th. Giving money to the financially uneducated does not work... eductating those people how to determine a need (a reasonable amount of healthy food) from a want (smokes) goes a LOT farther than giving them handouts.

Couple questions:

Do you think more people are poor today than ever before because we don't 'give' them enough money?

Would you suggest, as your example above does, that it is better to fish for someone than to teach them to fish themselves?


The problem with america is on the SPEND side of the equation.... the country needs to PRIORITIZE its needs vs wants and then spend MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY. Until it does, taxing anyone more is just a dumb idea.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
And just to show how retarded the "less marginal utility" argument is, let me propose a hypothetical to BL:

I'll use cars instead of cheeseburgers.

Let's say BL is single, because he can't find a woman who doesn't find him to be a complete moron.  Since he doesn't have to worry about a wife or kids, he decides that he is going to collect cars because he really, really likes cars.  He's now up to five cars.  Now since he can only drive one car at a time, he really only needs one to get to work, or to go to the store to buy cheeseburgers.  Car #2 has less marginal utility than car #1, etc.  Logic follows that car #5 has the least marginal utility to him.

Moy is BL's neighbor, and he doesn't have a car.  Maybe he had one, but it died, and he cannot afford another one.  He now has no way to get to work.  He can't car pool with BL, because their jobs are in completely different directions.

SInce it's better for society that moy gets to work everyday, since he doesn't want to live off the government teat, does moy have some sort of inherent right to expect that BL's car #5 be taken from BL and given to him, since BL's car #5 has the least marginal utility to him?  After all, he still has four other cars and shouldn't miss the fifth one.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/22/2014 11:58:00 AM (view original):
And just to show how retarded the "less marginal utility" argument is, let me propose a hypothetical to BL:

I'll use cars instead of cheeseburgers.

Let's say BL is single, because he can't find a woman who doesn't find him to be a complete moron.  Since he doesn't have to worry about a wife or kids, he decides that he is going to collect cars because he really, really likes cars.  He's now up to five cars.  Now since he can only drive one car at a time, he really only needs one to get to work, or to go to the store to buy cheeseburgers.  Car #2 has less marginal utility than car #1, etc.  Logic follows that car #5 has the least marginal utility to him.

Moy is BL's neighbor, and he doesn't have a car.  Maybe he had one, but it died, and he cannot afford another one.  He now has no way to get to work.  He can't car pool with BL, because their jobs are in completely different directions.

SInce it's better for society that moy gets to work everyday, since he doesn't want to live off the government teat, does moy have some sort of inherent right to expect that BL's car #5 be taken from BL and given to him, since BL's car #5 has the least marginal utility to him?  After all, he still has four other cars and shouldn't miss the fifth one.

The government needs to collect dollars from somewhere in order to run the country. If, instead of dollars, the government took cars to run the country, taking my fifth car would make the most sense. It's not that I wouldn't miss the fifth car, it's that I would miss it less than someone who only had one car would miss losing that one car.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2014 4:41:00 PM (view original):
JoePoor will have a hamburger with no pickle because we've taxed him cheese and pickle.  BobRich will have 5 cheeseburgers because we taxed him an entire cheeseburger.   THAT'S how taxation works.  It's not "Gimme 100% of your income."

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 11:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 7:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 12:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/21/2014 11:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2014 10:55:00 PM (view original):
Like everyone, I'm wrong all the time. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

i can't find 1 credible source that stands behind the marginal utility "of income"... and IN PARTICULAR i can't find anything that compares the marginal utility of income 'spent' vs. the utility of actually 'saving' that money. It just seems you are using a 'spending only' based model that does not include saving as a possible outcome.

its like your cheeseburger analogy... your model doesn't account for someone 'saving' part of the burger for a future meal. It only accounts for eating 4, 5, 6 burgers in one sitting so obviously in that case the 5th and 6th burgers have less marginal utility than the first couple burgers. to put it another way... which has more utility... having enough food for one meal only OR having enough food to last a week?

Take a breath and think it through. If we taxed by taking one cheeseburger from everyone, who will have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 cheeseburgers that he's saving for later or the guy with only one cheeseburger?

So basically short our countries future for today.... You'd make a great politician.

For example - its that money 'on the sidelines' that gets used to fund start up businesses... Is it more important for an angel investor to feed 10 people today or create jobs for 200,000 people tomorrow?

Can you answer the question?

If we taxed everyone one cheeseburger, who would have a bigger problem, the guy with 6 saved for later or the guy with one?

Depends on a few factors... since we don't live in a vacuum, right?

First - are you referring to now or in the future? immediately it helps the person who has none - absolutely - there's the answer you want. BUT In the future it hurts both people since the person who got one didn't ration it and now the person who saved some for later so he could feed his family at the end of the week just lost his job... or maybe instead of using the money he was going to invest to create jobs he has to now use it to buy more food to support his family and that guy who can't ration. Could this person in your example possibly go to a soup kitchen for a 'burger'? Soup Kitchens are free and most are not funded with tax $$s but with charitable donations and fundraising. There are other options, right?

This is precisely the reason there are more impoverished people today than ever before. Taking 'cheeseburgers' from those who have saved some for later doesn't solve the problem... infact it creates a bigger problem.. that person becomes dependant upon putting their hand out to take the 5th burger from the person that was saving them... then again for the 4th. Giving money to the financially uneducated does not work... eductating those people how to determine a need (a reasonable amount of healthy food) from a want (smokes) goes a LOT farther than giving them handouts.

Couple questions:

Do you think more people are poor today than ever before because we don't 'give' them enough money?

Would you suggest, as your example above does, that it is better to fish for someone than to teach them to fish themselves?


The problem with america is on the SPEND side of the equation.... the country needs to PRIORITIZE its needs vs wants and then spend MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY. Until it does, taxing anyone more is just a dumb idea.

Obviously, real life is more complicated than deciding whether we tax one cheeseburger from guy A or guy B. And welfare is an entirely different argument. My point is that higher rates in the upper brackets make sense based on the concept of diminishing marginal utility.

Sure your concept works in the 'now' but its not viable for the future good of the nation. It takes money away 'now' from those that would invest that money 'later'.

Currently the top 50% of tax payers pay 98% of the tax burden. Basically half the country pays for the other half. Increasing taxes on the rich would just push that ratio more towards 1/3rd of the country paying for the other 2/3rds.... Is that what you are looking to achieve? ... And couldn't it be argued that taxing EVERYONE would be more beneficial to the country because people 'care' more when they actually pay for something using 'their' money?