Not in this case. $100 million is about as valuable as it gets but if you are already a billionaire, it has almost no utility, even if you still value it greatly.

Because you say so?

Sure. If you disagree, feel free to make an argument. So far all you have is, "nah ah. You're dumb."

Posted by moy23 on 6/22/2014 10:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 9:54:00 PM (view original):
Not in this case. $100 million is about as valuable as it gets but if you are already a billionaire, it has almost no utility, even if you still value it greatly.

Unless im philanthropic and that $100 million was earmarked for cancer research.... Or maybe i had earmarked that $100 million to fund start up companies and create jobs. If you take that away from me to buy the poor smokes or to feed them for a day cause they need it more in your opinion.... Then you also just took away a shot at preventing 8 million deaths from cancer each year.... Or employing 50,000 so they can afford to buy their own cheeseburgers.

I get what you are saying.... You fail to realize that EVERY dollar to a saver - especially the last $s as you put it are important (and useful). A saver has X amount they will always save at all costs. If you take more of that away in taxes they reduce spending to compensate. Its how they tick.. They value saving more than spending...Which is how more people should think. once a certain savings goal is met they still save but now they are comfortable investing in riskier endevours like a fledgling business that needs capital to grow. This is why the utility of the last dollars is still high for the wealthy. Those last dollars are the dollars they invest in making this country great.

Well written post. Love it.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 10:14:00 PM (view original):
Sure. If you disagree, feel free to make an argument. So far all you have is, "nah ah. You're dumb."

Arguments have been made.  You choose to disregard them, as usual.  Probably because you're dumb.

Too many cheeseburgers as a child damaged his brain.    His allowance was paid in cheeseburgers. 

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2014 5:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 10:14:00 PM (view original):
Sure. If you disagree, feel free to make an argument. So far all you have is, "nah ah. You're dumb."

Arguments have been made.  You choose to disregard them, as usual.  Probably because you're dumb.

Well, sort of. All you've really said is other versions of no because I say so. You also said you wanted to raise taxes on the poor and middle class so I think there's just a fundamental disagreement here that makes arguing further a complete waste of time.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2014 9:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2014 5:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/22/2014 10:14:00 PM (view original):
Sure. If you disagree, feel free to make an argument. So far all you have is, "nah ah. You're dumb."

Arguments have been made.  You choose to disregard them, as usual.  Probably because you're dumb.

Well, sort of. All you've really said is other versions of no because I say so. You also said you wanted to raise taxes on the poor and middle class so I think there's just a fundamental disagreement here that makes arguing further a complete waste of time.

The "fundamental disagreement" here is that money in excess of some magical threshold of $x somehow has less value to the person it belongs to.  You keep saying "Duh, of course it has less utility, that's just common sense".  "Common sense" is not an absolute.  What may seem to be "common sense" to you seems apeshit stupid to others.

And the fact that YOU say that arguing is a complete waste of time is incredibly funny, since here we are around page 90 or so of this thread with you continuing to spew your nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.  Because you LOVE to argue.

It's not less value. It's less usefulness, less impact on quality of life. You agree, don't you, that winning a $100 million jackpot has a huge impact on a normal persons life. Winning a third $100 million jackpot has a much smaller impact on that person's life because they already have $200 million. Right?

And you're here too, so it seems like you love to argue just as much.

So he posts at 6:09 AM his time to say "arguing further a complete waste of time".    I think that could have waited a few hours.

Your obsession with me is really creepy.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2014 10:14:00 AM (view original):
It's not less value. It's less usefulness, less impact on quality of life. You agree, don't you, that winning a $100 million jackpot has a huge impact on a normal persons life. Winning a third $100 million jackpot has a much smaller impact on that person's life because they already have $200 million. Right?

And you're here too, so it seems like you love to argue just as much.

I'm not arguing.  I'm (a) making fun of you, (b) poking you to get a reaction, and (c) pointing out the idiocy of your arguments.

Does that make me a bad person?