Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2014 11:06:00 AM (view original):

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?

Posted by moy23 on 6/23/2014 11:13:00 AM (view original):

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.

Where is the 'utility' in taking money from the by in large 'productive' members of society that invest in creating jobs and growing the economy... And giving that money to the 'unproductive' members of society. That sounds like 'low utility' to me. That money would be 'better used' or 'more useful' in the hands of those that actually know what to do with it.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2014 11:06:00 AM (view original):

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?

Did you ever consider that I'm doing the same thing?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2014 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/23/2014 11:06:00 AM (view original):

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?

Did you ever consider that I'm doing the same thing?

No.  You're too stubborn and show no indication of self-awareness

Posted by bad_luck on 6/23/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):
It's not "my theory."

Where am I going with this? No where. It helps when having an argument to make sure that everyone is on the same page. You're less likely to argue past each other.

Regardless of tax policy, diminishing marginal utility is a real thing, agree?

The curve looks like this:

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/23/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Since declaring that there's nothing left to argue, BL has 6 posts.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/23/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Since declaring that there's nothing left to argue, BL has 6 posts.  

"I have nothing left to argue but I'm still going to argue."

Good one.