Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:04:00 PM (view original):
I don't see a question from you.

Here it is.  From two days ago:

You've suggested that we should add yet another tax bracket to the top, to tax the upper class at an even higher tax rate than they are currently paying, while not affecting anybody else, correct?  Because "they can afford it"?

Is that correct?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it" is "fair".

I did suggest that before. I think it works because the marginal value of a dollar to an individual goes down as they make more. But you don't like that idea so I suggested a new one. (EDIT: the original idea was to pair the increase at the top with a reduction in the middle and lower classes.)

Do you think the two bracket (0%<75k, 60%>75k) system is fair?

Tell me how "because they're rich and they can afford it", or "because the marginal value of their dollars is less" is "fair".

Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that it isn't.

Do you think my two bracket system is fair?

Sure.  I'd say a system that has a single tax rate that is applied to all income above a certain level of income exemption for all people (rich or poor) is fair.

The appropriate numbers for exemption level and tax rate ($75k and 60% were just thrown out there for the sake of example) would need to be determined through modeling.

So you think my two bracket system is fair.

It's a bastardization of my proposal.  You've used a different framework to arrive at the exact same result.

What I don't like about it is that within your framework, you've positioned yourself to be able to add additional brackets with different tax rates.

It's fair as it currently is.  If you start mucking around with it by expanding it, then it probably won't be.

It's exactly the same as your plan. What's unfair about the current system?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 3:03:00 PM (view original):
What is unfair about the current system?

It's obvious tec is in favor of a system of a single tax rate, in which there's a threshold where the tax applies.  Putting it at $75,000 is an incredibly poor example for him, as it's more "**** the rich" then it is now, or what I'd be asking for.  The moment you take the threshold and add a percentage to the group that doesn't reach it, even at 1%, tec will be upset about it for some reason, which is what's sort of confusing.  I think almost everyone should pay some taxes.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 3:03:00 PM (view original):
What is unfair about the current system?

Other than the fact that some people have to pay taxes and others don't to live in the SAME county? Other than an IRS that targets specific groups? Other than tax loopholes for those individuals and companies that can afford to lobby? Other than the fact its so complex it favors those with accountants to get the most favorable outcome? Meh.... Nothing much ;)

"It's exactly the same as your plan."

Using a different framework to get to the same result does not make it "exactly the same".

Who insisted that the tax burden would be shifted?    Isn't that what started the entire discussion?   If it  is to remain status quo can everyone go back and delete 25 pages of posts?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 3:03:00 PM (view original):
What is unfair about the current system?

IMO, dependents reducing ur taxes, itemized deductions, different rates for capital gains vs -earned income- are 3 things that don't make the current system fair.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Isn't the reason (and punished is the wrong word, IMO) that by taxing the 1% more, you get to tax 99% of the population less, which is better for society as a whole? Also by taxing the 1% at a high rate, it affects the super-rich less, as they likely value the money they're paying at their rate less than the bottom 50% if they were taxed at that rate? Felt like this was an obvious reason, but tec said there was no reason given.  So tec, you can respond to this reason.

FWIW, this is coming from someone who knows less when it comes to these things as he thinks he is when it comes to sports, etc.  

Find these conversations fascinating, btw.

This is the first post I noticed.   Page 22.

After several exchanges between BL and Dougout(both are blocked).   Was it BL or DO who decided that taxation must change?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Isn't the reason (and punished is the wrong word, IMO) that by taxing the 1% more, you get to tax 99% of the population less, which is better for society as a whole? Also by taxing the 1% at a high rate, it affects the super-rich less, as they likely value the money they're paying at their rate less than the bottom 50% if they were taxed at that rate? Felt like this was an obvious reason, but tec said there was no reason given.  So tec, you can respond to this reason.

FWIW, this is coming from someone who knows less when it comes to these things as he thinks he is when it comes to sports, etc.  

Find these conversations fascinating, btw.

This is the first post I noticed.   Page 22.

After several exchanges between BL and Dougout(both are blocked).   Was it BL or DO who decided that taxation must change?

No one asked you to come post in the thread I started. Youre free to leave.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 3:03:00 PM (view original):
What is unfair about the current system?

It's obvious tec is in favor of a system of a single tax rate, in which there's a threshold where the tax applies.  Putting it at $75,000 is an incredibly poor example for him, as it's more "**** the rich" then it is now, or what I'd be asking for.  The moment you take the threshold and add a percentage to the group that doesn't reach it, even at 1%, tec will be upset about it for some reason, which is what's sort of confusing.  I think almost everyone should pay some taxes.

I am in favor of a single rate.

The $75k threshold and 60% tax rate examples was a dig at BL so that he couldn't automatically dismiss it as protecting the rich and screwing the poor.  So instead, he's trying to twist it around as a progressive tax rate, which it clearly is not.

You're assuming that I'd get upset at whatever the real numbers are.  That's a big leap.  I'm not rich, so I have no vested interest in "protecting" the rich.  I'm solidly middle class, but would have no problem paying more taxes if I felt the tax laws were designed fairly.  I'm happy to pay my "fair share" if the definition of "fair share" can pass the smell test of fairness.  Not just for me, but for everybody.

BL's insistence of making the rich pay more "because the marginal value of their money" is less than the people below them economically is little more than class warfare. I'm wondering if he was living in one of those tents with all the Occupy losers in parks a couple of years ago.

It's also ironic that almost exactly a year ago, BL had started another thread about gay marriage and equality and fairness, blah blah blah, and how nobody should have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do.  Yet here he is now blatantly promoting a discriminatory tax system and justifying as "so what, they can afford it".

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 3:18:00 PM (view original):
"It's exactly the same as your plan."

Using a different framework to get to the same result does not make it "exactly the same".

It's labeled differently but it's structured exactly the same. All income below 75k isn't taxed. All income above 75k is taxed at 60%.

So some people pay a higher rate than people who make less. The exact definition of a progressive tax.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Isn't the reason (and punished is the wrong word, IMO) that by taxing the 1% more, you get to tax 99% of the population less, which is better for society as a whole? Also by taxing the 1% at a high rate, it affects the super-rich less, as they likely value the money they're paying at their rate less than the bottom 50% if they were taxed at that rate? Felt like this was an obvious reason, but tec said there was no reason given.  So tec, you can respond to this reason.

FWIW, this is coming from someone who knows less when it comes to these things as he thinks he is when it comes to sports, etc.  

Find these conversations fascinating, btw.

This is the first post I noticed.   Page 22.

After several exchanges between BL and Dougout(both are blocked).   Was it BL or DO who decided that taxation must change?

Anybody?  Because, if it was BL, maybe he should STFU with the "What's unfair about the current system?" bullshit.

Otherwise, he simply proves the only reason he's here is to argue.   Because he could argue with himself without bothering to post.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 3:18:00 PM (view original):
"It's exactly the same as your plan."

Using a different framework to get to the same result does not make it "exactly the same".

It's labeled differently but it's structured exactly the same. All income below 75k isn't taxed. All income above 75k is taxed at 60%.

So some people pay a higher rate than people who make less. The exact definition of a progressive tax.

Do you understand what a framework is?

Never mind.  It's clear that you don't.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/6/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/6/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/6/2014 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Clearly, handouts to the poor AREN'T helping solve the core problem, which depending on your point of view... is either lack of marketable skills or lack of opportunity to learn those skills (or lack of work ethic).  

I'd be very interested to hear if there is a solution that does NOT involve simply giving away money to people who don't work and have no skills.  Besides my solution, that is...

I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top. I'd like labor laws to be strengthened in favor of labor, including laws to strengthen unions.

I'd like to see the education system reformed so that the difference between good and bad public schools is smaller.

I'd like to see improvements in housing and child care subsidies.

Why not let the hard-working KEEP their riches?  I'm in favor of cutting back on inherited wealth, but why are you so set on penalizing those that work hard (and/or smart) and succeed?

Your way basically says "If you're poor, the best you can hope for is middle class, because if you make it to upper class, we're taking it all back."  WHICH IS ******* STUPID.  

Unions favor the lazy and the stupid, so it makes sense that you would encourage them.

I think this was the start.    "I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top."  

I don't know that he out and out means "Tax the rich because they'll miss it less" but I believe that got the "Change tax laws" rolling.

Now he's asking "What's wrong with the current system?"


Hey, BL, couldn't you have just locked yourself in a bathroom and argued both sides of the discussion for the last 5 days?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 3:18:00 PM (view original):
"It's exactly the same as your plan."

Using a different framework to get to the same result does not make it "exactly the same".

It's labeled differently but it's structured exactly the same. All income below 75k isn't taxed. All income above 75k is taxed at 60%.

So some people pay a higher rate than people who make less. The exact definition of a progressive tax.

Do you understand what a framework is?

Never mind.  It's clear that you don't.

Maybe I don't understand.

Is there any practical difference between:

     People that make less than $75k are exempt from paying taxes. All dollars earned over $75k are taxed at 60%.

 and

     People that make less than $75K pay a 0% tax rate. All dollars earned over $75k are taxed at 60%.

?

If there is, then I clearly don't understand.

Didn't you say this:

                         What is unfair about the current system?

                         A progressive tax rate.  The more you make, the higher rate you pay. 

Under this plan, someone making $60,000 a year pays no taxes (or 0%). Someone making more ($90,000, for example), pays a higher rate. The more you make, the higher rate you pay. It looks like your own plan doesn't measure up to your definition of "fair."

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/6/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/6/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/6/2014 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Clearly, handouts to the poor AREN'T helping solve the core problem, which depending on your point of view... is either lack of marketable skills or lack of opportunity to learn those skills (or lack of work ethic).  

I'd be very interested to hear if there is a solution that does NOT involve simply giving away money to people who don't work and have no skills.  Besides my solution, that is...

I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top. I'd like labor laws to be strengthened in favor of labor, including laws to strengthen unions.

I'd like to see the education system reformed so that the difference between good and bad public schools is smaller.

I'd like to see improvements in housing and child care subsidies.

Why not let the hard-working KEEP their riches?  I'm in favor of cutting back on inherited wealth, but why are you so set on penalizing those that work hard (and/or smart) and succeed?

Your way basically says "If you're poor, the best you can hope for is middle class, because if you make it to upper class, we're taking it all back."  WHICH IS ******* STUPID.  

Unions favor the lazy and the stupid, so it makes sense that you would encourage them.

I think this was the start.    "I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top."  

I don't know that he out and out means "Tax the rich because they'll miss it less" but I believe that got the "Change tax laws" rolling.

Now he's asking "What's wrong with the current system?"


Hey, BL, couldn't you have just locked yourself in a bathroom and argued both sides of the discussion for the last 5 days?

I don't like the current system because it isn't progressive enough. You and tec, from the policies you've suggested, think it should be more regressive. Tec, specifically, said the current system is unfair. We have to nail down exactly what's unfair about the current system to really have a discussion.