Minimum Wage Topic

burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 11:59:00 AM (view original):
I suppose they won't necessarily go down for the other group.  So if you don't want taxes raised overall, then I understand the hesitation.  But I think it certainly makes sense to redistribute where the tax money is coming from.

If you think taxes SHOULD be raised overall (for whatever reason, there are good ones and bad ones) then the top 1% does seem like the proper place to start, since we're talking about a minority of people affected. I'm not in this group of people.
I guess I'm just not as comfortable in saying "Take more from them" as you are.

To simplify, you're making 5 and saying "Take more from the guy making 10".    Why won't the guy making 3 say "Take more from the guy making 5"?
That's fair. But I think it's more that by taxing the 1% (did some quick research...looks like its those making $400,000 or more) more than they are now, it would hurt them less than if you raised the tax rate on the guy who's making $40,000 a year (which appears to be around the 50% mark).  More people with more money in their pockets than they have now sounds like a good thing to me.  

That said, if I made $400,000 a year, I wouldn't be thrilled with the idea of paying more in taxes. But I'd understand it. I'd be in a solid financial state most likely, I'm living comfortably regardless. The guy making $40,000 a year may not be living "comfortably," he might be even be living something close to paycheck to paycheck, depending on various circumstances. Taxing that guy more doesn't seem like it's good for society.
Therein lies the problem.  

The guy making 400k, the guy making 40k and the guy making 20k can all say "The guy making more than me should pay more."     400k certainly isn't 2 billion.   Fair to say the guy making 2B is "more comfortable" than the guy making 400k?
I'll be honest, when I looked at the tax code, I was surprised that there wasn't a tax bracket higher than $400K+. I'd argue there should be a $1M-$2M and $2M plus or something along those lines.
6/9/2014 1:24 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  
I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.
I'm certainly not anywhere close to an expert on economics, but I'll disagree that what you're saying is a good thing for society.
Treating people equally and fairly is not good for society?

Explain.

I did that already.  I think a higher % of people with more money in their pockets than they have now would be a good thing.  You disagree.  There's a line, obviously.  I don't believe in taxing people 80% of their incomes.  
6/9/2014 1:27 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 
6/9/2014 1:29 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Even the guy selling pot to make a living is getting taxed just like everyone else.
6/9/2014 1:31 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 11:35:00 AM (view original):
I understand the math.  But why do you think that taxes will go down for a specific group?
We're arguing what should happen, not what will happen.

I think that we should make the tax system more progressive. That means taking more money from the top and less from the bottom (in this case the "bottom " equals roughly 95% of the population).
Why?
Because it makes sense.

No one benefits from a continued concentration of wealth at the top. We can either set policy that strengthens labor and increases real wages of the middle and lower classes (union laws, higher minimum wage, etc.) or we can make the tax system more progressive. Or some combination of the two.

The goal is to take a chunk of the wealth from the top and move it to the middle and bottom.
"Because it makes sense."

How does that make sense?  Please provide an argument.

"No one benefits from a continued concentration of wealth at the top."

How is anybody hurt by that?  Are you "hurt" by the fact that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, etc. are billionaires and (assumingly) you are not?

"The goal is to take a chunk of the wealth from the top and move it to the middle and bottom."

Wealth distribution.  Robin Hood economics.  "You have too much money.  Give some of it to me."  Sounds fair, right?
"Please provide an argument"

The next paragraph is the argument. No one** benefits from the concentration of wealth at the top. For many reasons. For one, when the vast majority of the population has less, the economy is less stable and more prone to crashes.

Think of it as a game of monopoly played by 10 people. If one person has control of all the property and cash and the other nine just roll the dice every turn hoping that they don't go bankrupt, the game ends quickly, right? There isn't any opportunity for the poorer players to move up and accumulate any assets or wealth, and (expanding the analogy beyond the rules of traditional monopoly) competition and innovation are limited.

All income taxes are wealth redistribution. Taking 42% instead or 34% or taking 48% instead of 40% isn't inherently wrong and it isn't a punishment. Would anyone not trade places with someone in the top tax bracket? I would and I'm not poor. I'd gladly pay a huge tax bill in exchange for huge income.




**Other than the couple million people at the top.

6/9/2014 1:33 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 
My immediate reaction to reading that was that less people would spend their money, overall, which sounds like a bad thing.  Is that fair?  Unless we're lowering federal income taxes overall as well?
6/9/2014 1:33 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 
My immediate reaction to reading that was that less people would spend their money, overall, which sounds like a bad thing.  Is that fair?  Unless we're lowering federal income taxes overall as well?
The problem with a sales tax is that it doesn't raise enough income at a reasonable tax percentage. And, by raising the sales tax percentage, it ends up being a regressive tax.
6/9/2014 1:38 PM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
I agree with adding more brackets at the top and with taxing them at a higher rate than what it is now. There really isn't a valid argument against making another bracket a 1M and saying everything after 1M your taxed at 40% and after 5M your taxed at 50% etc.

The real problem with doing this is the irresponsiblity demonstrated by the federal government when it comes to managing our money.
If the budget has to be X  amount of $ then it absolutely makes more sense for that target to be reached by millionaires paying a bit more and not the little guy.

I personally feel that the target is already WAAAY too high and that should be addressed first in my opinion, but when/if the government could become more responsible; reduce fraud; reduce the amount of money spent on entitlement programs; and just waste in general of which there is a sh!t ton of, then yeah I would be in favor of reaching a more responsible budgetary target by doing what was proposed above and adding brackets near the top and increasing the %.
6/9/2014 1:38 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 
My immediate reaction to reading that was that less people would spend their money, overall, which sounds like a bad thing.  Is that fair?  Unless we're lowering federal income taxes overall as well?
The problem with a sales tax is that it doesn't raise enough income at a reasonable tax percentage. And, by raising the sales tax percentage, it ends up being a regressive tax.
You shift the tax burden from the upper class to the lower and middle.

That's the opposite of what should be done.
6/9/2014 1:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 
My immediate reaction to reading that was that less people would spend their money, overall, which sounds like a bad thing.  Is that fair?  Unless we're lowering federal income taxes overall as well?
I'm doing away with fed/state income taxes.        

If people want things, they have to spend their money.   Money in the bank is nice but you can't get stuff until you take it out.
6/9/2014 1:39 PM
greeny9
Posts: 1444 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 37 11
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  
I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.
Really? Well then I'd argue that you have not thought about the consequences. If everybody where taxed equally the bottom 50% would be taxed more leaving them with even less money to spend then they do right now, so less money being spent at mcdonalds and Walmart. What exactly does that do to the economy? Now if the top say 5% were to pay this equal tax then obviously they total tax they pay would be less. Does that mean they are going to spend more? Don't think so, because the difference to them is negligible like I said what's the difference if your annual salary is 8.5 million or 9.25 million? It won't make a lick of difference to the amount of money you spend. So doing this the economy would suffer hard core. Now let's flip it, a more progressive tax would give more money to the bottom 50, and most if not all that money will be spent at McDonald's and Walmart, which means the economy strengthens. Meaning more money for everybody, which means for the top 5% whom own all these companies anyways. So in the end they will make up the small shortfall in taxes that they paid. And in the end most of that money is going off shore anyways so that they pay less taxes anyways, because that is what the super rich do. How does that sound to u tec?
6/9/2014 1:46 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 
My immediate reaction to reading that was that less people would spend their money, overall, which sounds like a bad thing.  Is that fair?  Unless we're lowering federal income taxes overall as well?
The problem with a sales tax is that it doesn't raise enough income at a reasonable tax percentage. And, by raising the sales tax percentage, it ends up being a regressive tax.
You shift the tax burden from the upper class to the lower and middle.

That's the opposite of what should be done.
Curious what you mean...but my instinct is that the guy who makes $40K a year is more likely to spend a higher percentage of his salary a year just to get by, and the guy making $400k a year is more likely to save a larger percentage of his income.  Which means that the guy making $40k a year is getting a higher "tax rate" as a higher percentage of his salary is taxed?  Is that what you mean?
6/9/2014 1:47 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/9/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
I agree with adding more brackets at the top and with taxing them at a higher rate than what it is now. There really isn't a valid argument against making another bracket a 1M and saying everything after 1M your taxed at 40% and after 5M your taxed at 50% etc.

The real problem with doing this is the irresponsiblity demonstrated by the federal government when it comes to managing our money.
If the budget has to be X  amount of $ then it absolutely makes more sense for that target to be reached by millionaires paying a bit more and not the little guy.

I personally feel that the target is already WAAAY too high and that should be addressed first in my opinion, but when/if the government could become more responsible; reduce fraud; reduce the amount of money spent on entitlement programs; and just waste in general of which there is a sh!t ton of, then yeah I would be in favor of reaching a more responsible budgetary target by doing what was proposed above and adding brackets near the top and increasing the %.
Only 12% of the budget goes to safety net programs. And fraud really isn't as big of a problem as people make it out to be. Unless your talking about defense contractor fraud.

The government spends a lot of money because we have a population full of elderly people (48% to social security and medicare) and we have a lot of military obligations.
6/9/2014 1:49 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 
My immediate reaction to reading that was that less people would spend their money, overall, which sounds like a bad thing.  Is that fair?  Unless we're lowering federal income taxes overall as well?
The problem with a sales tax is that it doesn't raise enough income at a reasonable tax percentage. And, by raising the sales tax percentage, it ends up being a regressive tax.
You shift the tax burden from the upper class to the lower and middle.

That's the opposite of what should be done.
Curious what you mean...but my instinct is that the guy who makes $40K a year is more likely to spend a higher percentage of his salary a year just to get by, and the guy making $400k a year is more likely to save a larger percentage of his income.  Which means that the guy making $40k a year is getting a higher "tax rate" as a higher percentage of his salary is taxed?  Is that what you mean?
Even if that is correct, and it is, the guy making 400k is still spending way more than 40k.     Say he puts away 100k.    He's still spent 260k more than the 40k guy.   And he's been taxed on it. 
6/9/2014 1:49 PM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd prefer a federal sales tax.   I guarantee the guy making 2b spends more than the guy making 400k who spends more than the guy making 40k.   Spend a buck and it's $1.33(or whatever). 
My immediate reaction to reading that was that less people would spend their money, overall, which sounds like a bad thing.  Is that fair?  Unless we're lowering federal income taxes overall as well?
Actually that is precisely the idea behind a federal sales tax.

Give people 100% of their income each week (no income tax) and then have a national sales tax in it's place.

The idea is that there are several people who are very wealthy but do not pay any income taxes now because they don't earn income any more, but they DO spend a lot. So this would be basically like mike said, you spend more $ you pay more $.

As to the lefts argument about it being regressive, I don't really agree. The idea as I had read it some years ago, was that they would create a line in the sand @ whatever the national poverty line was or a bit higher, and then issue vouchers or credits for all income at that level. So the people making the least wouldn't pay ANYTHING on their necessities.

I would also like to see, in a system of that nature, different sales tax rates depending on what the product/service is. Obviously food should be taxed less, and jewelry or flat screen TVs should be taxed more. I have never seen that scenario promoted but it seems like it would make the national sales tax far more workable and realistic.
6/9/2014 1:49 PM
◂ Prev 1...22|23|24|25|26...127 Next ▸
Minimum Wage Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.