Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 11:06:00 AM (view original):
I never said it was $500.  I don't know the number, but I know there isn't a chance in hell someone could live on $500 a year where I live.  

I've told you before that I'm uncomfortable with shifting the tax burden to the lower and middle class.  I think we're better off as a society if the upper class is taxed at a slightly higher percentage.  I think we should build higher brackets than $400K as well.

Then someone making $500 a year shouldn't live where you live.   They're creating a circumstance where they can't make it on their income.   I imagine Clooney could not live on $500 a year either.   He's created his own situation too.   But basic needs, as agreed upon by us(food/shelter), can be had for $500 a year if you build your situation to make it so.

So I assume you're behind my sales tax replaces income tax plan with a basic need exemption(which is $500).

Glad it only took 77 pages to reach an agreement.

I'm confused how you took what I said as "I agree with your sales tax proposal."

You said, paraphrasing, "Everything acquired beyond basic needs is less important."   I agree.   I then submitted that, given the right circumstance, one could make it on $500 a year.   I then suggested that everyone be taxed on every dollar made once basic needs can be met. 

So I don't know why you'd disagree. 

Posted by tecwrg on 6/17/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Are you now some sort of financial advisor?

No. Why would you think that?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 11:06:00 AM (view original):
I never said it was $500.  I don't know the number, but I know there isn't a chance in hell someone could live on $500 a year where I live.  

I've told you before that I'm uncomfortable with shifting the tax burden to the lower and middle class.  I think we're better off as a society if the upper class is taxed at a slightly higher percentage.  I think we should build higher brackets than $400K as well.

Then someone making $500 a year shouldn't live where you live.   They're creating a circumstance where they can't make it on their income.   I imagine Clooney could not live on $500 a year either.   He's created his own situation too.   But basic needs, as agreed upon by us(food/shelter), can be had for $500 a year if you build your situation to make it so.

So I assume you're behind my sales tax replaces income tax plan with a basic need exemption(which is $500).

Glad it only took 77 pages to reach an agreement.

I'm confused how you took what I said as "I agree with your sales tax proposal."

You said, paraphrasing, "Everything acquired beyond basic needs is less important."   I agree.   I then submitted that, given the right circumstance, one could make it on $500 a year.   I then suggested that everyone be taxed on every dollar made once basic needs can be met. 

So I don't know why you'd disagree. 

I'm glad you agree that things you acquire after your basic needs become less and less important.  Makes sense to support a progressive tax system.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 11:06:00 AM (view original):
I never said it was $500.  I don't know the number, but I know there isn't a chance in hell someone could live on $500 a year where I live.  

I've told you before that I'm uncomfortable with shifting the tax burden to the lower and middle class.  I think we're better off as a society if the upper class is taxed at a slightly higher percentage.  I think we should build higher brackets than $400K as well.

Then someone making $500 a year shouldn't live where you live.   They're creating a circumstance where they can't make it on their income.   I imagine Clooney could not live on $500 a year either.   He's created his own situation too.   But basic needs, as agreed upon by us(food/shelter), can be had for $500 a year if you build your situation to make it so.

So I assume you're behind my sales tax replaces income tax plan with a basic need exemption(which is $500).

Glad it only took 77 pages to reach an agreement.

I'm confused how you took what I said as "I agree with your sales tax proposal."

You said, paraphrasing, "Everything acquired beyond basic needs is less important."   I agree.   I then submitted that, given the right circumstance, one could make it on $500 a year.   I then suggested that everyone be taxed on every dollar made once basic needs can be met. 

So I don't know why you'd disagree. 

I'm glad you agree that things you acquire after your basic needs become less and less important.  Makes sense to support a progressive tax system.

If only it were that simple.   Unfortunately, people create circumstances that require more to meet their basic needs.   As I just said, Mr. Clooney has created a situation where he can't make it on $500 a year.  You said the people near you cannot live on $500 a year.   What do we do about that?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/17/2014 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/17/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Are you now some sort of financial advisor?

No. Why would you think that?

You seem to believe that you can discriminate between people's discretionary and non-discretionary spending.

What are your qualifications for doing that?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 11:06:00 AM (view original):
I never said it was $500.  I don't know the number, but I know there isn't a chance in hell someone could live on $500 a year where I live.  

I've told you before that I'm uncomfortable with shifting the tax burden to the lower and middle class.  I think we're better off as a society if the upper class is taxed at a slightly higher percentage.  I think we should build higher brackets than $400K as well.

Then someone making $500 a year shouldn't live where you live.   They're creating a circumstance where they can't make it on their income.   I imagine Clooney could not live on $500 a year either.   He's created his own situation too.   But basic needs, as agreed upon by us(food/shelter), can be had for $500 a year if you build your situation to make it so.

So I assume you're behind my sales tax replaces income tax plan with a basic need exemption(which is $500).

Glad it only took 77 pages to reach an agreement.

I'm confused how you took what I said as "I agree with your sales tax proposal."

You said, paraphrasing, "Everything acquired beyond basic needs is less important."   I agree.   I then submitted that, given the right circumstance, one could make it on $500 a year.   I then suggested that everyone be taxed on every dollar made once basic needs can be met. 

So I don't know why you'd disagree. 

I'm glad you agree that things you acquire after your basic needs become less and less important.  Makes sense to support a progressive tax system.

If only it were that simple.   Unfortunately, people create circumstances that require more to meet their basic needs.   As I just said, Mr. Clooney has created a situation where he can't make it on $500 a year.  You said the people near you cannot live on $500 a year.   What do we do about that?

Clooney very likely could retire now.  His net worth is $220M.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/17/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/17/2014 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/17/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Are you now some sort of financial advisor?

No. Why would you think that?

You seem to believe that you can discriminate between people's discretionary and non-discretionary spending.

What are your qualifications for doing that?

I can make an assumption based on what you say. You talked about how important retirement savings were to you. It's reasonable to assume that saving for retirement isn't the last* thing you spend your income on.

*last in terms of priorities, not time.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/17/2014 11:06:00 AM (view original):
I never said it was $500.  I don't know the number, but I know there isn't a chance in hell someone could live on $500 a year where I live.  

I've told you before that I'm uncomfortable with shifting the tax burden to the lower and middle class.  I think we're better off as a society if the upper class is taxed at a slightly higher percentage.  I think we should build higher brackets than $400K as well.

Then someone making $500 a year shouldn't live where you live.   They're creating a circumstance where they can't make it on their income.   I imagine Clooney could not live on $500 a year either.   He's created his own situation too.   But basic needs, as agreed upon by us(food/shelter), can be had for $500 a year if you build your situation to make it so.

So I assume you're behind my sales tax replaces income tax plan with a basic need exemption(which is $500).

Glad it only took 77 pages to reach an agreement.

I'm confused how you took what I said as "I agree with your sales tax proposal."

You said, paraphrasing, "Everything acquired beyond basic needs is less important."   I agree.   I then submitted that, given the right circumstance, one could make it on $500 a year.   I then suggested that everyone be taxed on every dollar made once basic needs can be met. 

So I don't know why you'd disagree. 

I'm glad you agree that things you acquire after your basic needs become less and less important.  Makes sense to support a progressive tax system.

If only it were that simple.   Unfortunately, people create circumstances that require more to meet their basic needs.   As I just said, Mr. Clooney has created a situation where he can't make it on $500 a year.  You said the people near you cannot live on $500 a year.   What do we do about that?

Clooney very likely could retire now.  His net worth is $220M.

Yet he doesn't.    I submit that it's because he values stuff and the only way to get it is to work.   Therefore, he values that next dollar as much as the one he made waiting tables back in 1978.

I'd argue he'd value the $25M or whatever he'd make in his next movie more when he was waiting tables than he does now.

Value isn't really the right word. Maybe he does value it all the same. Maybe Bill Gates values all of his billions the same. It's somewhat irrelevant how someone personally values their dollars. In all likelihood, Clooney could drop a brief case full of $50,000 off of his yacht into the ocean and not have it affect him at all even if he wouldn't do it on purpose because the $50,000 still has value. That $50,000 has zero marginal utility to Clooney.

Could you drop $50,000 in the ocean and not have it affect you in any way?

I guess I could continue to "badluck" this point but I won't.

People could get by on $500 a year.   But they'd be living off the land in Wyoming.   So they have to live to the standard, under the circumstances they've created to be "comfortable", that they're in.   I don't NEED Clooney money because I've not set that as my lifestyle.   Therefore, it's not my place to say what he NEEDS or what he'd MISS if he couldn't have it or it was taken away. 

And that's why I think it's bullshit that you and BL say "Take more from them because they'd miss it less."   You don't know that.

I still haven't heard a valid explanation for WHY marginal value is relevant to a tax system, nor have I heard why BL should be the arbiter of if/when my income is no longer as important to me.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/17/2014 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Value isn't really the right word. Maybe he does value it all the same. Maybe Bill Gates values all of his billions the same. It's somewhat irrelevant how someone personally values their dollars. In all likelihood, Clooney could drop a brief case full of $50,000 off of his yacht into the ocean and not have it affect him at all even if he wouldn't do it on purpose because the $50,000 still has value. That $50,000 has zero marginal utility to Clooney.

Could you drop $50,000 in the ocean and not have it affect you in any way?

Gawd, this is such a stupid example.  I would surmise that Clooney had $50,000 in the suitcase to either buy drugs or pay a high-priced call girl.  Both circumstances would mean the money has SIGNIFICANT value for him, probably more than some future royalty check for "Oceans 38".

I'd argue that it's entirely relevant how somoene personally values their dollars if your reason for taking more from them is "because they'll miss it less."

I assume "take more from them because they'll miss it less" is still your argument for taxing the rich more.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 1:36:00 PM (view original):
I'd argue that it's entirely relevant how somoene personally values their dollars if your reason for taking more from them is "because they'll miss it less."

I assume "take more from them because they'll miss it less" is still your argument for taxing the rich more.

Maybe "miss it less" is also the wrong phrasing. Need it less is probably better.