Posted by toddcommish on 6/17/2014 1:30:00 PM (view original):
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.

We tax upper brackets at a higher rate because the marginal utility of the money is lower to the individual paying the taxes.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/17/2014 1:06:00 PM (view original):

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.

Perhaps I value everything I do with my money equally.

Have you rec'd expressed written consent from BL to do so?

No.  I think that's why his panties are all in a bunch.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/17/2014 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/17/2014 1:30:00 PM (view original):
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.

We tax upper brackets at a higher rate because the marginal utility of the money is lower to the individual paying the taxes.

This is an invalid assumption.  And since you're basing almost all of your arguments on this invalid assumption, all of your conclusions are invalid.

 

the marginal utility of the money is lower to the individual paying the taxes 

Posted by toddcommish on 6/17/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/17/2014 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/17/2014 1:30:00 PM (view original):
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.

We tax upper brackets at a higher rate because the marginal utility of the money is lower to the individual paying the taxes.

This is an invalid assumption.  And since you're basing almost all of your arguments on this invalid assumption, all of your conclusions are invalid.

 

the marginal utility of the money is lower to the individual paying the taxes 

How do you know it's invalid?

Posted by tecwrg on 6/17/2014 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/17/2014 1:06:00 PM (view original):

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.

Perhaps I value everything I do with my money equally.

Maybe you do. Good job.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 1:27:00 PM (view original):
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 think it's a fair assumption.  I don't know it though, you're right.  

Again, if you want to argue that's the tax system is not fair, that we should give everyone the same rate and I don't care what it does for the economy, curb our spending a shitton instead, while I disagree with the premise, I respect it more than you not recognizing that $25M for waiting-tables-Clooney is obviously more impactful for him than for current-Clooney.

Obviously we're banging our heads against walls.  I think my part of this conversation has run it's course.

Waiting-tables-Clooney certainly had lower expenses than current-Clooney.   I'm sure you agree.

I think that's where we part ways.  

To put it another way, I'm sure there was a time in everyone's life when a thousand bucks a week seemed like a fortune.   I'm sure, if you're over 25 and don't live off the land in Wyoming, a thousand bucks a week no longer seems like a fortune.


No?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Waiting-tables-Clooney certainly had lower expenses than current-Clooney.   I'm sure you agree.

I think that's where we part ways.  

I do agree.  I also have more expenses now than I did 5-10 years ago, but I'm still in a much better position than I was in then.  I think it's safe to assume (you'd argue differently) that Clooney is in a much better spot now than he was when waiting tables, despite him having more expenses now.

Bankruptcy effects the rich and the poor. 

It also "affects" them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/17/2014 2:23:00 PM (view original):
To put it another way, I'm sure there was a time in everyone's life when a thousand bucks a week seemed like a fortune.   I'm sure, if you're over 25 and don't live off the land in Wyoming, a thousand bucks a week no longer seems like a fortune.


No?

You're still not getting it, maybe intentionally.

Just surviving costs a certain amount of money, correct? Food, shelter, clothing--none of that is free. 

Your first dollars go towards survival and have the highest marginal utility. Without those dollars you have nothing and you probably die. Those dollars make the biggest impact on your quality of life.

Utility of each dollar earned decreases by a tiny amount after you have enough to survive.

For example, if it takes $10,000 a year to just survive, dollars $10,001-$20,000 are all slightly less impactful. They all still make a difference in your quality of life but, since you are no longer going to die without them, they aren't as important.

Removing taxes and careers and retirement and celebrities from the discussion for a moment, please tell me you understand this basic point..

You're the one who's still not getting it.  Maybe intentionally.

I can't speak for everybody, just myself, but I understand perfectly the point you are making.  I just don't agree with with it.

Repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over isn't going to change anybody's mind.