How much longer...

[audtatious]

So, if I worked 40 hours a week and made 150k but earned 250k by working 60 hours I'm not working harder? If I spent more time focusing on a career path than another person I deserve to keep less of the money I make as a result? Should a surgeon and ditch digger, both working 40 hours a week, make the same amount of pay? Should the ditch digger make more as his job is more physically demanding?

I could fry burgers without a problem as that's a low-skilled position. The person with the education level to fry burgers would not be able to do my job in the least without many many years of training. I DO pay more taxes today than the fry cook yet I should pay quite a bit more in order for the Gov to grow. Makes no sense.

I understand where you are going in that the person making 250k and paying more in taxes is still better off than the person making minimum wage and paying less taxes. BUT, who are you to determine I deserve less of what I make? What did my kids and grand kids do to you in order to be penalized by me having less of my income just because I'm successful?

[R/T Hemi]

(sorry, haven't made friends with your quote feature yet) Quoting audtatious here.
So, if I worked 40 hours a week and made 150k but earned 250k by working 60 hours I'm not working harder?
Certainly, you're working harder than you did at 40 hours, but you're not necessarily working harder than any other person who works 60 yours per week for <$250K.

If I spent more time focusing on a career path than another person I deserve to keep less of the money I make as a result?
Actually, you will still keep, overall, more money. I could offer the same argument on behalf of the person who chooses not to marry. Is it fair they pay more because, for whatever reason, they do not marry?

The person with the education level to fry burgers would not be able to do my job in the least without many many years of training.
I did not mean to imply anything personal about you or your profession. Forgive me if I have.

I DO pay more taxes today than the fry cook yet I should pay quite a bit more in order for the Gov to grow.
Hold on. You still earn and net more money that the fry cook does. That's your reward. I don't see any advocation on my part for a bigger government. The one we have is expensive enough.

@ Stebo.
Why is the government looking for spare change anywhere?
They call it revenue.

There is a set amount of money required to run our government, spread that burden evenly, if you're not getting enough to do the job, scale down the job, or ask for more tax, but ask for it evenly.
That would result in a tax burden for the poor they couldn't meet without becoming homeless.

Equally so, the wealthy guy is where he is because of his sum of decisions, and thus, were he to swap, he would not stay burger flipper long, and would rise back to his previous stature.
Which is my point. Paying taxes is a small price to pay for the relative wealth of a high income.

[audtatious]

(sorry, haven't made friends with your quote feature yet) Quoting audtatious here.
So, if I worked 40 hours a week and made 150k but earned 250k by working 60 hours I'm not working harder?
Certainly, you're working harder than you did at 40 hours, but you're not necessarily working harder than any other person who works 60 yours per week for <$250K.

So, salary should be based upon manpower and not knowledge level. A fry cook should get equal pay based upon the amount of work and not their value to the free market, right? Thus, it's unfair to the fry cook who works 40 hours a week to get paid less than a airline pilot who works a 40 hour week. Since that's not the way our society currently works you are fine with utilizing taxation as the equalizer?

Which is my point. Paying taxes is a small price to pay for the relative wealth of a high income.

High income as compared to what? Why is 250k arbitrarily selected as the dividing line, why not 150k?

[R/T Hemi]

So, salary should be based upon manpower and not knowledge level. A fry cook should get equal pay based upon the amount of work and not their value to the free market, right? Thus, it's unfair to the fry cook who works 40 hours a week to get paid less than a airline pilot who works a 40 hour week. Since that's not the way our society currently works you are fine with utilizing taxation as the equalizer?

I don't think I've advocated anything of the sort. I've merely said taxation should be based on your ability to pay, which, IIRC, is pretty much the way it's alway worked.

I have no problem with classes within our economy. That is, as long as those classes are open to all members without discrimination as to race, color, gender or creed. Certainly a surgeon should earn more than a tow truck driver.

I've never said taxation is designed to equalize socio/economic class diversity. Taxation is designed to pay the operating costs of the big red white and blue machine. I think it's fair to assume that all members of society, rich and poor alike, benefit from having a stable government. A stable government that needs to be supported by tax revenue. Without that, you'll find that all the dollars you possess do little more than make a small fire.

Edit:
And the 250K limit was adopted from the Arizona Hitman's statement that 250K != wealth.
I believe he's (Hitman's) referencing that point as it's the point where additional taxes will begin. I disagreed with his statement.

[audtatious]

ah, ok. It sounded like you were one of those who advocate for a fully socialized / progressive structure in the US.

If I, making over 250k/yr, should pay more of my income (based on the current progressive system + new taxes) to the US Gov, at what point should the US Gov stop spending money? CBO estimates an additional 13 trillion in Federal spending through 2020 which will add an additional tax requirement of $130k to each household while it climbs to 98% of GDP in the same timeframe. Seems by 2020 that anyone with a job will need to start pitching in quite a bit more of their income which will plunge more and more families below the poverty line. What's the fix and how will taxing me further solve it? Realize, I already pay more in taxes than the burger flipper and I'm paying more in state taxes due to my buying power, bigger house, etc etc..

[R/T Hemi]

There is little doubt that spending is out of hand. I can point to a few things that were "bought" by a previous administration that failed the American people like no other in history.
I, as a citizen, got absolutely no benefit for the government's investment in Iraq, or the bank/insurance/big business bailouts to name a few. But I get a share of the bill.

What's wrong with balancing the budget? Other than the fact that that's not really possible due to the current economic situation. That would be great. Get congress to agree to that one and the beer is on me.
So the choice is really becomes a simple one.

1. We raise taxes on those who can afford to pay them. Including those >250K wage earners.
or
2. We politely leave this mess, plus the interest thereon, to generations not yet born.

What's your choice, Option 1 or option 2?

[stebo0728]

3. We freeze all spending, no automatic increases, anything that needs money proves why it needs money and proves how it benefits and is necessary or they GTFO of the coin purse.

Its like this asinine logic that STEP 1 - we need a tax increase; STEP 2 - tax increase wont be agreed to, but now we are short the 700 billion we will lose from not getting the increase; STEP 3 - just go borrow the 700 billion since we are hell bent on spending it anyway

What part of that makes any sense at all? We are over burdened with some of the stupidest crap in history on our balance sheet. Research and science are probably some of the worst offenders. Studies costing million on whether male hamsters are gay. Studies on whether chipmunks like gothic rock or symphonic music better. I mean COME ON!

Does a fair tax structure overburden the poor? Well perhaps our society should have scaled according to what our smallest sector could afford?

But again we could dash all this by just implementing a consumption based tax, and realizing the folly of an income based tax. Your worried about your kids and grandkids? Keep this income tax, and keep bailing out the unsuccessful, and rest peacefully knowing you've sacked the next generation with problems exponential to our own.

[stebo0728]

And you think the rich are in a better position to carry the load? Maybe your right, how about instead of taxing the snot out of them, try offering a bond structured as to actually be a viable investment, and maybe the rich would voluntarily invest in the nation, without holding a gun to their head.

[96Qowner]

I just wanted to pipe up and mention something else about the people who earn more than most. Yes, you can earn money through muscular work or through brain work. But there's another truism. You can only earn so much by yourself, whether it's with your brawn or your brain. If you lay tile for a living, you can make some good money, just as you can at some stupid middle management "position". But if you want to earn more, you have to hire people and make money off their labor. You only have so many hours in a day - you have unlimited productive hours with employees.

So ... when you remove income from people through taxation, the average guy working for someone is seriously affected. His boss has less income - that's rarely good for job security. Sure, "rich people" can afford to pay higher tax rates. They just spend less. They spend less in the businesses they own - less on advertising or expansion or labor - or less personally - less on dining out or clothing or electronics. In any case, they spend less, just like the regular guy. The difference is that the regular guy needs a rich boss. Having the government take money from your boss is a bad idea.

It doesn't functionally matter who the government takes money from. Money is fungible. When you take it from the private sector, you get less economic activity and less employment, whether you take it from a rich guy or a regular guy. The regular guy always ends up hurting, not the rich guy.

When you take money from the rich and simply give it to the poor, it's twice as unfair. The poor are already poor. It's the regular guy who gets hurt. Let the rich contribute to responsible, accountable charities, whose job it is to care for the needy. This idea that the government is compassionate and fair is ridiculous and unprovable. The government is anything but compassionate and fair.

It's a matter of principle.

[R/T Hemi]

Quoting 96Q.
Sure, "rich people" can afford to pay higher tax rates. They just spend less.

The option is to remove it (the tax revenue) form the "poor" people's pockets whereby they (the majority) stop spending. Same result isn't it? The guy working for the rich guy loses his job due to lack of work, instead of a broke boss.

I think you're hitting on the "trickle down" theory vs the "bubble up" theory. I, for one, don't believe trickle down works. Case in point, there's another thread here on this forum (somewhere) about 90 ?? billion being set aside for bonuses for execs. It appears that trickle down only trickles down so far and then it stops trickling.

Otherwise, nice post.

[96Qowner]

The option is to remove it (the tax revenue) form the "poor" people's pockets whereby they (the majority) stop spending. Same result isn't it? The guy working for the rich guy loses his job due to lack of work, instead of a broke boss.

Pretty much, yes. But the whole point of the thread is that the unemployed are going to get more than 99 weeks of checks in the mail, courtesy of the rest of us. Soaking the rich has been proposed as a revenue source. You can't soak the rich - the rest of us suffer for it, in addition to the debt burden for the 99+ weeks of checks in the mail.

The principle is that the private sector supplies the economic revenue that the nation needs, and when government imposes taxation and regulatory restrictions on the private sector, its ability to supply revenue is damaged. It doesn't matter who you soak - if fact, soaking the rich directly just accelerates the damage.

[stebo0728]

This thread reminds me of trying to get Romulans to like Vulcans, or vice versa ...

[AZhitman]

R/T -

Just hit the "quote" button in the post you wish to quote. Delete whatever you DON'T want to quote, and begin typing your part AFTER the "/quote" tag.

Keep up the good work - While I disagree, you're clearly well-spoken, and that's something I admire in anyone.

[C-Kwik]

I just wanted to pipe up and mention something else about the people who earn more than most. Yes, you can earn money through muscular work or through brain work. But there's another truism. You can only earn so much by yourself, whether it's with your brawn or your brain. If you lay tile for a living, you can make some good money, just as you can at some stupid middle management "position". But if you want to earn more, you have to hire people and make money off their labor. You only have so many hours in a day - you have unlimited productive hours with employees.

As a counter-point, you should understand that the "bosses" income is taxed. Not the business revenue. Even for a sole proprietorship, the owner's income is just the profit. If they hire an employee, the payroll is a business expenditure. So it is deducted prior to the tax being calculated.

So ... when you remove income from people through taxation, the average guy working for someone is seriously affected. His boss has less income - that's rarely good for job security. Sure, "rich people" can afford to pay higher tax rates. They just spend less. They spend less in the businesses they own - less on advertising or expansion or labor - or less personally - less on dining out or clothing or electronics. In any case, they spend less, just like the regular guy. The difference is that the regular guy needs a rich boss. Having the government take money from your boss is a bad idea.

Sure. But understand, that the taxes collected don't just go into some safe to be held. It is spent by the government on payroll, business equipment, etc. Which is better? No idea. But the money is indeed still being spent and reinvested back into the economy in some way. Much of it being put right into worker's pockets through the government payroll and through spending on infrastructure, military, etc.

[audtatious]

Unless that rich person finds investments overseas where his money is protected and taxed less than the US.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, after two weeks, I'm finally home again and settled, but I'm not going to resuscitate that old argument. Wouldn't even if you hadn't broken it up into two separate posts. :P Sorry!

There was a comment somewhere in here about our corporate tax structure being incredibly burdensome, but as a fact-check moment, I'd like to point out that, yes, while our corporate tax rates are among the highest in the industrial world, the practical rates (post-deductions, that is) are among the lowest.

[HashiriyaS14]

On Bush Tax Cuts/Unemployment compromise (didn't read the rest of the thread):

cut it all

^^
This should have happened, IMO. The $250k+ set should NOT have gotten a "tax break extension" (or whatever you want to call it), and the unemployment benefits should NOT have been extended. We can't afford EITHER one.

But instead:

cut nothing.

^^
This happened.

And..........the whole country (by and large) loved it. The compromise had huge bipartisan approval ratings.

This is because people would rather get things than not get things, and at the moment, the deficit is a scary number but it isn't actually stinging Americans in any way that they can discern.

So long as this remains the case, we will continue to

cut nothing.

And until it begins to personally sting US, we will continue to rant about it on message boards rather than, say, move to another country or whatever our "Plan B" would be.

[IBCoupe]

I want to be on the record here saying: "Raise my taxes, please."

But I'd prefer it if I got a little bit more in financial aid, too. In exchange for that, I'll promise to work for the government for a few years. Sound good?