The Poor Rich

[IBCoupe]

I think you mean "the latter" to be "spend less," if I'm following your post correctly. And I agree with that.

[AZhitman]

Not really.

I meant the former = whining, the latter = doing something about it.

[IBCoupe]

Ah. I decided ot take my glasses off today, but that's meaning that I'm forced to focus more on the individual words - I may have missed the forest for the trees there.

Upon re-reading your post, I mostly agree. People need to act on their convictions. I've always told myself, however, that if there's something you want to complain about, first figure out if it's something you can address. If you can do something about it, do something about it; don't waste time complaining. If you can't do anything about it, don't bother complaining - just accept it and deal with the reality of the situation.

In other words, there's never really a situation worth complaining about.

[AZhitman]

True.

Although, sometimes the impetus for the action is the bitching.

Regardless, I'm with you - Whining without action is noise, and the blogger quoted by the OP is guilty of it.

[IBCoupe]

Although, sometimes the impetus for the action is the bitching.

That occured to me, Greg, after I posted that. To defend myself, I'd have to draw a distinction between "bitching" and "organizing" or "lobbying."

Regardless, I'm with you - Whining without action is noise, and the blogger quoted by the OP is guilty of it.

And he had an opportunity for a legitimate conversation - should his taxes go up? Should his taxes be as high as they already are? That's a conversation that I welcome, even if I inevitably disagree with him.

[HashiriyaS14]

The lessons:

1.) Give the Chicago guy a huge tax cut, because he'll spend every dime and it will benefit everyone

2.) Don't give Greg a tax cut, because he'll either save it or buy vintage Datsuns, which really only benefits him.

[AZhitman]

Although, sometimes the impetus for the action is the bitching.

That occured to me, Greg, after I posted that. To defend myself, I'd have to draw a distinction between "bitching" and "organizing" or "lobbying."

I knew that - Again, simplistic for the venue.

Regardless, I'm with you - Whining without action is noise, and the blogger quoted by the OP is guilty of it.

And he had an opportunity for a legitimate conversation - should his taxes go up? Should his taxes be as high as they already are? That's a conversation that I welcome, even if I inevitably disagree with him.

Yep. I can always count on you for a reality check. You've got to admit, it's VERY easy to get sucked in by these people.
______________________________

A good example (and I think you'll appreciate this): One of our local police chiefs retired last year, and started collecting his pension of roughly $95K/yr. Several months later, a position in the same department came open (upper management) and he applied, interviewed, got the offer, and accepted the job, to the tune of $180K/yr.

Local talk radio went s***. And I'll admit, listening to it, I got a little aggro - "Double-dipping!" we all screamed.

Then, a nice young lady (an attorney in the AG's office) came on the radio. She explained: "He's doing a different job, so what's the issue?"

"But - but - he's already retired and they're paying him a pension!"

Yes, and he earned it. He was a competitive candidate for the new position, so they filled it.

"But - but - he's double dipping!"

"Yes, and someone's going to get that $180K salary no matter what - You're just upset that it's all going in one pocket instead of two."



And right then, I realized I had been on the wrong side of the argument.

Read more about it here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls= ... =&gs_rfai=

[AZhitman]

The lessons:

1.) Give the Chicago guy a huge tax cut, because he'll spend every dime and it will benefit everyone

2.) Don't give Greg a tax cut, because he'll either save it or buy vintage Datsuns, which really only benefits him.

You just hate white people.

[heliochrome85]

The lessons:

1.) Give the Chicago guy a huge tax cut, because he'll spend every dime and it will benefit everyone

2.) Don't give Greg a tax cut, because he'll either save it or buy vintage Datsuns, which really only benefits him.

You just hate white people.

he isnt alone.
why do you think he voted for barry o-bamz?

[mattblancarte]

After reading through most of the discussion that I haven't had time to participate in this morning, it just feels like the majority of people here are confusing the article to be a complaint about the professor's living situation.

His complaint is purely about an increase in taxes. I highly recommend that everyone read it again to confirm. The explanations of his budget are purely for perspective and reference, NOT to illustrate some kind of hardship.

After federal income tax, I keep $42,070. I have a girlfriend who functions very much like a wife, but admittedly, I don't have three kids. We have two cars and two apartments. Yet, I survive quite well.

I don't b**** about my taxes - in fact, I happily pay them. Know why? Because I still have $42,070 at the end of the year, and that's enough to have what I want, and because I recognize that a society is worth paying for.

All fine and good. How would you feel if taxes went up uniformly across all brackets? Still happy? If so, at what point will you become unhappy?

I see the response you gave Stebo (enough to "get by"), but "getting by" changes all of the time.

It wasn't supposed to be a point for point comparison. Its about some people who have their head so far up their own a** that they don't realize that they have all the tools they need to live a happy and prosperous life.

Again, I will direct you to the article. The professor clearly can manage his finances to some degree. I'd even go as far to say that the guy probably leads a "happy and prosperous" life.

His complaint is that taxes are going up. How would you feel if your tax rates went up?

Stebo, no one has said that $200,000 is "too much." And as for "enough," I'm telling you now that if I can survive with $42,000 in my wallet, it's probable that, even with three kids, he can survive on $158,000 more.

The professor that wrote the article can survive, that has little to do with his post. Again, he's complaining that increased taxes are undesirable and make it more difficult to accumulate wealth. That can't be argued against.

So what if he can survive on your standard? Does that make it right to increase taxes and cut into his hard earned money?

I agree with 99.9% of what Stebo has said - I oppose any and ALL criticism of people's income and spending habits.... UNTIL they go whining about their condition.

But guess what? I don't want to hear it from ANYONE. I don't want to hear it from this guy, and I don't want to hear it from the out-of-work construction guy. The point is, everyone's got problems, and financial issues just happen to be theirs.

Here's the deal: He opened himself up to criticism by laying his entire financial condition out there for analysis. He needs to STFU and go get a second job if he doesn't like it. Better yet, take some of that "outrage" and lobby to get the tax laws reformed.

I agree with Stebo, too. I also agree that people that simply complain about their financial situation without taking action are wasting their breath.

However, I urge you to take another look at the article. The author wasn't complaining about his position or related satisfaction. He was complaining that taxes were going to increase, thus cutting into his take-home income.

I don't even think the author was worried about criticism. He was looking more for empathy (I assume) from others affected by tax increase.

Blogging is a powerful way to take action and get the word out there. Nothing wrong with the guy's article or reasons for writing it, IMHO.

[IBCoupe]

Greg,

That's a great story, and if there's anything I hate, it's when popular opinion starts to be too homogeneous.

All fine and good. How would you feel if taxes went up uniformly across all brackets? Still happy? If so, at what point will you become unhappy?

I see the response you gave Stebo (enough to "get by"), but "getting by" changes all of the time.

Yes, "getting by" changes, and when it changes to a point where I can no longer do it, I'll care. But, right now, I can get by with $42,000 in my pocket, and I live with a fair amount of luxury in my life, so while I'll entertain the notion that people who make less than me might have trouble, I don't buy into the "problems" of the people who make more.

So what if he can survive on your standard? Does that make it right to increase taxes and cut into his hard earned money?

What makes it right is that s*** has to get paid for, and here's the reasoning as to why it's perfectly acceptable: if it's possible to get by on $42,000, then obviously they can afford to be left with $200,000. Ta-dah! Logic! If you want to reduce the amount of s*** that needs to get paid for, that's fine; let's have that discussion. If you want to suggest that we should more evenly spread the burden around, that's fine; let's have that discussion, too.

[AZhitman]

I love it when I'm not on the receiving end of your 130-mph serves.

[heliochrome85]

i stil say we call him saul.

[mattblancarte]

Yes, "getting by" changes, and when it changes to a point where I can no longer do it, I'll care. But, right now, I can get by with $42,000 in my pocket, and I live with a fair amount of luxury in my life, so while I'll entertain the notion that people who make less than me might have trouble, I don't buy into the "problems" of the people who make more.

So, to summarize:

If you personally need to change you lifestyle, it'll bug you. If your neighbor has to change their lifestyle, it doesn't bug you because he earns more than you. Heck, the guy must have some extra money lying around because he earns somewhere close to $300k annually!

I don't buy into the "problems" of the people who make more.

I see.

What makes it right is that s*** has to get paid for, and here's the reasoning as to why it's perfectly acceptable: if it's possible to get by on $42,000, then obviously they can afford to be left with $200,000. Ta-dah! Logic!

It's not an issue of what is affordable, IB. That extra $2500 could go into the pockets of other private citizens that he hires, his savings, his investments, or whatever. Now, it's going into the pocket of government.

Even if the author had $65,000 left over because he did his taxes as well as my CPA does mine, or because he consolidated expenses by doing his own yard work, I would still say that a tax increase is "complaint worthy." He should be able to hold onto the maximum amount after taxes to do as he sees fit.

I love it when I'm not on the receiving end of your 130-mph serves.

[IBCoupe]

If you personally need to change you lifestyle, it'll bug you. If your neighbor has to change their lifestyle, it doesn't bug you because he earns more than you. Heck, the guy must have some extra money lying around because he earns somewhere close to $300k annually!

If I have to change my lifestyle it doesn't bug me, either. You're not understanding, and maybe that's my fault: getting by doesn't mean getting by the way I currently am. I wrote that I have a number of luxuries in my life (among them my ability to post on this website). So long as I enjoy these benefits, on my wages, I know that people can get by with more.

A change in lifestyle is a change in lifestyle - it is not a tragedy. Change is not bad; it's simply different. Something about moving cheese.

It's not an issue of what is affordable, IB. That extra $2500 could go into the pockets of other private citizens that he hires, his savings, his investments, or whatever. Now, it's going into the pocket of government.

And it's doing what? Rotting? The government can't both be spending money we don't have and be preventing money from going into the pockets of private citizens. This can't possibly be your gripe - what do you suppose the government is using the money for? Wallpaper? If you're really upset that the money doesn't go to Bernita, I'll comfort you by pointing out that the money's going to Bernie, instead.

Even if the author had $65,000 left over because he did his taxes as well as my CPA does mine, or because he consolidated expenses by doing his own yard work, I would still say that a tax increase is "complaint worthy." He should be able to hold onto the maximum amount after taxes to do as he sees fit.

Who's defining "maximum?" Should we eliminate the taxes altogether? That'd get him the "maximum" amount after taxes. Squishy terms are squishy.

[mattblancarte]

If I have to change my lifestyle it doesn't bug me, either. You're not understanding, and maybe that's my fault: getting by doesn't mean getting by the way I currently am. I wrote that I have a number of luxuries in my life (among them my ability to post on this website). So long as I enjoy these benefits, on my wages, I know that people can get by with more.

A change in lifestyle is a change in lifestyle - it is not a tragedy. Change is not bad; it's simply different. Something about moving cheese.

No, sir. I think that you're not understanding.

Getting by doesn't mean the way you currently are, or what you even think that it means. It's up to each man, woman, or family to decide and define (or at least in my opinion, it is). That's my point.

This applies to your opinion on changing lifestyles, too. To each their own, and this includes attachment to lifestyle. To you, it may not be that bad. To others, it may be enough to commit suicide (seriously).

What ever happened to striving to not only allows people to get by, but to financially thrive? I want a strategy with that attitude, not a strategy with the tone that I hear coming from this thread.

And it's doing what? Rotting? The government can't both be spending money we don't have and be preventing money from going into the pockets of private citizens. This can't possibly be your gripe - what do you suppose the government is using the money for? Wallpaper? If you're really upset that the money doesn't go to Bernita, I'll comfort you by pointing out that the money's going to Bernie, instead.

To some degree, yes. Some of that money is "rotting" or being used in ways that the professor wouldn't prefer. We all know there are issues with government spending on the federal level.

You're correct, that is not my gripe. It would seem that you're trying to loop me into a tea party talking point or something silly, but you can stop the suggestion there. I'm well aware that we're out of money, and that taxing top percentile earners is the easiest way to bridge the gap.

I'm just not happy with what that does to people like, oh, the folks that the professor employs. Make sense? Those people go out of work. Sure, you could blame that on some of the spending that the professor has going, or how he is managing his tax filings, or whatever. Regardless of why he is having trouble, I'm focused on the results of what actually happens.

Fair to say that it's one part the poor financial management (possibly) of the professor, and one part tax increase that will leave the folks he employs via contract work out of jobs. Any way you spin it, that's the deal.

I prefer income stay in the hands of the private earner. Beyond that, you've constructed your own extrapolation that isn't anchored to what I've written.

Who's defining "maximum?" That'd get him the "maximum" amount after taxes. Squishy terms are squishy.

My apologies. Wrote that in a hurry. I should have said that he keeps the most amount we could possibly do for him. Maximum doesn't make sense in that context, other than to say he is paying what is owed using all breaks possible.

Should we eliminate the taxes altogether?

No, that is a ridiculous question and for you to suggest that I would even consider it a possible reality is insulting. Seriously.

[Crazyirish]

His complaint is that taxes are going up. How would you feel if your tax rates went up?

I'd have to look at a lot of paperwork to be absolutely certain, but I'm fairly certain they have. Consistently. Year after Year. Going on 16 years now. (Well except for 2008 and the whole first time home buyers tax credit) I don't mind, because it hasn't significantly impacted me. Mostly its just the cost of doing business. If my taxes significantly decrease, then that means I have a problem.

[mattblancarte]

Your tax liability varies with your reported income, but go look at tax brackets in the year 2000. Then look at them 2005.

[Crazyirish]

Your tax liability varies with your reported income, but go look at tax brackets in the year 2000. Then look at them 2005.

That was part of my point actually. And just for s*** and giggles, plug in a number you think consistent with a middle class adult for say 2000, 2005, and 2010 and see what income tax looks like for all three years. Assuming the same reported income as 2010 for all three years I'm doing $1500 better in 2010 than 2000. But of course that doesn't include car payments, medical expenses or other etc. type stuff.

Look, personal finance is a complicated AND sensitive topic. As far as my experience shows, the people who whine about their problems will always do so. The people who don't, well...you get the idea.

[stebo0728]

Matt - thanks for taking up my banner of criticism

Terms are strange. Its funny to see political liberals and conservatives, and how they act both personally and politically. Seems alot of liberals tow the line of fiscal conservatism in their own lives, and then drive the government in a direction of fiscal liberalism. Then its almost opposite with political conservatives. They tend to live their personal lives a bit more fiscally liberal, and drive policy in a more fiscally conservative manner. Now that being said, which of the two is better. Matter of opinion I suppose, but if you were choosing which entity should be allowed the greater measure of fiscal liberty, I tend to vote for the individual. This sorta gets to the hole nature of the current administration. A belief that the government can somehow more frugally, or more intellectually, or more "evenly" spend the wealth in this nation. That the common man is too "stupid" to make a positive impact on the economy by spending HIS OWN money. Truth is now that may be the case, as individuals will most likely (if smart) alleviate debt before creating more. Ugh well lets not expect the government to behave the same way right? Dont worry about the debt we've already racked up, naw, just throw some more on the pile.

IB - you said lets have the spend less discussion. Lets have it. Ive been saying it for years, and im really hoping now that this conservative uproar nestled in the teet of the tea party may just help us get there. You said lets have the "more equitable" spreading of tax liability discussion. Lets have it, the only way, ONLY way to be fair is in percentages. Lump sums and grand totals tell you nothing of equity. SO again AGAIN i reiterate my same question.

What percentage of annual income is fair as a total ceiling? 25%? 35%?

Or will you argue that the lavishly wealthy "can afford to give more"? Thats BS, again percentages please, whats percentage is FAIR as a grand total. And can that same percentage roll down the hill as well please? This whole "progressive" tax structure we are in now is a sham, has been from day ONE.

Again we get back to the same notion, society depends upon the wealthy, and their desire to stay in America, and keep their wealth working for America. You said before "fine let the rich people go" if they choose to flee this increasingly burdensome tax structure we are building now. "Other will fill their shoes" as you say? Again NO. Why would anyone with any financial sense do ANYTHING here once we hit that pennacle? THeres no reason to, their money can work better FOR THEM elsewhere, and elsewhere they will go. As one person runs into some money, why in GODS name would they throw it into the shambles of the American economy when it can work better somewhere else. This is where the whole phrase "biting the hand that feeds you" come into play. You keep killing every incentive to innovate, to hire, to invest in this economy, and we all start speaking chinese in 20 years.

Ill echo Matts idea, in that you seem to base your model on your own situation. You cant do that when modeling policy. Everything I have said in this thread directly NEGATIVELY effects me, because of my current situation and where I sit income wise, if the tables get more equitable, I will owe more tax, but regardless, my consideration is both in whats fair for all, and whats best for the economy.

Again I reiterate,

Tax revenue = 1 / Tax rates Inverse relationship

Drive the rates down, or keep them down, and revenue goes up, or stays up. We discussed this in other threads, but it applies yet. Jack up these tax rates, even for the top 2%, and sit back and watch your revenues fall. Its inevitable. This top 2% continues to be demonized by the left, and by this administration, but they are the core of our revenue stream, they may only be 2% of our population, but they pay upwards of 40% of all the taxes paid into the system. WHAT PART OF THAT is FAIR?!?

So in closing, yes keep the taxes down, even for the "evil rich" and lets take a good hard look at spending, get out that scalpel Presbo was talking about 24 months ago, and lets use the damn thing. Keep taxes at lest where they are, or get em better, and lets stop spending the money. Ive heard it said these tax cuts will "cost" the government 700 billion. OK fine, then screw the 700 billion, and whatever budget was gonna get is, GTFO and come back when were booming again.

[AZhitman]

That 2% is inching towards 1%, and their 40% is inching ever higher.

At some point, the liberals need to remember that those guys employ an inordinate percentage of their voters.

So how clueless is it to demonize the 1%, just because they worked harder / built a better mousetrap / were incredibly lucky?

"Eat the rich" is a good sound bite if you're talking to a minimally-educated, hungry populace, but it's a really retarded plan for one's future.

[IBCoupe]

Getting by doesn't mean the way you currently are, or what you even think that it means. It's up to each man, woman, or family to decide and define (or at least in my opinion, it is). That's my point.

This applies to your opinion on changing lifestyles, too. To each their own, and this includes attachment to lifestyle. To you, it may not be that bad. To others, it may be enough to commit suicide (seriously).

What ever happened to striving to not only allows people to get by, but to financially thrive? I want a strategy with that attitude, not a strategy with the tone that I hear coming from this thread.

I have enough money to afford wake up, go to work, and go to bed every day. Extrapolate that out to wives and kids, and you have your basic cost of living. On a fundamental level, that is all that the government must keep its hands off of. Now, the government takes far less than that, and there are good reasons for it doing so, but there's nothing inherently wrong about taking more money from wealthy people. There's nothing inherently wrong about taxes influencing how a person will live their life - were I to have no taxes, I'd certainly find fun ways to get rid of that extra chunk of cash. Wouldn't that be part of my lifestyle?

As much as you say you don't want to be lumped into an extremist point of view, you keep coming up with arguments that, at their core, are extremist. "Who's to say that they should live their life like that?" The IRS, in that it goes about collecting taxes. You say you don't want to ditch taxes altogether, but that's the logical end to your inquiry, and that's why I brought it up.

Some of that money is "rotting" or being used in ways that the professor wouldn't prefer.

And that's what we get for living in a community: taxes spent on things we don't like.

Those people go out of work.

And someone else goes into work. What's the problem?

[IBCoupe]

IB - you said lets have the spend less discussion. Lets have it. Ive been saying it for years, and im really hoping now that this conservative uproar nestled in the teet of the tea party may just help us get there. You said lets have the "more equitable" spreading of tax liability discussion. Lets have it, the only way, ONLY way to be fair is in percentages. Lump sums and grand totals tell you nothing of equity. SO again AGAIN i reiterate my same question.

I wasn't thinking of doing it right here, but okay.

What percentage of annual income is fair as a total ceiling? 25%? 35%?

When theoretically there's no limit to the amount of money one can make, why should we have a limit on the upper percentage of taxes? Part of the problem with the tax code, in my view, is that it sets rigid standards for percentages of income, but makes those percentages on the basis of taxable income dollars. Maybe there's no better way of doing it, but it is very limiting.

A average 90% tax on someone who makes $1.4 trillion/year still leaves them with $140 billion. Is that some great injustice?

Or will you argue that the lavishly wealthy "can afford to give more"? Thats BS, again percentages please, whats percentage is FAIR as a grand total. And can that same percentage roll down the hill as well please? This whole "progressive" tax structure we are in now is a sham, has been from day ONE.

Why is it BS? The lavishly wealthy can, in fact, afford to give more. It makes plenty of sense - where a 90% tax on someone who makes almost as much as the American economy doesn't produce a particularly egregious result, a 90% tax on someone at the poverty line would kill them. The progressive tax structure works and it exists for a reason. Even a flat tax, as I've written elsewhere, turns into a progressive tax when you take it and turn it into something reasonably human.

Again we get back to the same notion, society depends upon the wealthy, and their desire to stay in America, and keep their wealth working for America. You said before "fine let the rich people go" if they choose to flee this increasingly burdensome tax structure we are building now.

Increasingly burdensome? Warren Buffet famously said, "My secretary pays more in taxes than I do."

"Other will fill their shoes" as you say? Again NO. Why would anyone with any financial sense do ANYTHING here once we hit that pennacle? THeres no reason to, their money can work better FOR THEM elsewhere, and elsewhere they will go.

1. There's more to being wealthy than simply making money.
2. Higher taxes still leaves you with more money.

As one person runs into some money, why in GODS name would they throw it into the shambles of the American economy when it can work better somewhere else. This is where the whole phrase "biting the hand that feeds you" come into play. You keep killing every incentive to innovate, to hire, to invest in this economy, and we all start speaking chinese in 20 years.

We should all be speaking Chinese today. Where have you been?

The labor market here won't disappear, the tax burden (isn't and) won't ever be so great, and it (isn't and) won't be taxes that drive away businesses.

Ill echo Matts idea, in that you seem to base your model on your own situation. You cant do that when modeling policy.

And you and Matt are both wrong in that I'm not using my situation to model policy. I'm using my situation to disarm rich-bitching.

Everything I have said in this thread directly NEGATIVELY effects me, because of my current situation and where I sit income wise, if the tables get more equitable, I will owe more tax, but regardless, my consideration is both in whats fair for all, and whats best for the economy.

Congratulations. Let me know when you're ready to get off your sword.

Again I reiterate,

Tax revenue = 1 / Tax rates Inverse relationship

Drive the rates down, or keep them down, and revenue goes up, or stays up. We discussed this in other threads, but it applies yet. Jack up these tax rates, even for the top 2%, and sit back and watch your revenues fall. Its inevitable. This top 2% continues to be demonized by the left, and by this administration, but they are the core of our revenue stream, they may only be 2% of our population, but they pay upwards of 40% of all the taxes paid into the system. WHAT PART OF THAT is FAIR?!?

What part of that is intelligent? What kind of moron comes up with an absolutist theory of economics? I challenge you to demonstrate that your theory is true. It's all well and good to say that increasing taxes necessarily means that people go to financial pains to earn less or avoid taxes more, but show me that people are that retarded. Show me that they cut off their noses to spite their faces.

OK fine, then screw the 700 billion, and whatever budget was gonna get is, GTFO and come back when were booming again.

That, I think, truly summarizes your argument. You're getting in your own way - Fix the budget, cut spending! But don't you dare cut taxes, however much it will admittedly cost us!

Christ, Stebo.

[stebo0728]

What percentage of annual income is fair as a total ceiling? 25%? 35%?

When theoretically there's no limit to the amount of money one can make, why should we have a limit on the upper percentage of taxes? Part of the problem with the tax code, in my view, is that it sets rigid standards for percentages of income, but makes those percentages on the basis of taxable income dollars. Maybe there's no better way of doing it, but it is very limiting.

There is the crux of our disagreement. You dont mind punishing the rich, you dont mind placing disincentives on the creation of wealth, and as you may or may not realize, the creation of jobs. Its a very well known disciplinary tactic: reward behavior you want more of, punish behavior you want less of. Place punishing taxation on creation of wealth, and it wont get created here.

A average 90% tax on someone who makes $1.4 trillion/year still leaves them with $140 billion. Is that some great injustice?

Yes it is, and if you were in that position, you would know it. Come back when you are the poor sap caught under the taxation bus and let us know how you feel. Furthermore, people dont become wealthy to that degree just by sitting around and living life in a shell. You keep reminding us that they got there by manipulating society. Ive never disagreed with that notion, but you seem to indicate that its only a take take manipulation. Not so, if someone only takes from society, they get nowhere. Successful manipulation of society involves giving as well. Putting investment back into the system, which creates jobs, which stimulates the economy, all without any government intervention. Throw that 90% tax out there, and now whos cutting their nose off to spite their face? The government imposing such a rediculous tax, thats who!

Why is it BS? The lavishly wealthy can, in fact, afford to give more. It makes plenty of sense - where a 90% tax on someone who makes almost as much as the American economy doesn't produce a particularly egregious result, a 90% tax on someone at the poverty line would kill them. The progressive tax structure works and it exists for a reason. Even a flat tax, as I've written elsewhere, turns into a progressive tax when you take it and turn it into something reasonably human.

Ok perhaps I should have more specifically called BS there. Its not BS that someone can give more, its BS that they should be expected to, at least directly for all to see. You seem to be a real proponent of progressive taxation, so, lets go with that a minute. I have been a proponent of what is arguably a progressive tax system, the Fairtax. How so you say? FairTax isnt progressive? Well actually it is, but the level of progression, the control of the progression lies with the people rather than with policy makers. This is what ultimately dooms the plan, its one of the largest shifts of power from congress to the people that has either ever been proposed, or has been proposed in quite some time. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree, in that outright direct progressive taxation is the best method. You say "hey look it works!" Well prove it! We are not nor have we ever been truly economically functional, at least not for quite some time. Does our current tax structure work? Well depends, define work? Duct tape can and will hold your grill on your truck BUT is that really the best way?

Increasingly burdensome? Warren Buffet famously said, "My secretary pays more in taxes than I do."

Boy Im glad you used that quote. I hate Warren Buffet, he's such a toolbag. That quote is completely intellectually dishonest, and just proves his toolbag status. His secretary does most certainly NOT pay more taxes than he does. She pays more in income tax. Guess what, Mr. Buffet has no income, so of course he pays no income tax. He does pay a hell of a lot in capital gains and dividend taxes every year, and he knows this, again, he's a toolbag for the left.

1. There's more to being wealthy than simply making money.
2. Higher taxes still leaves you with more money.

1. Very good, still making money is a pre-requisite for anything else involved. If your not making money, your not interested in any of the rest.
2. Go back to my response to this above, at some point when the system breaks completely, the wealthy and able will go play at a different court, where the returns are better.

We should all be speaking Chinese today. Where have you been?

We wont speak chinese here until China decides to cash in its debt.

The labor market here won't disappear, the tax burden (isn't and) won't ever be so great, and it (isn't and) won't be taxes that drive away businesses.

What good is having a labor force if theres no one here willing to invest to pay them? And you are right, taxes wont be the only thing that finally drives business away, although the other repelling factors could probably be viewed as a form of tax. For instance, at some point we will end up requiring ANY business no matter the size to provide health coverage, requiring jobs to be held while an employee is out for 9 months at a time, all sorts of rediculous little things that squelch business incentive.

And you and Matt are both wrong in that I'm not using my situation to model policy. I'm using my situation to disarm rich-bitching.

Sorry it just really looks like the contrary.

Congratulations. Let me know when you're ready to get off your sword.

Is that a japanese culture reference? Not sure how to respond.

What part of that is intelligent? What kind of moron comes up with an absolutist theory of economics? I challenge you to demonstrate that your theory is true. It's all well and good to say that increasing taxes necessarily means that people go to financial pains to earn less or avoid taxes more, but show me that people are that retarded. Show me that they cut off their noses to spite their faces.

A moron interested in fairness for all maybe? A moron that is interested in keeping business, the economy, and employement going for the long term here? Why does my theory have to be dependant on people being retarded? But then well all know, people are retarded anyway right? Im not spelling out all this proof again, go over to the other thread where it was laid out quite well for you.

Christ, Stebo.

Sorry, I was attempting to be intellectually exhausting, by then maybe Im just a derp.

[Bubba1]

I agree with 99.9% of what Stebo has said - I oppose any and ALL criticism of people's income and spending habits.... UNTIL they go whining about their condition.

But guess what? I don't want to hear it from ANYONE. I don't want to hear it from this guy, and I don't want to hear it from the out-of-work construction guy. The point is, everyone's got problems, and financial issues just happen to be theirs.

Here's the deal: He opened himself up to criticism by laying his entire financial condition out there for analysis. He needs to STFU and go get a second job if he doesn't like it. Better yet, take some of that "outrage" and lobby to get the tax laws reformed.

^ This. the whining was classless, and he should expect criticism. I do recognize that a $250K annual family income is not universally considered being wealthy. It depends on factors including where you live. But it should be considered "very comfortable" at the very least. Unfortunately, many people chose to live close (or beyond) their means, with no safety net. It's a shame but that's the risk they take.

[wingFeather]

Too many e-thugs on this thread. "Whining" as you're calling it can be a means to an end. I see it as an emotional call for hope and change. If he just posted up some unemotional ideas for changing this country, people would ignore it.

[Bubba1]

"Whining" as you're calling it can be a means to an end. I see it as an emotional call for hope and change. If he just posted up some unemotional ideas for changing this country, people would ignore it.

Yes, a means to an end, but with a cost. There are risks/ramifications for publishing too much personal detail about yourself to a national audience. It absolutely provided a much bigger spotlight for his issue than if he had posted up some unemotional ideas. But at the same time, it opened himself up to some fierce criticism from those that do not share his perspective.

[IBCoupe]

I lost everything I tried to post. This may seem curt but I can't be bothered to do it again.

Place punishing taxation on creation of wealth, and it wont get created here.

It will only get "created" elsewhere if it's easier to be "created" elsewhere. It'd have to be more expensive to stay than to leave, even taking into account the length of the gains, the transactional costs, the shutting down and starting up elsewhere. We're not there yet.

Yes it is, and if you were in that position, you would know it. Come back when you are the poor sap caught under the taxation bus and let us know how you feel. Furthermore, people dont become wealthy to that degree just by sitting around and living life in a shell. You keep reminding us that they got there by manipulating society. Ive never disagreed with that notion, but you seem to indicate that its only a take take manipulation. Not so, if someone only takes from society, they get nowhere. Successful manipulation of society involves giving as well. Putting investment back into the system, which creates jobs, which stimulates the economy, all without any government intervention.

And yet, there's still a net "take." Hm.

Maybe the motivation for taxing the rich actually does have to do with capacity to bear the burden perhaps more than it does the desire to impose equality. But, nah, that would be inconsistent with my bumper sticker; can't be true.

Throw that 90% tax out there, and now whos cutting their nose off to spite their face? The government imposing such a rediculous tax, thats who!

On the fictional person making $1.4 trillion dollars in a silly hypothetical on the internet!

Ok perhaps I should have more specifically called BS there. Its not BS that someone can give more, its BS that they should be expected to, at least directly for all to see.

Why? Don't give me crap about incentives. Nobody writes "it's BS" because of the incentive system created. They write "it's BS" because they think it's morally wrong. Tell me why it's morally wrong to ask a person to pay more because they can.

You say "hey look it works!" Well prove it! We are not nor have we ever been truly economically functional, at least not for quite some time. Does our current tax structure work? Well depends, define work? Duct tape can and will hold your grill on your truck BUT is that really the best way?

I wrote "works" in the sense of economic fairness and justice. There's more to balancing a budget than revenues, and there's more to tax reform than marginal rates.

1. Very good, still making money is a pre-requisite for anything else involved. If your not making money, your not interested in any of the rest.
2. Go back to my response to this above, at some point when the system breaks completely, the wealthy and able will go play at a different court, where the returns are better.

1. You're not? That's news to me. A Ferrari's still a Ferrari. A private jet is still a private jet. Sex with supermodels is still sex with supermodels. The ability to be quoted as a toolbag still is the ability to be quoted as a toolbag. Too often economic theory forgets that people are not purely economically rational human beings. Were that the case, we'd all be driving Honda Fits.
2. You seem to argue that we're already there, when there's some pretty compelling evidence that we're not. Y'know... the giant concentration of wealth in the United States?

We wont speak chinese here until China decides to cash in its debt.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be now.

What good is having a labor force if theres no one here willing to invest to pay them? And you are right, taxes wont be the only thing that finally drives business away, although the other repelling factors could probably be viewed as a form of tax. For instance, at some point we will end up requiring ANY business no matter the size to provide health coverage, requiring jobs to be held while an employee is out for 9 months at a time, all sorts of rediculous little things that squelch business incentive.

Even if true, none of this has any bearing on the conversation at hand.

Sorry it just really looks like the contrary.

Well, now that I've corrected you.

A moron interested in fairness for all maybe? A moron that is interested in keeping business, the economy, and employement going for the long term here? Why does my theory have to be dependant on people being retarded? But then well all know, people are retarded anyway right? Im not spelling out all this proof again, go over to the other thread where it was laid out quite well for you.

You never laid anything out; no one did. You and I had a small skirmish of links, and what I read of yours was a lot of economic theory, and not a lot of data points. The one that did provide data didn't paint nearly as clear a picture as you try to here - it's not a direct relationship and it's not a linear relationship. Cutting taxes has, in the past, decreased revenues, even through times of economic growth. One of your links said that somewhere around 43% of GDP should be taxed to maximize revenue collection - so, depending on what we're doing now, cutting taxes might decrease revenues, contrary to your claims.

I apologize; this was quickly written. I'm really bummed out, too, because I had a nifty tangent about whole life insurance and the multiple tax loopholes therein that could be the source of billions in revenues were we to treat it consistently with similar tax policies.

[Bubba1]

Maybe the motivation for taxing the rich actually does have to do with capacity to bear the burden perhaps more than it does the desire to impose equality. But, nah, that would be inconsistent with my bumper sticker; can't be true.

.

Which bumper sticker? The one that says "show us your ta-ta's" or "my kid beat up your honor student"..... j/k

[IBCoupe]

The rainbow one that came with my bedazzled coupe.

Beat you to it, Greg.