The Poor Rich

[srellim234]

I like the one that says "My child was inmate of the month at Men's Central Jail."

[stebo0728]

Ok so Ive grown a bit tired of this one, and it seems no one has really profited much either way, we will just have to agree to disagree on taxation policy I guess, and just continue to drive for what we see best in the realm of who we vote for.

On the issue of bumper stickers, I dont know about in other areas, but its funny here in Atlanta, before the election how many "O" stickers, or H"O"pe stickers were out here, and now just driving around its amazing how few there really are around now. Does that mean anything? No most likely not, just an interesting observation. My favorite remains "If you can read this, your too close!" That one never dies.

[IBCoupe]

As someone who had (maybe still has) aspirations to design cars for a living and took educational steps towards that end, I have to say that I hate bumper stickers with a passion. I know, I know, I've made clear that I don't like bumper stickers from an intellectual standpoint, but from a design standpoint, I find that they, more often than not, conflict with the careful design of the car. Hours upon hours went into drawing that very curve to which you are applying an orange and white Hooters rectangle; must you?

[Bubba1]

As someone who had (maybe still has) aspirations to design cars for a living and took educational steps towards that end, I have to say that I hate bumper stickers with a passion. I know, I know, I've made clear that I don't like bumper stickers from an intellectual standpoint, but from a design standpoint, I find that they, more often than not, conflict with the careful design of the car. Hours upon hours went into drawing that very curve to which you are applying an orange and white Hooters rectangle; must you?

Or perhaps you could find success designing a rear bumper for modest priced cars that does not conflict with a yellow bumper sticker that sez "horn broken, watch for finger".

[IBCoupe]

That is an option, but it seems simpler to oppose bumper stickers than to find a bumper out there that works with all the crazy crap people put on their cars. I like to shake my cane at people.

[AZhitman]

I have a better idea - How about designing a car without a permanent indentation in the front bumper for a license plate?

Not ALL of us live in nanny states, and not all of us are required to run a front plate. GODDAMN I hate the look of a big chunk taken out of an otherwise smoothly-designed front end. Ford is probably the worst offender, but the worst example of it I can think of is the 97-98 240sx. FFFFUUUUUUU KILL IT WITH FIRE.

[mattblancarte]

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?

You have little to no aspiration to attain wealth or create any type of entrepreneurial impact on society. Perfectly fair. You're only willing to sympathize with those who take home your income equivalent. Fair enough.

I have no expectation of agreement on attitude towards fiscal and tax policy. You've stated where you're coming from, and it's easy to understand why you feel the way you do.

If you feel that there is nothing inherently wrong about taking money from wealthy people, you fail to see both sides of the situation.

Your example of not paying taxes as a way to dispel potentially negative ways in which a family or individual could be affected by change in tax policy has absolutely no bearing or reference to reality.

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.

You think that wanting to keep taxes as low as possible is extremist? What are you smoking? Associating frugal concepts with extremism is ridiculous. At what point have I written that the professor shouldn't have to pay his $100,000? Get a grip.

If you think the IRS is responsible for policy making, I think I may have found where you've gone off the rails.

You're still trying to convince me that I want to get rid of taxes altogether. No, it is not the logical end to your fabricated inquiry that misconstrued my point.

Here's the difference in our principals:

You - Wring dry each citizen as much as possible.
Me - Do everything possible to keep taxes at a minimum.

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

Hey, you brought it up. Agree to agree on reality.

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

Yeah, who cares right? f*** 'em!

Back to reality. We are talking about human beings, not numbers.

[IBCoupe]

I'm about to attribute every line of argument as having been between you and I. It's possible that you were responding at some point to something someone else said, and that I may end up attributing a comment someone else made to you. I don't care enough to go back and research these parts, so my apologies in advance for getting that wrong.

You have little to no aspiration to attain wealth or create any type of entrepreneurial impact on society. Perfectly fair. You're only willing to sympathize with those who take home your income equivalent. Fair enough.

I have no expectation of agreement on attitude towards fiscal and tax policy. You've stated where you're coming from, and it's easy to understand why you feel the way you do.

Fist yourself. That's not at all what I said. That wasn't implied in my comment. It's one thing to lie about and mischaracterize my arguments, but it's another to try to psychoanalyze me and do it wrong. I used myself as an example in order to construct a logical argument:

If I am capable of living on X salary and 2Y expenses, then the Professor must be capable of living on 5X salary and 4Y expenses.

The "sympathize" bit was a logical extrapolation that you decided to make personal:

If I am capable of living on X salary and 2Y expenses, then Person B should be capable of living on 50X salary and 3Y expenses, but Person C may or may not be capable of living on 0.25X salary and 2Y expenses.

If you can't debate that, that's okay, but don't take it as an opportunity to start lying about me instead.

Again, fist yourself.

If you feel that there is nothing inherently wrong about taking money from wealthy people, you fail to see both sides of the situation.

No, I see the other side - that Government should treat people fairly. There's more than one way to treat people fairly: the government can take equally, or it can leave equally. Many would prefer that the government take the same percentage from everyone, but that argument neglects to mention that a loaf of bread is not the same percentage of everyone's income. It's that consideration that turns a flat tax into a progressive tax. You can frame it as rich people being taxed more, or poor people being taxed less. It's the same tax system, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Your example of not paying taxes as a way to dispel potentially negative ways in which a family or individual could be affected by change in tax policy has absolutely no bearing or reference to reality.

I wasn't suggesting that a person shouldn't pay what they owe. I'm suggesting that if it's absolutely wrong for people to have to curb their lifestyles in order to account for their tax burden, the logical solution is to eliminate all taxes.

Now, you've already said you're not in favor of this, so please don't be mistaken again: I'm not saying you are. I'm simply saying that, if we're willing to admit that we have to have some taxes, telling me that it's absolutely wrong for someone to have to alter their lifestyle to account for taxes is dumb.

You think that wanting to keep taxes as low as possible is extremist? What are you smoking? Associating frugal concepts with extremism is ridiculous. At what point have I written that the professor shouldn't have to pay his $100,000? Get a grip.

I'm sorry, but implicit in some of your arguments were the challenge that we don't have the authority to dictate what his budget is. That's extreme, and here's why: we do have the authority to dictate how much money we don't take from taxes, but if your position is that we can't tell him what's "enough" by presumably not taking too much, then ultimately we can't take anything at all. Got it? That's extreme. You might have wanted to say his taxes should be as low as possible, but you're framing it in arguments that don't say that: challenging an argument as lacking authority to dictate what's "enough" misses the entire point of having a tax system. There ultimately must be a determination as to what's "enough," because that's the line the government does not ever cross.

If you think the IRS is responsible for policy making, I think I may have found where you've gone off the rails.

Rhetorical flourish.

You're still trying to convince me that I want to get rid of taxes altogether. No, it is not the logical end to your fabricated inquiry that misconstrued my point.

You keep making statements like you do. Tell me, what does, "Who are we to tell him what's 'enough' " actually mean? Were you asking for a Constitutional authority, a moral authority, or were you trying to suggest that we aren't who should tell him what's "enough." Where's the logical end to "we shouldn't tell him how much money he can keep" if not "we shouldn't take his money?"

Here's the difference in our principals:

You - Wring dry each citizen as much as possible.
Me - Do everything possible to keep taxes at a minimum.

Show me where I've pretended to propose any policy, asswipe. I'm not advocating anything here except what you neglect to say.

Hey, you brought it up. Agree to agree on reality.

Sure, but don't forget that this means accepting the next thing I told you: taking money away from him that he could use to employ someone goes, instead, into employing someone else.

Which you didn't appear to.

Yeah, who cares right? f*** 'em!

Back to reality. We are talking about human beings, not numbers.

Right, we are. You're talking about employing Human Being A by not taxing Employer B, and I'm talking about employing Human Being C by taxing Employer B and putting the money into Government Contractor D. You can say that it'd be better for the economy because of the decision Employer B would make about who he wants to hire, and you can say that it'd be better if the government employed as few people as possible. But you can't really say what you did actually say: that it's bad because Employer B can't hire Human Being A.

You made it about numbers when you started talking about adding people to the unemployment pool.

[stebo0728]

LOL - IB you got more aggravated at Matt than you did me, thats not fair!

If I am capable of living on X salary and 2Y expenses, then the Professor must be capable of living on 5X salary and 4Y expenses.

The "sympathize" bit was a logical extrapolation that you decided to make personal:

If I am capable of living on X salary and 2Y expenses, then Person B should be capable of living on 50X salary and 3Y expenses, but Person C may or may not be capable of living on 0.25X salary and 2Y expenses.

Are you attempting algebra again? Shame shame. Look in the last part there, person C is just a sap on society, he needs to step it up, he may not be able to control 2Y, but he damn sure can control 0.25X. And maybe if he had put the reefer down while he was in high school or college, maybe that 0.25X would look a bit better.

Let me ask you this. A scenario for you involving school. Lets say you, or person A, is working their a** off, studying, doing projects, getting papers turned in on time, and bringing in a nice 98 average. Person B is staying out partying, sleeping during class, txt'in his baby momma during lecture, and is scathing by with a 72 average. Now lets assume an 80 average is required for passage in the course. Are you open to taking 8 points of your average score, bringing you to a 90, and giving them to him, bringing him up to the 80 mark, now both of you can pass. Would that be acceptable to you? If you dont like this analogy, or think its "a different situation" then we really have nothing else to discuss.

I wasn't suggesting that a person shouldn't pay what they owe. I'm suggesting that if it's absolutely wrong for people to have to curb their lifestyles in order to account for their tax burden, the logical solution is to eliminate all taxes.

Again, if its morally acceptable to expect someone to curb their lifestyle to pay an inequitable tax burden, is it equally acceptable to expect the same percentage of lifestyle change all the way down the chain? Alot of the upper chain tax revenue goes to paying for the necessities of the lower chain, while the lower chain sometimes enjoys perks that they could otherwise for-go in the interest of helping themselves. (i.e. cellphones, expensive cable packages, expensive cigarette or alchohol habits)

Ok so we were debating previously about the exodus of the wealthy from this ambition disincentivizing society we've built. Heres a bit of backup on that issue.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 07350.html

"It's just economics," he says. "People don't work to pay taxes. People work to get what they can after tax. They'll change where they earn their income. They'll change how they earn their income. They'll change how much they earn, when they receive the income. They'll change all of those things to minimize taxes."

Donald Trump, who knows something about making money, says of course the rich will leave when hit with higher taxes. "I know these people," he told me. "They're international people. Whether they live here or live in a place like Switzerland doesn't really matter to them."

You haven't left, I told him.

"I haven't left yet. ... Look, the rich people are going to leave. And other people are going to leave. You're going to end up with lots of people that don't produce. And then that's the spiral. That's the end."

[stebo0728]

Heres another little nugget for you.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborow ... -wont-work

Simply, soak-the-rich policies have never worked in anyone’s favor. For instance, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley raised income tax levels on wealthy households to 6.25 percent from 4.75 percent in 2008. Lawmakers in Annapolis wrongly predicted that this millionaire tax would generate $106 million. According to the Wall Street Journal,

Well, the state comptroller's office now has final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.

Certainly, Maryland’s millionaire tax back fired. It is estimated that Maryland lost $1 billion because one-third of wealthy residents moved or filed their taxes in other states with lower tax burdens. Since Maryland’s millionaire tax was implemented, Maryland’s deficit has increased from $1.7 billion to $2 billion.

Similarly, New York enacted a “millionaire tax” that raised tax rates on all residents making more than $200,000 a year. However, since New York implemented their so-called millionaire tax its state revenue has declined by 9 percent. According to New York Governor David Paterson,

We increased the income tax for millionaires last year. We projected that we would get $4 billion and we actually got well short of it. Tax the rich, tax the rich. We've done that. We've probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state.

Whens this finally gonna start looking like "biting the hand that feeds you" to you?

[AZhitman]

Donald Trump nailed it.

But, y'know, maybe that's the answer. Maybe all the "haves" should pack up and head for Belize, and leave America to the "have-nots". Let's roll.

We'll leave America to the illegal immigrants, the "Person C's" from IBCoupe's algebra lesson, the babymommas and babydaddys, the entitled mouthbreathers who mistakenly assumed that the government somehow OWES them something...

Have fun running a country with no money, no motivated people, no common sense, no business-minded people and no impetus to outperform the guy in the next cubicle. I'll send a postcard.

[mattblancarte]

Fist yourself. That's not at all what I said. That wasn't implied in my comment. It's one thing to lie about and mischaracterize my arguments, but it's another to try to psychoanalyze me and do it wrong. I used myself as an example in order to construct a logical argument:

That's not what you said? Lie and mischaracterize? Make personal? You were the one who brought up your income and how you'd be happy as a clam to live of only what you're making now. What am I supposed to infer from drivel like that?

If you don't want to be open to criticism, don't write about your situation or stick your neck out with your opinion hanging from it. Hey... I could have just sworn we learned that from the professor who wrote the blog post...

If I am capable of living on X salary and 2Y expenses, then the Professor must be capable of living on 5X salary and 4Y expenses.

The "sympathize" bit was a logical extrapolation that you decided to make personal:

If I am capable of living on X salary and 2Y expenses, then Person B should be capable of living on 50X salary and 3Y expenses, but Person C may or may not be capable of living on 0.25X salary and 2Y expenses.

If you can't debate that, that's okay, but don't take it as an opportunity to start lying about me instead.

Quite the straw man you've constructed here. I have no interest in defining livable income based on your own personal experience. If you've read what I've written, you'd have known that.

Any time I see a number like 50x, the conjecture alarm goes off. Let's ground this in the example of the professor.

The professor has 5x human responsibility in comparison to you. He also employs at least two people, so we'll say 7x. He earns roughly 5x of what you earn (his wife's income included).

He incurs 7-8x your tax liability.

He can and does live quite nicely off of his income. What are you even trying to argue here? Are you trying to make it sound like I think his income isn't livable, or convince me that tax increase is all good because he has that extra income?

Again, fist yourself.

Internet is serious business.

No, I see the other side - that Government should treat people fairly. There's more than one way to treat people fairly: the government can take equally, or it can leave equally. Many would prefer that the government take the same percentage from everyone, but that argument neglects to mention that a loaf of bread is not the same percentage of everyone's income. It's that consideration that turns a flat tax into a progressive tax. You can frame it as rich people being taxed more, or poor people being taxed less. It's the same tax system, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

At no point have I made a claim that our tax system is inherently flawed, other than to say that tax increase on top percentile earners can have a negative effect on private business. We've been arguing about the macro policy making attitudes that create that system and shape its influence.

I wasn't suggesting that a person shouldn't pay what they owe. I'm suggesting that if it's absolutely wrong for people to have to curb their lifestyles in order to account for their tax burden, the logical solution is to eliminate all taxes.

No, that is not the logical solution. That is hyperbole designed to misconstrue the concept.

The logical solution is to have an attitude of keeping taxes as low as possible, so that people don't have to adjust their lifestyle.

Now, you've already said you're not in favor of this, so please don't be mistaken again: I'm not saying you are. I'm simply saying that, if we're willing to admit that we have to have some taxes, telling me that it's absolutely wrong for someone to have to alter their lifestyle to account for taxes is dumb.

I don't know what absolutely wrong means in this context. I'll just use the phrasing that I've used in previous responses.

Increased taxes can cut into spending power, thus creating negative impacts on the taxpayer. Several examples have been given as to what kind of impacts are had. You don't sympathize with them at all. No worries.

I'm sorry, but implicit in some of your arguments were the challenge that we don't have the authority to dictate what his budget is. That's extreme, and here's why: we do have the authority to dictate how much money we don't take from taxes, but if your position is that we can't tell him what's "enough" by presumably not taking too much, then ultimately we can't take anything at all. Got it? That's extreme. You might have wanted to say his taxes should be as low as possible, but you're framing it in arguments that don't say that: challenging an argument as lacking authority to dictate what's "enough" misses the entire point of having a tax system. There ultimately must be a determination as to what's "enough," because that's the line the government does not ever cross.

Again, you're misconstruing the concept. You're extracting and running with tangent concepts from simple statements that illustrate attitude.

At what point have I said that the professor shouldn't have to pay his taxes? At what point have I said that we don't have the authority to dictate tax rates?

You might have wanted to say his taxes should be as low as possible, but you're framing it in arguments that don't say that: challenging an argument as lacking authority to dictate what's "enough" misses the entire point of having a tax system. There ultimately must be a determination as to what's "enough," because that's the line the government does not ever cross.

Not only did I want to say that. I DID say that.

There ultimately must be a determination as to what's "enough," because that's the line the government does not ever cross.

Right, but does this mean that we show no sympathy to the man who pays extra taxes which end up having a negative impact on real people? Again, at no point have I said that the $100k tax payment should even be reduced or not paid. I was simply making the point that it's lame that his taxes go up, and that in a perfect world, we'd all pay as little as we could to government.

I'll be waiting for you to turn that into another zero tax straw man.

Rhetorical flourish.

Right back at ya!

You keep making statements like you do. Tell me, what does, "Who are we to tell him what's 'enough' " actually mean? Were you asking for a Constitutional authority, a moral authority, or were you trying to suggest that we aren't who should tell him what's "enough." Where's the logical end to "we shouldn't tell him how much money he can keep" if not "we shouldn't take his money?"

You're trying to turn my attitude towards income envy into an argument against paying taxes. Read through our discussion, and try again.

Show me where I've pretended to propose any policy, asswipe. I'm not advocating anything here except what you neglect to say.

Well, I was just following your lead of making extreme conclusions based on attitudes towards wealth. Should we not do that?

Didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch there, slugger.

Sure, but don't forget that this means accepting the next thing I told you: taking money away from him that he could use to employ someone goes, instead, into employing someone else.

Which you didn't appear to.

Okay first, you're cold as ice cowboy. You still don't give a s*** about someone losing their job.

The tax money may or may not be used to fund another job. That's not certain.

Either way, the guy that lost his professor client is taking a hit. You don't appear to acknowledge OR give a s***.

Right, we are. You're talking about employing Human Being A by not taxing Employer B, and I'm talking about employing Human Being C by taxing Employer B and putting the money into Government Contractor D. You can say that it'd be better for the economy because of the decision Employer B would make about who he wants to hire, and you can say that it'd be better if the government employed as few people as possible. But you can't really say what you did actually say: that it's bad because Employer B can't hire Human Being A.

At what point did I say B can't hire A?

I said that it's a shame that A has to be let go because B can't afford to to pay for employment costs.

You made it about numbers when you started talking about adding people to the unemployment pool.

No, you made it about numbers when you referred to people losing their jobs and people in the unemployment pool as numbers. It's how you see policy, and how you see people.

[AZhitman]

I smelled, in one of IBC's posts above, an allusion to increases in government jobs as a means to employ more people.

As a government employee myself, I'm gonna go with "no f***ing way" on that.

This stimulus nonsense has created jobs, sure. A bunch of bureaucratic, do-nothing, bigger-governernment, impossible-to-fire, union-loving footsoldiers who owe the current Administration a debt of gratitude and their eternal vote.

Screw that.

Carry on, gentlemen.

[IBCoupe]

--Freaky Double-Post--

[IBCoupe]

I didn't get frustrated with you, Stebo, because you didn't try to explain to me what I think.

Look in the last part there, person C is just a sap on society, he needs to step it up, he may not be able to control 2Y, but he damn sure can control 0.25X. And maybe if he had put the reefer down while he was in high school or college, maybe that 0.25X would look a bit better.

You missed the point. The point wasn't that I was making excuses for low income people. I was stating, as a matter of fiscal reality, that my knowledge that it's possible to survive on income X does not suggest that it's possible (or impossible) to survive on income .25X. This is contrary to the plainly obvious understanding that it is possible to survive on income 50X.

Have I been clear enough yet?

Let me ask you this. A scenario for you involving school. Lets say you, or person A, is working their a** off, studying, doing projects, getting papers turned in on time, and bringing in a nice 98 average. Person B is staying out partying, sleeping during class, txt'in his baby momma during lecture, and is scathing by with a 72 average. Now lets assume an 80 average is required for passage in the course. Are you open to taking 8 points of your average score, bringing you to a 90, and giving them to him, bringing him up to the 80 mark, now both of you can pass. Would that be acceptable to you? If you dont like this analogy, or think its "a different situation" then we really have nothing else to discuss.

I don't know what you're trying to get at. It's not that I don't like the analogy, it's that I don't see how it's analogous. Please help me out.

Again, if its morally acceptable to expect someone to curb their lifestyle to pay an inequitable tax burden, is it equally acceptable to expect the same percentage of lifestyle change all the way down the chain? Alot of the upper chain tax revenue goes to paying for the necessities of the lower chain, while the lower chain sometimes enjoys perks that they could otherwise for-go in the interest of helping themselves. (i.e. cellphones, expensive cable packages, expensive cigarette or alchohol habits)

Yes, it's equally acceptable, except to the point where we recognize that there is a minimum cost of living. This is the basis for a progressive tax system - we aren't taxing the rich more, we're taxing the poor less. It's a nuanced distinction on the same basic facts, but it's an important one to understand in order to avoid caricaturing your opposition's arguments.

Ok so we were debating previously about the exodus of the wealthy from this ambition disincentivizing society we've built. Heres a bit of backup on that issue.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 07350.html

"It's just economics," he says. "People don't work to pay taxes. People work to get what they can after tax. They'll change where they earn their income. They'll change how they earn their income. They'll change how much they earn, when they receive the income. They'll change all of those things to minimize taxes."

Donald Trump, who knows something about making money, says of course the rich will leave when hit with higher taxes. "I know these people," he told me. "They're international people. Whether they live here or live in a place like Switzerland doesn't really matter to them."

You haven't left, I told him.

"I haven't left yet. ... Look, the rich people are going to leave. And other people are going to leave. You're going to end up with lots of people that don't produce. And then that's the spiral. That's the end."

And when Donald Trump leaves, I'll buy the argument that we've reached a point where it's less burdensome for him to do so. In the meantime, he's just arguing to keep his taxes low, something I can't fault him for - more money in his pocket is certainly something he's entitled to ask for. But while it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable for him to say that, I wouldn't exactly call him an unbiased source. I don't think he's going anywhere. I don't think the rich are going anywhere - we have more billionaires than anywhere in the world. You'd think they'd have high-tailed it by now if it really was that crappy.

[IBCoupe]

Whens this finally gonna start looking like "biting the hand that feeds you" to you?

When Delaware and Virginia stop bordering Maryland.

[IBCoupe]

That's not what you said? Lie and mischaracterize? Make personal? You were the one who brought up your income and how you'd be happy as a clam to live of only what you're making now. What am I supposed to infer from drivel like that?

Which part of "Would I like more? Of course, and I'm taking real steps towards having it," didn't you understand?

If you don't want to be open to criticism, don't write about your situation or stick your neck out with your opinion hanging from it. Hey... I could have just sworn we learned that from the professor who wrote the blog post...

I welcome criticism. I don't welcome irrelevant tangents that wander into the realm of personal attacks. Once again, I used my own after-tax income as the basis for a logical argument, not for a justification of tax code. Okay?

What are you even trying to argue here? Are you trying to make it sound like I think his income isn't livable, or convince me that tax increase is all good because he has that extra income?

I'm arguing that it's possible (and to a lesser extent that it's proper) to establish a bare minimum level of "enough." That's all I've ever been trying to argue with this line of reasoning, yet you continue to try and make it into something else, and now I've explained it to you at least twice.

You can introduce as many other factors into it as you want, but the basic argument remains unaffected. It's not a straw man; it would be a straw man if it was being used to argue against what you're arguing, but it's not, and it hasn't been, and it will not be used in that way, at least not by me.

At no point have I made a claim that our tax system is inherently flawed, other than to say that tax increase on top percentile earners can have a negative effect on private business. We've been arguing about the macro policy making attitudes that create that system and shape its influence.

I didn't say you thought it was flawed. I did project some of Stebo's arguments onto you, and, as I did at the beginning of my last post, I apologize for that.

No, that is not the logical solution. That is hyperbole designed to misconstrue the concept.

The logical solution is to have an attitude of keeping taxes as low as possible, so that people don't have to adjust their lifestyle.

Except that the injustice still exists with any taxation. Any amount of money taken away from them is money that can't be applied to their lifestyle. Everyone who pays taxes must adjust their lifestyle to account for taxes. If I pay $2.00 in taxes every year, that's two candy bars I can't buy. Maybe one-and-three-quarters. "So that people don't have to adjust their lifestyle" is an impossible goal with any tax system, so the only logical outcome to avoid people adjusting their lifestyles is to have absolutely no taxes. I hope I've been clear enough.

And before you respond again: I don't think you want to eliminate taxes altogether, and I'm not saying that you do. Okay?

It's a matter of setting proper tax goals. Instead of looking at taxes as a means of taking money from people, try looking it as a means for paying for government. Tax policy shouldn't be crafted with an eye primarily towards individual effects; it should be about taking as much money as is necessary to pay for government services, subject to conditions of equity and individual survivability.

You don't sympathize with them at all. No worries.

Quote what I've said to give you that impression, please, so I can clarify it for you.

Again, you're misconstruing the concept. You're extracting and running with tangent concepts from simple statements that illustrate attitude.

At what point have I said that the professor shouldn't have to pay his taxes? At what point have I said that we don't have the authority to dictate tax rates?

You haven't.

Stebo raised the issue of authority and ability to determine what's "enough." I responded to that by saying, "If I can survive on this, he can survive on that. Determination done." You responded to my response as if I was making a claim on what should or shouldn't be done with taxes. You continue to act on that. We've gone back and forth on it now for a while, and I'm tired of it. If you plan to continue to view my comments out of the context within which they are made, let me know, and I will gladly stop responding to you.

Again, I apologize for projecting Stebo's arguments onto your posts; it happened when you replied to a point I made to Stebo.

Right, but does this mean that we show no sympathy to the man who pays extra taxes which end up having a negative impact on real people? Again, at no point have I said that the $100k tax payment should even be reduced or not paid. I was simply making the point that it's lame that his taxes go up, and that in a perfect world, we'd all pay as little as we could to government.

Short answer: no, it doesn't mean that. Similarly, it doesn't mean that we must show sympathy. And I choose not to, because the money doesn't get torched.

You're trying to turn my attitude towards income envy into an argument against paying taxes. Read through our discussion, and try again.

Actually, no, I'm trying to turn Stebo's arguments against determining what amount of money is enough into an argument against paying taxes. Which i got by taking the time to go back and figure out how it got into our conversation. You never asked the question I keep saying you did.

Well, I was just following your lead of making extreme conclusions based on attitudes towards wealth. Should we not do that?

I haven't made any conclusions based on attitudes towards wealth. I've made conclusions based on statements about tax implications.

Okay first, you're cold as ice cowboy. You still don't give a s*** about someone losing their job.

When we're just shuffling money around? You betcha. One person has to lose pay.

The tax money may or may not be used to fund another job. That's not certain.

I'm struggling to find a government function that does not feed a job somewhere, in the government or outside of it.

Either way, the guy that lost his professor client is taking a hit. You don't appear to acknowledge OR give a s***.

Well, I certainly acknowledged it, because, as I keep saying, we've taken the money and job away from one person and given it to someone else.

I don't appear to give a s*** because I don't.

At what point did I say B can't hire A?

I said that it's a shame that A has to be let go because B can't afford to to pay for employment costs.

You said it when you wrote "A has to be let go because B can't afford to to pay for employment costs." Cliffs: B can't pay A to do a job anymore = B can't hire/employ/whatever A.

I feel like I'm missing something that you think is important.

No, you made it about numbers when you referred to people losing there jobs and people in the unemployment pool as numbers. It's how you see policy, and how you see people.

It's a conversation about tax. It's all numbers.

[IBCoupe]

I smelled, in one of IBC's posts above, an allusion to increases in government jobs as a means to employ more people.

Actually it was an increase in government revenues and not necessarily to more people.

[AZhitman]

I smelled, in one of IBC's posts above, an allusion to increases in government jobs as a means to employ more people.

Actually it was an increase in government revenues and not necessarily to more people.

Yeah, I saw it.

I'm talking about employing Human Being C by taxing Employer B and putting the money into Government Contractor D.

Still smells like two turds in a wet gym sock.

[stebo0728]

I'm talking about employing Human Being C by taxing Employer B and putting the money into Government Contractor D.

Are we assuming that Employer B is offering the same service as Government Contractor D? I need to be clear on that before I go further with a response.

[IBCoupe]

Not necessarily. I work for a Navy contractor that employs janitors.

EDIT: Wait, I misread your question. No, I wasn't assuming that the taxed employer performs the same service as the government contractor. For the sake of an example, the Tax Professor in Chicago does not perform the same services as Northrup Grumman, and for all we know, that's where his individual dollars ended up, if we assume for the sake of argument that they end up in one place.

[stebo0728]

Not necessarily. I work for a Navy contractor that employs janitors.

EDIT: Wait, I misread your question. No, I wasn't assuming that the taxed employer performs the same service as the government contractor. For the sake of an example, the Tax Professor in Chicago does not perform the same services as Northrup Grumman, and for all we know, that's where his individual dollars ended up, if we assume for the sake of argument that they end up in one place.

Ok well at the risk of creating yet another rabbit trail in this thread:

So now you are getting into the realm of Government service providers being created to do the same job as private sector service providers? I dont get the "ya that makes perfect sense" punch out of that notion. First of all, we've already established that Government is the only "business entity" that has the luxury of running business at a perpetual loss. This creates uneven competition in the market place. No no instead of taxing Employer B in order to pay for Government Contractor D to employ Human Being A, why not eliminate Government Contractor D altogether, let Human Being A acquire marketable skills so that Employer B will be inclined to hire him themselves? Again this is working on the premise that Employer B and Government Contractor D are indeed competitors with each other.

And furthermore, would you consider government to at least in some way be an influence into how its citizens live their lives? I would, and in assuming so, is it any real wonder that the debt habits of citizens seem to reflect the debt habits of their government? Now I understand deficits at least in some minor regard, can be positive aspects of a government cash flow, but that cant possibly be the argument used to defend the level of deficit we have had for decades. (Please dont give me the Clinton propaganda) We desperately need to work towards a balanced budget, and any program that pushed the budget out of balance needs to be placed on at least some sort of hold. If we are to carry a deficit, it needs to be a controlled, manageable deficit, preferably owed to kids that dont push down others on the playground.

[stebo0728]

--Gol ram ninja edits--

I need to keep the thread refreshed in another tab so I can catch your damn ninja edits before I post my own

[IBCoupe]

Haha. Sorry for that; didn't realize that you were going to respond so quickly.

When I wrote, "I work for a Navy Contractor that employs janitors," I wasn't trying to suggest that the Navy Contractor employs janitors for the Navy, but rather, for the Navy Contractor's own maintenance. On behalf of the Navy, the Navy Contractor I work for employs Submarine designers, engineers and builders. In the same way as the contractor employs janitors for its own purposes (and in the same subject matter?) they also employ lawyers. I suppose that you could argue that the fact that this Navy Contractor goes and employs those janitors and lawyers on the government's dime could be a source of government-funded competition for other janitors and lawyers, but I think it's a stretch.

And as for government being an influence in their lives as a role model, as you seem to suggest, I think it isn't very likely. People got into debt because the incentives were there for it to happen - it was easy, available, and there was no immediate pain. That government does the same thing is an indication that government functions like people, and not the reverse.

Yes, government played a part in getting people into homes that they shouldn't have been in, and continues to give home-ownership a leg up when it comes to taxes, rightfully or otherwise, but that's only part of the incentives. I'm just not sure that anyone looks at the workings (or non-workings) of Congress and says, "Yes; let that be my life, please."

[IBCoupe]

And I'm going to stop making minor ninja edits to that post, in the event that you're busily trying to respond to it:

I think we have to realize that there will be times where the government necessarily will create an imbalance in competition. Staying with the military here, imagine that Apple and IBM are both vying to land the next government contract in hand-held combat-computing. Now, the government is only going to go with one of the bidders, right? And it's still going to tax both of them. Theoretically, if the government were to choose IBM's concept, Apple could see its taxes as going to the competition. Is this wrong? Or is it the function of a government that can't fund everyone, but must fund some people? What's the alternative? Have the government develop and manufacture internally its own concepts? Does that create more problems for the private sector? The same thing can be said about the Air Force selecting Boeing's new engine design over Pratt & Whitney's. And more to your point about "cut out the contractor and let the guy hire who he wants to do the job," the same can be said about accountants being hired by the IRS that would otherwise go to Ernst & Young, or the White House picking one great American chef over another. From the private sector's perspective, these are all resources that the government is throwing to competitors, or potential employees that the government is stealing out from under them.

[stebo0728]

Ohh man, cant respond by paragraph here, gotta cut 'er up a bit ...

I think we have to realize that there will be times where the government necessarily will create an imbalance in competition. Staying with the military here, imagine that Apple and IBM are both vying to land the next government contract in hand-held combat-computing. Now, the government is only going to go with one of the bidders, right? And it's still going to tax both of them. Theoretically, if the government were to choose IBM's concept, Apple could see its taxes as going to the competition.

I dont think so, and heres why. In your example there, lets also remember, neither IBM or Apple ACTUALLY PAY any taxes. They still pass those tax costs on to their customers, and indeed back to the government when the government buys, because those taxes are embedded back into the price of the goods and services. So in the example, the government can really just be separated out and viewed as just another client, because both companies are being taxed equally, equal embedded costs are passed on to ALL customers, including the government.

Is this wrong? Or is it the function of a government that can't fund everyone, but must fund some people? What's the alternative? Have the government develop and manufacture internally its own concepts? Does that create more problems for the private sector? The same thing can be said about the Air Force selecting Boeing's new engine design over Pratt & Whitney's.

Most of this is predicated upon the first part, so should now be answered. But I'll add, the government in said example is not "funding" the winner of the bid, they are simply making a purchase. Indeed in alot of cases, multiple bidders are selected and used from region to region, as one supplier often cant feasible or competitively supply 100% of a nationwide demand.

And more to your point about "cut out the contractor and let the guy hire who he wants to do the job," the same can be said about accountants being hired by the IRS that would otherwise go to Ernst & Young, or the White House picking one great American chef over another. From the private sector's perspective, these are all resources that the government is throwing to competitors, or potential employees that the government is stealing out from under them.

I dont quite get the analogy here. Is there such a thing as a "government chef" as in a chef that is employed and supplied by a government agency that then provides their services to whoever needs them? I dont think so, I think all chefs are private sector chefs, and again, he pays income tax like anyone else, and is just another service provider, providing a service to a client, that happens to be a government.

[IBCoupe]

I dont think so, and heres why. In your example there, lets also remember, neither IBM or Apple ACTUALLY PAY any taxes. They still pass those tax costs on to their customers, and indeed back to the government when the government buys, because those taxes are embedded back into the price of the goods and services. So in the example, the government can really just be separated out and viewed as just another client, because both companies are being taxed equally, equal embedded costs are passed on to ALL customers, including the government.

Well, hold on. That the cost of the taxes gets passed downstream doesn't change the fact that it's an extra burden that the government places upon the two companies that ultimately affects their bottom line in much the same way that an income tax does. Whether your employees can't afford your wares because your prices are too high seems like a bit of a problem for a retailer. Taxes imposed and passed along still have to be accounted for.

Most of this is predicated upon the first part, so should now be answered. But I'll add, the government in said example is not "funding" the winner of the bid, they are simply making a purchase. Indeed in alot of cases, multiple bidders are selected and used from region to region, as one supplier often cant feasible or competitively supply 100% of a nationwide demand.

Most contracts of that nature are long term - we're looking at decades here. This is more than "making a purchase," as the military would rely upon IBM or Apple to supply constant updates, make improvements and modifications along the way. Usually when something like this comes into play, the military isn't just buying a truckload and having them sent out - they're buying a system that they wish to implement for years to come, until the point where the technology is obsolete and it's time to replace it. Having a government contract for your products means you don't really have to worry as much about the private sector aspect of things. What it ultimately means is that, if IBM lands the contract, it's got a sort of insurance that it will stay in business for a lengthy period of time.

Can't say for sure that Apple will always be in business, because we can't say for sure what's going to happen in 10 years. I don't think this is necessarily wrong, but then again, I don't see the problem inherent with government getting involved in what otherwise are private industries. Public transportation, for example - I don't see the problem with a municipality providing bus service, though a private company could just as easily do the same thing. Heck, it probably is a private company doing it on contract with the municipality. And that's okay with me.

I dont quite get the analogy here. Is there such a thing as a "government chef" as in a chef that is employed and supplied by a government agency that then provides their services to whoever needs them? I dont think so, I think all chefs are private sector chefs, and again, he pays income tax like anyone else, and is just another service provider, providing a service to a client, that happens to be a government.

Well, look at it this way: the White House maintains a private cooking staff, but imagine if they didn't. I wonder how much the private sector would benefit from having the President eating out a bit more often than he does.

[stebo0728]

Well, hold on. That the cost of the taxes gets passed downstream doesn't change the fact that it's an extra burden that the government places upon the two companies that ultimately affects their bottom line in much the same way that an income tax does. Whether your employees can't afford your wares because your prices are too high seems like a bit of a problem for a retailer. Taxes imposed and passed along still have to be accounted for.

Yes, but since we have this rediculously complex tax system currently, we have to work with what we've got, which means embedded taxes. Fair tax would solve this, but we arent there yet, so working with what we have, the taxes are levied equally upon companies. Now many of the taxes we are talking about are "per employee" taxes, so it is in the best benefit of a company to limit its taxes by limiting its employees, not to mention all the "should we really hire 1 more" compliance considerations because that 1 more would mean having to take extra measures, or falling into new categories of "number of employee" based regulations. And further many companies teetering on these lines opt to let someone go in order to better their standings. So I guess I went off track a bit, and threw out some good arguments for the FairTax, but then that wasnt the issue, so jury strike that from the record. Back to the original, companies have taxes levied basically equally, aside from the advantages companies jocky for that i lined out above. Hey look, i made a round robin post.

Most contracts of that nature are long term - we're looking at decades here. This is more than "making a purchase," as the military would rely upon IBM or Apple to supply constant updates, make improvements and modifications along the way. Usually when something like this comes into play, the military isn't just buying a truckload and having them sent out - they're buying a system that they wish to implement for years to come, until the point where the technology is obsolete and it's time to replace it. Having a government contract for your products means you don't really have to worry as much about the private sector aspect of things. What it ultimately means is that, if IBM lands the contract, it's got a sort of insurance that it will stay in business for a lengthy period of time.

Can't say for sure that Apple will always be in business, because we can't say for sure what's going to happen in 10 years. I don't think this is necessarily wrong, but then again, I don't see the problem inherent with government getting involved in what otherwise are private industries. Public transportation, for example - I don't see the problem with a municipality providing bus service, though a private company could just as easily do the same thing. Heck, it probably is a private company doing it on contract with the municipality. And that's okay with me.

Good point there, and aside from support of current protocols, like computer systems, these long term contracts should probably be evaluated more often. IE cell phone providers, or toiletry suppliers, once a year perhpas.

Well, look at it this way: the White House maintains a private cooking staff, but imagine if they didn't. I wonder how much the private sector would benefit from having the President eating out a bit more often than he does.

I gotcha, but then how much more could our tax budget benefit from the prez makin his own tuna helper?

[IBCoupe]

That was a wonderful roller-coaster of a post. I do think that, though taxes are levied equally, we're not only talking about taxes. If you'll recall, the issue also includes government spending - and government not only pays well for the products they get, but there is that extra insurance that comes with having the government as a customer.

And re: President's tuna helper:
Our tax would probably benefit quite a bit, but our executive decision-making, on the other hand...

[mattblancarte]

Which part of "Would I like more? Of course, and I'm taking real steps towards having it," didn't you understand?

This part:

I'd be perfectly happy making no additional money in the pursuit of a legal career.

You're sending me mixed signals. The first quote sounds good and reasonable. You lost me on the second one.

If you're determined to gain wealth... great! $2500 is a lot of money from that perspective.

I welcome criticism. I don't welcome irrelevant tangents that wander into the realm of personal attacks.

I feel the same way. I guess I had to give a little back after you began to repeatedly insult my intelligence in a passive-aggressive manner.

In fact, I think if you consider most of our interactions on this board, you'll find that to be true about me. There was a recent thread in which I thought I was catching some criticism, and asked you for further explanation so I could respond.

Such is the nature of gubmit debates on the interwebz.

Once again, I used my own after-tax income as the basis for a logical argument, not for a justification of tax code. Okay?

Fair enough. I chose to use the topic of the thread (the professor's blog post) as my reference.

I'm arguing that it's possible (and to a lesser extent that it's proper) to establish a bare minimum level of "enough."

No argument there. I just think it sucks when our already out of control federal government decides to up the take.

That's all I've ever been trying to argue with this line of reasoning, yet you continue to try and make it into something else, and now I've explained it to you at least twice.

Reading back through our discussion, I'm more often than not responding to arguments that you've laid out for me to tackle. Often at your own expense because you've used yourself as the target reference for your arguments.

I could go through and make a point that your previous arguments haven't been so subdued, but I'm happy with the tone of the argument now.

I didn't say you thought it was flawed. I did project some of Stebo's arguments onto you, and, as I did at the beginning of my last post, I apologize for that.

No worries.

Except that the injustice still exists with any taxation. Any amount of money taken away from them is money that can't be applied to their lifestyle. Everyone who pays taxes must adjust their lifestyle to account for taxes. If I pay $2.00 in taxes every year, that's two candy bars I can't buy. Maybe one-and-three-quarters. "So that people don't have to adjust their lifestyle" is an impossible goal with any tax system, so the only logical outcome to avoid people adjusting their lifestyles is to have absolutely no taxes. I hope I've been clear enough.

It's a matter of setting proper tax goals. Instead of looking at taxes as a means of taking money from people, try looking it as a means for paying for government. Tax policy shouldn't be crafted with an eye primarily towards individual effects; it should be about taking as much money as is necessary to pay for government services, subject to conditions of equity and individual survivability.

Absolutely, it does. Taxes inherently suck.

Two contract workers and other costs ($2500) are hardly to be compared with a couple of candy bars, but yes that is the idea.

"Setting proper tax goals" is another way of saying "keeping as much money in the hands of the private citizen as possible" to me.

Again, the logical outcome to avoid people adjusting their lifestyles is not the abolition of taxes altogether. It is to take an aggressive stance against cost inflation at all levels of government.

"Subject to conditions of equity and individual survivability" is another way of saying that.

I don't know what kind of analysis you've seen of government spending and policy in the last decade, but it does not represent that kind of attitude and control.

Quote what I've said to give you that impression, please, so I can clarify it for you.

This:

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

Short answer: no, it doesn't mean that. Similarly, it doesn't mean that we must show sympathy. And I choose not to, because the money doesn't get torched.

OPM. Other people's money.

There is no freaking way that you can convince me that you'd write an additional $2500 check to the federal government and not think that it sucks even just a little bit.

I haven't made any conclusions based on attitudes towards wealth. I've made conclusions based on statements about tax implications.

Hmmm... alright.

When we're just shuffling money around? You betcha. One person has to lose pay.

Good god man. Where's your humanity?

You said it when you wrote "A has to be let go because B can't afford to to pay for employment costs." Cliffs: B can't pay A to do a job anymore = B can't hire/employ/whatever A.

I feel like I'm missing something that you think is important.

Yes, you're missing the fact that those variables represent humans. I employ people so I guess I feel a little more down to earth on the whole tax issue.

It's a conversation about tax. It's all numbers.

Well, I think it's fair to say that I've demonstrated that to not be the case for all people.