I think this is really what progressive taxation boils down to.

Can anyone really claim that the burden of 20% of $25k/yr equals the burden of 20% of $2.5m/yr?

Working class people do not have an abundance of expendable income. 20% of their gross income is a significant amount, and affects the pool of money that they use for basic necessities.

Someone making >$250k/yr does have an abundance of expendable income. 20% would hardly make a dent in their expendable income, let alone their necessities.

6/10/2008 10:39:06 AM

The richest people out there generally have so much because they don't spend it. Factor that in, and this entire conversation is going nowhere.

Is it a burden to give people less money to not spend? Think about how this will affect their not spending power.

6/10/2008 10:42:46 AM

The richest people out there typically inherit their wealth. To claim otherwise is to just blow smoke up your own asshole.

6/10/2008 10:44:40 AM

Quote :

"The richest people out there generally have so much because they don't spend it"

i'm not sure that's true at all. You don't get rich by making a regular salary and not spending anything.
That's completely beside Boone's statement anyway, which starts off with the presumption of two different people, one making 25k and one making 2.5M/year.

6/10/2008 10:46:19 AM

6/10/2008 10:46:45 AM

progressive taxation = communism?

6/10/2008 10:50:09 AM

^^The 16th Amendment predates the Soviet Union.

This is exactly what I was trying to rise above-- there's a significant difference between a government that seeks to achieve communism, and a government that simply realizes that % =/= burden.

It's only when stupidity/ideology blinds you do you end up comparing progressive taxation to communism

6/10/2008 10:52:06 AM

mrfrog and nutsmacker gets points taken off their final grade for confusing wealth (a "stock" that can be drawn down or added to over time) with yearly income (a measurement of the "flow" of money you recieve in a year).

6/10/2008 10:52:57 AM

^^you're trying to convince people that someone with more money should pay a higher percentage than someone who has or makes less money, and your main reasoning seems to be because they can afford to...clearly there are still plenty of people who disagree with you and think its not fair

also my marko picture post experiment worked exactly as I thought it would

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 10:55 AM. Reason : ^^]

6/10/2008 10:54:32 AM

Boone,

Why should "burden" be the metric for allocating the national tax bill?
One cannot answer this question in isolation of how the tax revenues will be spent.

6/10/2008 10:59:41 AM

who are to judge how much someone needs thier money they worked for? You have no idea what expenses they might have incurred to achieve that income level.

I think the most fair is for the govt to treat its citizens as equals, and that includes taxes. Everyone takes home the same percentage of income. The only difference is the career you choose and productivity.

I have little sympathy for people who are admit to being lazy, have a cellphone, cable tv, then bitch they cant afford the things they need and want to penalize the productive and responsible to fund irresponsiblity... no thanks.

Id love to see a flat tax, but it wont happen as long as people dont look at fairness only look upon thier own jealously and desire to punish those more successful than themselves. This "free ride" attitude is growing in our society. I want abc, but i dont expect me to pay for it.. punish those rich people, they have plenty and dont NEED it as much as I do... what a joke.

6/10/2008 11:05:36 AM

Quote :

"The richest people out there typically inherit their wealth. To claim otherwise is to just blow smoke up your own asshole."

If the richest people are taken to be the 100 richest people in the world then most of them are self made. There are two major reasons

1) Old money just doesn't pay like new money. That is even if the value of US Steel had grown steadily with the economy since Andrew Carnegie the growth in value of Microsoft has outpaced the rest of the economy by leaps and bounds. Microsoft, will probably be eclipsed by Google eventually, who will be eclipsed by . . .

2) Most people have more than one child meaning that the value of wealth is dissipated as the generations increase. The Rothschilds stayed wealthy in part because Baron Rothschild encouraged the possibly incestuous marriage of cousins to keep the wealth in the family.

Quote :

"Can anyone really claim that the burden of 20% of $25k/yr equals the burden of 20% of $2.5m/yr?"

Well, I think its a complex question that depends on why there is a difference in income. One reason could be that the high income person simply loves money more and will sacrifice everything to get it. In that case taking away his money is probably a lot more painful.

Another reason could be that this high income period is transient and the high income person would have saved for what are likely to be much leaner years in the future.

There are also non-trivial differences in the cost of living. At a 100 to 1 ratio its not going to make much of a difference but at 10 to 1 or less living in Manhattan vs. Kansas is going to mean that salary is a lot less reflective of disposable income that it might first appear.

6/10/2008 11:11:23 AM

Quote :

"mrfrog and nutsmacker gets points taken off their final grade for confusing wealth (a "stock" that can be drawn down or added to over time) with yearly income (a measurement of the "flow" of money you recieve in a year)."

you lose even more points off your final grade for assuming I was responding to the initial post and not the post directly following it. You know, the one in which the person talks about the richest.

6/10/2008 11:16:08 AM

you're just blowing smoke up your own asshole

6/10/2008 11:18:19 AM

KW, I'm not sure the focus here is on hurting anyone emotionally by taking away their money so they can no longer swim in it or something. Taxes aren't a wicked prank of the government just to make you cry. It's a practical question of "Is someone losing 20% of a 25k a year income in taxes less able to provide for their families basic needs, or fund the education of their children, than someone losing 20% of even 100k per year to taxes." We can answer that fairly easily. Which situation would you rather be in, financially?

Right, me too. So it's more an issue of equality vs. egalitarianism at this point, and whether you think we should lay things out perfectly equally by numbers, or strive to shift the burdens so that those who can better afford to pay them take some pressure off those who are less able to handle it. Personally, I fall on the side of the egalitarian argument, but I can see why people are fans of flat taxes. I'd be surprised if this were to go through anytime soon, partly because the people at the top are the ones getting the most good out of the current tax system, but mostly because of the institutional inertia the tax code has.

While high income might be transient in some cases, most of the upper-upper-middle-class and outright rich people I've met tended to stay that way, often as a result of steady high-paying jobs or savvy investing or both.

It'd also be nice to see the statements about the "laziness" of the poor and working/lower-middle-class stop for a second. My dad makes 27k a year, and flat works his ass off, has since before I can remember, and so do many of my friends and neighbors, many of whom, by the way, vote Republican every time. We aren't just talking about the stereotype Welfare queen with 9 kids and a hefty Boost Mobile bill every month, this is more about the people who put in 50 hour weeks on maintenance crews or their home plumbing business or whatever because they want their kids to grow up in a relatively nice home. They're not all a walking Jerry Springer episode, and insinuations that they are are starting to grate.

6/10/2008 11:54:59 AM

i wish people who made $100k would only get taxed 20%

6/10/2008 11:58:34 AM

Quote :

"One cannot answer this question in isolation of how the tax revenues will be spent."

elaborate. whats your position on this. why do you pose such a reasoning.

6/10/2008 12:09:18 PM

Quote :

"i wish people who made $100k would only get taxed 20% "

I wish EVERYONE only got taxed 15% on income. The sliding scale is horseshit.

6/10/2008 12:29:46 PM

Quote :

"KW, I'm not sure the focus here is on hurting anyone emotionally by taking away their money so they can no longer swim in it or something. Taxes aren't a wicked prank of the government just to make you cry. It's a practical question of "Is someone losing 20% of a 25k a year income in taxes less able to provide for their families basic needs, or fund the education of their children, than someone losing 20% of even 100k per year to taxes."

No I don't think taxes are a wicked prank but if the question is who suffers more than I don't know that you can answer that without knowing the individuals preferences and sensitivity.

Most of us agree that there are things much more important than material wealth. If that it so then it is possible for someone to be wealthy in money and poor in life. Is it fair then to take even more from that person who is poor in life?

If money is all they have, and we know that money cannot make up for other things, then you are almost kicking them when they are down. They have the worst kind of wealth and even that we are taking away.

You asked which situation I would rather be in. Inherent in that question is all other things being equal. But all other things are not equal. There are real lifelong sacrifices involved in climbing the corporate later. There is time in your life and relationships which will never return. It is not immediately clear that all wealthier people are better off.

Indeed, happiness research tends to show that while moving from poverty to middle class makes people much happier, moving from middle class to upper class does not. One possible reason is the sacrifices most people in the upper class have to make to get there.

6/10/2008 12:33:14 PM

Quote :

"Working class people do not have an abundance of expendable income. 20% of their gross income is a significant amount, and affects the pool of money that they use for basic necessities."

blah blah blah cry me a river. In reality though the Working class people making 25k a year most likely will get a lot of the money they paid in taxes back through entitlement and social welfare programs.

Mr. 25K gets laid off he'll receive unemployment; then if he does not put forth effort to get a job he will be a likely welfare candidiate. Also, chances are he will not be thrifty enough to save for retirement so he will live on the gov't during his post-work years.

On the other hand the wealthy guy if laid off is more likely to have a reserve fund to pay his expenses. Further more he will not most likely require the gov't for his retirement unless he just really fucks up his finances.

6/10/2008 12:41:37 PM

Mr. 250k gets laid off, he still gets unemployment.

6/10/2008 12:43:56 PM

Quote :

"In reality though the Working class people making 25k a year most likely will get a lot of the money they paid in taxes back through entitlement and social welfare programs."

certainly not if they're single.

6/10/2008 12:45:39 PM

I do not understand why people cry about the plight of working class people. During the 20th century our current welfare system was set up to help out those that were living in poverty. Now during the 21st century liberals feel those in the working class no longer need to have self-responsibility and should also be helped out by gov't welfare programs.

If you decide to not go to college and work at the XYZ warehouse moving boxes for $12/hour then it is your own damn fault only make 24K a year. Why should all the other hard working americans have to subsidize your lifestyle and the cost for you to have kids.

6/10/2008 12:48:46 PM

i don't think you understand. if you're making $12/hr: YOU ARE NOT GETTING GOV'T HANDOUTS

6/10/2008 12:50:58 PM

As the wealthy have already shown a propensity to start businesses and invest then by taxing them we curtail their ability to start businesses and invest, thus we live in an economy with fewer businesses that are on average smaller than they otherwise would be without taxation, which means less competition, higher prices, fewer jobs, and less innovation.

6/10/2008 12:51:16 PM

simple jealousy.

6/10/2008 12:51:31 PM

So, we shouldn't tax the wealthy because...they don't deserve it? They deserve their money more? I'm not really following you here. It's not jealousy, it's simple math. The wealthy are better able to afford a good quality of life while being taxed than people in the middle class and below.

The idea that taxing the wealthy will keep them from investing doesn't make a lot of sense. These people have made their money by investing. The average millionaire tends to live relatively modestly precisely so that they can have extra money to invest. It's how they got that way in the first place, assuming they aren't old money. They aren't going to stop doing the thing that made them wealthy in the first place, if they've got a brain.

6/10/2008 1:47:41 PM

Quote :

"The wealthy are better able to afford a good quality of life while being taxed than people in the middle class and below."

so what you're saying is, the government should decide what percentage of your money you "are able to afford" to give back through taxes? i guess somebody making $100k a year with 3 kids and a big house should pay a lot higher percentage than somebody making $30k a year who is single and rents?

6/10/2008 1:50:03 PM

they actually take children into account, believe it or not.

6/10/2008 1:51:57 PM

along with mortgage.

6/10/2008 1:55:21 PM

no actually THEY depend on you to factor that in when you're actually paying your taxes...your employer takes out a rate based on how much money you make with no regard to whether or not you have children or rent or own your home

6/10/2008 2:00:45 PM

given a set of exemptions you provide.

6/10/2008 2:01:24 PM

geez, prater, you are one step away with letting the govt dictate your salary. To live comfortably everyone will work for 45k a year regardless of position, skill, or importance.

I feel its not up to anyone else to determine how much i need or deserve the things in my life that ive worked for. I also want our govt to treat us all as equals, and tax us that way too.

How many of you would be for allowing your vote to account as much as the taxes you pay? I find great irony in how people will stand for equality.. only when it benefits them.. but oppose it strongly in other situations.

6/10/2008 2:03:11 PM

Quote :

"no actually THEY depend on you to factor that in when you're actually paying your taxes...your employer takes out a rate based on how much money you make with no regard to whether or not you have children or rent or own your home"

And every april you file your tax returns. Or are you too lazy to do that one, just like voting?

6/10/2008 2:04:39 PM

Quote :

"mrfrog and nutsmacker gets points taken off their final grade for confusing wealth (a "stock" that can be drawn down or added to over time) with yearly income (a measurement of the "flow" of money you recieve in a year)."

Stock x interest rate = yearly gains

Which is where most of the money of 'rich people' comes from.

Quote :

"who are to judge how much someone needs thier money they worked for? You have no idea what expenses they might have incurred to achieve that income level."

You deduct business expenses when you pay taxes (if you're a sole proprietor). Either way, you pay taxes on how much you earn, which is after 'expenses', unless you mean personal expenses. So in order for your argument to make sense, someone higher up in society has to have better clothes, a nicer place, a nicer car, etc.. Aside from the clothes, I disagree.

--
there is a very different conversation between talking about taxing people making a lot in a year through a job, and the top 1% or so rich in the nation.

Facing the facts, some of the top 1% or so squander the money they have on completely retarded shit, because there is simply no reasonable way to spend that amount of money on one's self. But more than those people, there are lots that will eventually just die and give their money to charity. If you are a true 'robber baron', I think you should have the real say-so in where your money goes. Face it, if the government took more of Bill Gate's money, they would be starving the Bill & Melenda Gates Foundation (where charity money was efficiently allocated and managed by a relatively free market) to pay for the irresponsibility of the federal government.

The other people who are rich by virtue of being a high-profile manager, business leader, talk show host, brain surgeon, successful financial analyst, or whatever you are quite different. Regardless of weather you're leftist/rightist those people deserve to live a life significantly more luxurious than the rest of us (even the upper-middle class). Those people CAN effectively [reasonably] spend all their money for personal (or family) fulfillment, which is how I would distinguish them from the previous category. Still, you can't not tax them severely because that's just how the system is set up right now. Generally they'll accept this, the middle class gets taxed like .3 of every MARGINAL dollar they earn while it's like .5 for those in the $100,000s cloud.

Recent trends with CEOs piss me off though. No organization should be paying any salaried individual tens of millions. That's an injustice, money of that kind should only be achievable through your own investment. Difficultly is; that's not a government problem, that's an organizational problem. Workers, stockholders, nobody is better off from a bunch of people at the top writing themselves big checks that put them in that 1% of people who have more money than what could reasonably be expected to be spent on one's self.

6/10/2008 2:05:09 PM

and as i said, you actually fill out a form to say how many exemptions you have before your employer gives you a single pay check.

6/10/2008 2:05:33 PM

Quote :

"And every april you file your tax returns. Or are you too lazy to do that one, just like voting?"

least i'm not so lazy that i settle for a shitty government job like you

^i changed my exemptions a couple years ago after being dissatisfied with owing money at the end of the year...i learned that from working in the real world!

6/10/2008 2:06:26 PM

TWISTA SMASH

6/10/2008 2:07:04 PM

^^you know what? i learned that from working too, but i guess it wasn't in the real world, so it doesn't count.

6/10/2008 2:08:31 PM

When obama gets elected I'm getting a job at the state.

it's gonna be nice showin up at 9:30am and leaving at 3pm everyday

i hear you might have to work a few minutes every week too. i can't wait till da gubment make it easy fo me!!

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 2:09:21 PM

^^you mean you actually learned something from your own experience? holy fuck

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ^^]

6/10/2008 2:09:25 PM

Quote :

"So, we shouldn't tax the wealthy because...they don't deserve it? They deserve their money more? I'm not really following you here. It's not jealousy, it's simple math. The wealthy are better able to afford a good quality of life while being taxed than people in the middle class and below."

I don't recall anyone saying we shouldn't tax the wealthy, just that we shouldn't tax them more than anyone else. They deserve their money as much as anyone else, so why should they have to pay more in taxes just because "they can afford it"?

6/10/2008 2:09:32 PM

6/10/2008 2:09:54 PM

^^because some of them inherited their wealth...therefore its not fair!!!!!!

^MAN DONT YOU HATE RICH PEOPLE, MAN FUCK THEM

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 2:10:11 PM

but people that are smart and learn how to make money should be punished guys. we all know they are evil and hate chinese and black people deep down

6/10/2008 2:10:32 PM

they're still making more money

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 2:11:36 PM

good for them

6/10/2008 2:12:05 PM

let's make sure they don't

6/10/2008 2:13:26 PM

seems like if we just got rid of the poor people we wouldnt have to worry about high taxes

6/10/2008 2:14:48 PM

seems like if we just got rid of the rich people there would be nobody left to support the wonderful government we have to support the rest of us poor people

yay. let's suicide the country by ridding it of all its wealth and industry leaders!!!111

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 2:16:39 PM