Pretty close to where it is now. Inheriting money and sitting on one's ass isn't "amibition" though.
Adam Smith Correct Once Again
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
Pretty close to where it is now. Inheriting money and sitting on one's ass isn't "amibition" though.
Of course not.
No.
The dumb guy making $7.25 an hour x 40 hours makes a little over $1,200 a month, over a 50 week work year. (He gets and takes two weeks unpaid leave for whatever reason).
Back out income tax, he probably doesn't owe any. Assume he's not subsidized by the taxpayer and lives very frugally.
Housing $500
Food $300
electricity / natural gas $150
water and sewer/trash $50
car payment $200
2 tanks of gasoline $60
car insurance $40
$1,300 and he hasn't bought a rug, a lawnmower, hasn't eaten out, hasn't gotten on tindr to get a cheap date (doesn't have a phone!) hasn't bought an ice cream bar, hasn't bought motor oil (to change himself - he stole a filter wrench and lets the oil drain into the street because he's a libertarian and doesn't like being regulated), hasn't bought a computer, hasn't bought a picture for his wall, or clothes, doesn't have a tv, a bar of soap, dishwashing soap, laundry soap, car soap, soap on a roap, a song, a magazine, a coffee pot, a TV, a haircut, and he's $92 in the red. No savings or health care and nothing went wrong, like a bad alternator.
I think the dumb, not real talented, not a world - beater guy should be given the means to make a living. If he is, then I'd be a little more mad about welfare (food stamps, housing and medicaid) but it's really hard out there for people that aren't blessed with lots of ability.
You're better off if that guy can support himself because 1)you're not paying his bills every month. Imagine if Wal Mart's employees could make a living. Small towns would look different. 2) We forget in our fat, entitled, good times, high quality of life, current age that hungry, dumb people can do some mean, mad, crazy shit. 3) Trickle up, not down. You take out the little guy and the big guys have nothing to eat. I should write the rebuttal to Atlas Shrugged. It would be called "And The Plankton Said Fvck It."
David should make all that he can get and pay federal income tax of 20% from $30k up to $500k, 30% up to a million, 40% up to $10mm and 50% income tax to the federal government on anything over $10,000,000. Capital gains is simply income. After the mega plan (below) is enacted and bears fruit we can get serious about real tax cuts.
Mega, we would reduce military spending by 2/3, have single payer with healthy lifestyle eligibility, expand med school admissions, pump the minimum wage for adults up to above the poverty line, triple and overhaul education and child welfare and this economy in 1.5 generations would dominate the world. Factory workers would be standing in line for you to take their picture because they have money and by then you'd actually hire a real photographer. Of course, in Syskastan you would be the Minister of Photography and supervise the team "photographing" me wrestling alligators, riding bulls, testing experimental planes, dunking, etc.
How much you talking about?
You are about 98% clueless in the workings of the world.
You wrote a lot of words though, so you got that going for you.
Man i just re-read it. That shit needs published, it's strong.
You're so hateful, though. You need to be nice and quit reacting emotionally to differing perspectives.
Income equality != Equal income (that reads as income equality is not equal income). Hope that helps...
Kill carried interest. Tax capital gains as ordinary income. Add a couple of brackets with a top marginal rate of 50%. Simplify tax code eliminating most deductions. Increase EIT for employed but low wage earners.
That help? Basically eliminate systemic advantages for the high end of the income scale.
This is where I got confused the first time. I thought that was what you were trying to say but since it made no since I interpreted it to mean something else.
So equality does not mean equal? Hmmm.
equality
noun equal·i·ty
Legal Definition of equality
- : the quality or state of being equal: asa : sameness or equivalence in number, quantity, or measure b : likeness or sameness in quality, power, status, or degree
Huh, you were talking about "income equality" not equal opportunity, two different subjects. I said I'm all for fairness, but income equality is socialist crap.
I stand by my statement
Or in other words "I can't be bothered to understand what the term actually means, I'll just hang on to my politically expedient mis-definition"...
Lets see take the counsel of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett or anonymous angry conservative on message board.... that is a close one.
Well what does income inequality mean to you then? You've brought up what you say it isn't, but haven't bothered to explain to us simpletons what it actually is according to you.
I interpret equality the same way every single time I see it. I interpret inequality the same way every time I see it. Both are based on classical dictionary descriptions, of which equality is posted above. Inequality by definition is lack of equality.
I hear the rhetoric, but nobody bothers to explain it outside of the obvious taking from one group that has more to subsidize those who have less, ie free college, expansion of Medicaid, welfare, etc. President Obama said that there comes a point when someone has made enough money. What is that point? Should it be legislated federally? Maybe in addition to minimum wage, we have maximum wage too?
What is income equality if it isn't income that's not equal?
Come on man: "basically eliminate the systemic advantages to the high end of the income scale"....
Extrapolate that to income inequality is systematic advantaging of the high end of the income scale. Those who can do buy favor from politicians. Surely you think that is problematic?
If you have the money to buy favor from politicians, then you have the money to buy favor from politicians. Where we must differ is that I believe the problem is the politicians who sell the favor. I've said before that if you eliminate the ability of those who govern to sell favors, the money and the shitbirds who chase it will leave Washington.
So, in essence, ending lobbyist money will end income inequality? Am I interpreting that correctly?
What are the "systemic imbalances" outside of money buying political favors? How did you get to where you are? Was it hard work, dedication, your desire to be successful? Or did you get there by not going to high school or college because gang banging produced immediate gratification, stealing cars, having 7 children by the age of 19, skipping school to smoke pot, drink irresponsibly, not bothering to show up to work on time, etc?
I know there are people with real limitations on the ability to learn. Not everybody can be successful at things most of us take for granted like reading. I've got zero issues subsidizing those folks and agree that they should make a living wage doing the jobs they are able to perform. However, I draw the line at providing subsidy to able bodied people who choose to be irresponsible. Handouts to able bodied people encourages irresponsible behavior. You can see that simple concept in "don't feed the bears." People aren't much different than bears.
And adjusting the tax code has nothing to do with a $15 an hour min wage nor what is a fair wage for the job performed and the skills, abilities, and training needed to perform the job.
The tax code I wish would be used as a tool to collect taxes for the treasury while at the same time encouraging as much economic growth as possible and not as a tool to take more money from the "rich" to redistribute to the "poor".
I have never once been jealous of what anyone makes, all of us would gladly accept the big contract with the big dollars, with the golden parachute. All of us. I do not begrudge anyone doing well. Being jealous of the rich and blaming the rich is just BS.
Getting there is a combination of being smart enough at an early age to understand the importance of education and to position yourself coming out of high school to have options, to figure out a way to get your college education in a major that provides economic opportunity, to work hard once out of college and then hope that hard work and opportunity collide, it usually does for most people although at different times for most.
Fact is there is a bunch of worthless college degrees that kids are pursuing, sorry but it is true, and the fact is we have seen what is being taught at many college campuses is creating a weak minded "work force", at some places they are being taught to riot and how to think.
Given the cost of a brick and mortar college education, I see learning a skilled trade as much more attractive today then it ever has been, especially given the crap being taught at some of these campuses. The other good thing about learning a highly skilled trade that if you are exceptional, it is easy to transition to owning your own business and growing it.
Plenty of avenues to learn skills and work hard.
Income equality? Problem is teenage pregnancy, single mothers, dead beat dads, and the fact parents and teachers are no longer allowed to parent and teach kids that are not theirs that do not receive parenting and guidance at home and the decline of the family unit. I can tell you I grew up in environment where any teacher or parent could discipline me and teach me about life, but no more because most parents thinks their kids are perfect and we gonna sue your ass if lay a finger on them or say something to them. I grew up with kids that had surrogate parents helping them along and they never knew it at the time. It is one HC phrase that is true, it takes a village to raise a child. Frankly, I do not care to support a part of our society that is screwed up and only they can choose to change, but they need to look in the mirror.
So, from everyone gets a trophy at a young age, to handing out grades and social promotion in our schools, what we need next is handing out income to people who frankly based on their abilities, skills, and work ethic do not deserve more income.
We have to change culturally and it starts at birth and in the homes.
I would prefer to see our government with fewer handouts and starting some programs that can center on fixing family units, teaching kids to respect women and not treating them as sex objects and that young pregnancy equals a lifetime of poverty, and teaching young boys the meaning of being a man, and teach all adults that our kids need parenting at all times including when they are not around to parent and to teach young boys and girls good parenting skills.
The family unit is broken, that is the cause, throwing money at the problem and blaming the rich is just treating a symptom and it will not work.
What I missing? The only example you gave is that of the wealthy buying political favor. Got a real world example that's an actual problem that can't be controlled by simply cutting off the hands that reach for the cash?
"We" need to get both personalities together and figure out a question.
Do I need to quote them all? I've read them and outside of buying political favors, the only thing you've posted has been "systemic advantages." What are "systemic advantages" besides buying political favor?
@Medic007 - being dense or difficult? Gonna go with difficult.... You can extrapolate out the system advantages.
You don't think there are systemic advantages to the wealthy?
Last edited:
Being neither sir. As I've previously posted, I see the terms used and hear the rhetoric but haven't seen someone explain them other than exactly what you've done which is not much. Not a critique of you, just know I'm looking for an honest assessment of what you think the systemic advantages of the wealthy are in comparison to those that aren't.
I'll even throw out 2 things that come to mind. Does me being born into a wealthy family eliminate the opportunity for someone else to become wealthy? Does the stock market directly effect the amount of money a company spends on labor costs vs how much profit they make? If there were no shareholders or investors expecting to make money from the financial success of a company, would they spend more on the labor?
If you want to stick with "dense or difficult," that's fine too. I'll drop it. I'm interested in learning things from your perspective which is something I actually enjoy and respect despite the occasional message board jousting.
I'd hold his feet to the fire. Better than letting a person get away with putting a flaming bag of poop on a doorstep and running off.
The tax code....
Carried Interest - realize income but be taxed as if it was capital gains. A YUGE dodge. Trump ran on removing it. Nothing thus far. Benefits hedge fund managers, VCs, etc. As I contemplate if/when I move into the VC I work with full time a big part of the comp calculation is based on the fact that I would earn 60% of my income via carried interest resulting in 1/3rd the tax burden on that portion of the income - that means that for every $1 I take home at Google I would take home roughly $1.35 at the VC firm. Our friends in Oil and Gas are responsible for this one. Read more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest
Capital Gains - first hand experience: start your own little consulting shop. Take an income that meets your needs, plow the rest back into the business to the point of carrying over cash in excess of the operating needs of the business in part to push that cash into a future exit. On exit, take that cash which was largely a result of your labor, that in a business you did not directly control would have been paid to you as ordinary income, and convert it into pay out on the sale. Voila - what would have been income is now taxable as long term capital gains. Real Estate tycoon? Use this approach combine with carry over losses and you likely pay minimal if any income taxes.
Marginal tax rate increases - This is as simple as taking more from the rich and distributing it down stream by first lowering the rates at the low end of the scale and by increasing the EIT. The current tax brackets are the least progressive in American history while tax receipts overall are relatively flat. The fallacy of trickle down economics suggests that dropping marginal rates increases overall tax receipts when in reality there is marginal improvement of receipts. At the same time, the burden of taxation has moved to the middle of the income distribution curve. See the following from 2013 (latest data I can find):
As to your suggestions:
Inheritance - Taxing inheritance as income to the recipient seems a reasonable approach to me. Not a strong POV on this topic.
Market - I would generalize this to passive income in general - income realized from non labor related sources - my POV on that is tax it like you would any source of income. As we realize more and more gains from automation we will see this category of income grow at an ever accelerating rate. My POV is income is income. Tax it all with a simplified, progressive structure.
All of this has to do with taxes. Do taxes prevent non-wealthy people from becoming wealthy? Do taxes take away opportunities? Is it taxes that drive a corporation to pay its CEO $15.4 million a year while paying it's employees an average of $7.73 per hour?The tax code....
Carried Interest - realize income but be taxed as if it was capital gains. A YUGE dodge. Trump ran on removing it. Nothing thus far. Benefits hedge fund managers, VCs, etc. As I contemplate if/when I move into the VC I work with full time a big part of the comp calculation is based on the fact that I would earn 60% of my income via carried interest resulting in 1/3rd the tax burden on that portion of the income - that means that for every $1 I take home at Google I would take home roughly $1.35 at the VC firm. Our friends in Oil and Gas are responsible for this one. Read more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest
Capital Gains - first hand experience: start your own little consulting shop. Take an income that meets your needs, plow the rest back into the business to the point of carrying over cash in excess of the operating needs of the business in part to push that cash into a future exit. On exit, take that cash which was largely a result of your labor, that in a business you did not directly control would have been paid to you as ordinary income, and convert it into pay out on the sale. Voila - what would have been income is now taxable as long term capital gains. Real Estate tycoon? Use this approach combine with carry over losses and you likely pay minimal if any income taxes.
Marginal tax rate increases - This is as simple as taking more from the rich and distributing it down stream by first lowering the rates at the low end of the scale and by increasing the EIT. The current tax brackets are the least progressive in American history while tax receipts overall are relatively flat. The fallacy of trickle down economics suggests that dropping marginal rates increases overall tax receipts when in reality there is marginal improvement of receipts. At the same time, the burden of taxation has moved to the middle of the income distribution curve. See the following from 2013 (latest data I can find):
As to your suggestions:
Inheritance - Taxing inheritance as income to the recipient seems a reasonable approach to me. Not a strong POV on this topic.
Market - I would generalize this to passive income in general - income realized from non labor related sources - my POV on that is tax it like you would any source of income. As we realize more and more gains from automation we will see this category of income grow at an ever accelerating rate. My POV is income is income. Tax it all with a simplified, progressive structure.
I'm having a hard time seeing where the tax code is a "systemic advantage" when in 2014, "people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%."
Source
I'm all on board with the tax proposals you listed with the exception of inheritance tax. That money has already been taxed. Why should the principle be taxed again when it is simply transferred to another family member(s)? Any income it generates will continue to be taxed. I recognize you don't have a strong POV on this subject, so my question is more toward the philosophical than your expressed view.
the already taxed argument is specious... if you hire someone to build an addition on your house and pay them with "already taxed" dollars does that mean the contractor doesn't owe taxes?
Receipts from inheritance are just another form of passive income IMO.
The contractor that built the addition is doing so as employment and thus that is income just as your earnings are. That's a dumb comparison. The transfer of wealth is not remotely similar.
Have your children paid taxes on all of the money you've contributed to them while you've been alive? Why should they when you die?
