Is our tax system progressive enough?
- Thread starter elprincipe
- Start date
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Rickonker, I like your posts but you should use the edit button instead of double-posting.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='willardhaven']Rickonker, I like your posts but you should use the edit button instead of double-posting.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you're right. Usually (but not in this case) if I double post it's because I'm quoting two different people with quick reply. Some forums have a "multi-quote" thing for this, or they automatically merge the posts, but anyway...
Yeah, you're right. Usually (but not in this case) if I double post it's because I'm quoting two different people with quick reply. Some forums have a "multi-quote" thing for this, or they automatically merge the posts, but anyway...
Last edited by a moderator:
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Koggit']what the 
is wrong with equality?
i was born smarter and harder working than most. so i should have a better life? hardly seems fair.
beyond that, i think robin hood knew his stuff.[/QUOTE]
Are you a member of the communist party? No one should have a better life than anyone else. Its unfair to reap the benefits of hard work. Stealing from people is good?
Seriously, WTF koggit. You've gone off the deep end.
is wrong with equality?i was born smarter and harder working than most. so i should have a better life? hardly seems fair.
beyond that, i think robin hood knew his stuff.[/QUOTE]
Are you a member of the communist party? No one should have a better life than anyone else. Its unfair to reap the benefits of hard work. Stealing from people is good?
Seriously, WTF koggit. You've gone off the deep end.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='rickonker']Yeah, you're right. Usually (but not in this case) if I double post it's because I'm quoting two different people with quick reply. Some forums have a "multi-quote" thing for this, or they automatically merge the posts, but anyway...[/quote]
We've got multi-quote, you just click the button with a "+" and then on the last post you're quoting click the regular quotation button.
We've got multi-quote, you just click the button with a "+" and then on the last post you're quoting click the regular quotation button.
[quote name='rickonker']How do you define equality?[/QUOTE]
being equal..
it rubs a lot of people they wrong way because they want to believe they're a unique little snowflake. they want to believe their middle class family in american suburbia is different than the starving family in africa. they need to believe they're different. it makes sense; we have compassion. i wholly believe compassion is a spandrel of consciousness.. our capacity for metaknowledge.. our metaminds.. what 'separates' us from the 'beasts': our ability to imitate.. we developed an understanding of how others must feel. it enables us to thrive as we have, but the downside is that it allows us to feel the suffering of others. we see a man making 15k a year unable to get his sick newborn to a doctor without going into debt and, if we don't separate them from us we feel bad. humans have evolved to reject the idea of equality. our minds, to survive, to cope with killing competing tribes and animals in spite of our innate compassion, must differentiate, we are not equal.. a dozen people die in the middle east and it's sad, a dozen people die in chicago and it's a tragedy, a dozen people die at your school and you need therapy.
we are equal beings and all deserve equal living conditions. it's unfortunate that biological evolution is so much slower than social evolution. we no longer need to differentiate.. but we're stuck with it. we're stuck here thinking people like us deserve improved living conditions more-so than 'them'.
being equal..
it rubs a lot of people they wrong way because they want to believe they're a unique little snowflake. they want to believe their middle class family in american suburbia is different than the starving family in africa. they need to believe they're different. it makes sense; we have compassion. i wholly believe compassion is a spandrel of consciousness.. our capacity for metaknowledge.. our metaminds.. what 'separates' us from the 'beasts': our ability to imitate.. we developed an understanding of how others must feel. it enables us to thrive as we have, but the downside is that it allows us to feel the suffering of others. we see a man making 15k a year unable to get his sick newborn to a doctor without going into debt and, if we don't separate them from us we feel bad. humans have evolved to reject the idea of equality. our minds, to survive, to cope with killing competing tribes and animals in spite of our innate compassion, must differentiate, we are not equal.. a dozen people die in the middle east and it's sad, a dozen people die in chicago and it's a tragedy, a dozen people die at your school and you need therapy.
we are equal beings and all deserve equal living conditions. it's unfortunate that biological evolution is so much slower than social evolution. we no longer need to differentiate.. but we're stuck with it. we're stuck here thinking people like us deserve improved living conditions more-so than 'them'.
#1 - If you are low income you don't have to "go into debt" for medical care. There are many programs like Medicaid & Medicare that will assist in medical costs. The former pays 100% of the cost in most cases, even.
#2 - No one is saying that anyone is lesser than anyone else. But if someone is making $200k-$500k or more it is likely because they are in a high pressure job or one that requires a ton of skill that a $20k worker could not provide. If they could, the company would simply hire the $20k worker and save themselves $180k. That being said, if you are going to "equalize" the money, then what is the motivation for the $200k-$500k worker to stay in a high pressure/difficult job? As a result we have much less of those skilled people, and the economy suffers drastically - if not collapsing entirely. As a result EVERYONE gets screwed then.
Utopia sounds nice in theory, but in reality there is no such thing. If your situation sucks, you bear the responsibility to fix it, not anyone else. The means are there in our society, you just have to find your own way to success.
#2 - No one is saying that anyone is lesser than anyone else. But if someone is making $200k-$500k or more it is likely because they are in a high pressure job or one that requires a ton of skill that a $20k worker could not provide. If they could, the company would simply hire the $20k worker and save themselves $180k. That being said, if you are going to "equalize" the money, then what is the motivation for the $200k-$500k worker to stay in a high pressure/difficult job? As a result we have much less of those skilled people, and the economy suffers drastically - if not collapsing entirely. As a result EVERYONE gets screwed then.
Utopia sounds nice in theory, but in reality there is no such thing. If your situation sucks, you bear the responsibility to fix it, not anyone else. The means are there in our society, you just have to find your own way to success.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='Ruined']
#2 - No one is saying that anyone is lesser than anyone else. But if someone is making $200k-$500k or more it is likely because they are in a high pressure job or one that requires a ton of skill that a $20k worker could not provide. If they could, the company would simply hire the $20k worker and save themselves $180k. That being said, if you are going to "equalize" the money, then what is the motivation for the $200k-$500k worker to stay in a high pressure/difficult job? As a result we have much less of those skilled people, and the economy suffers drastically - if not collapsing entirely. As a result EVERYONE gets screwed then.
[/quote]
This would normally work, except the world is not fair. The financial sector is full of worthless people who lose money and swindle people for a living. They make millions and billions of dollars a year and when their business fails they just call their friends in Washington to fix everything up. Sucks doesn't it?
[quote name='Koggit']being equal..
it rubs a lot of people they wrong way because they want to believe they're a unique little snowflake. they want to believe their middle class family in american suburbia is different than the starving family in africa. they need to believe they're different. it makes sense; we have compassion. i wholly believe compassion is a spandrel of consciousness.. our capacity for metaknowledge.. our metaminds.. what 'separates' us from the 'beasts': our ability to imitate.. we developed an understanding of how others must feel. it enables us to thrive as we have, but the downside is that it allows us to feel the suffering of others. we see a man making 15k a year unable to get his sick newborn to a doctor without going into debt and, if we don't separate them from us we feel bad. humans have evolved to reject the idea of equality. our minds, to survive, to cope with killing competing tribes and animals in spite of our innate compassion, must differentiate, we are not equal.. a dozen people die in the middle east and it's sad, a dozen people die in chicago and it's a tragedy, a dozen people die at your school and you need therapy.
we are equal beings and all deserve equal living conditions. it's unfortunate that biological evolution is so much slower than social evolution. we no longer need to differentiate.. but we're stuck with it. we're stuck here thinking people like us deserve improved living conditions more-so than 'them'.[/quote]
Well said.
#2 - No one is saying that anyone is lesser than anyone else. But if someone is making $200k-$500k or more it is likely because they are in a high pressure job or one that requires a ton of skill that a $20k worker could not provide. If they could, the company would simply hire the $20k worker and save themselves $180k. That being said, if you are going to "equalize" the money, then what is the motivation for the $200k-$500k worker to stay in a high pressure/difficult job? As a result we have much less of those skilled people, and the economy suffers drastically - if not collapsing entirely. As a result EVERYONE gets screwed then.
[/quote]
This would normally work, except the world is not fair. The financial sector is full of worthless people who lose money and swindle people for a living. They make millions and billions of dollars a year and when their business fails they just call their friends in Washington to fix everything up. Sucks doesn't it?
[quote name='Koggit']being equal..
it rubs a lot of people they wrong way because they want to believe they're a unique little snowflake. they want to believe their middle class family in american suburbia is different than the starving family in africa. they need to believe they're different. it makes sense; we have compassion. i wholly believe compassion is a spandrel of consciousness.. our capacity for metaknowledge.. our metaminds.. what 'separates' us from the 'beasts': our ability to imitate.. we developed an understanding of how others must feel. it enables us to thrive as we have, but the downside is that it allows us to feel the suffering of others. we see a man making 15k a year unable to get his sick newborn to a doctor without going into debt and, if we don't separate them from us we feel bad. humans have evolved to reject the idea of equality. our minds, to survive, to cope with killing competing tribes and animals in spite of our innate compassion, must differentiate, we are not equal.. a dozen people die in the middle east and it's sad, a dozen people die in chicago and it's a tragedy, a dozen people die at your school and you need therapy.
we are equal beings and all deserve equal living conditions. it's unfortunate that biological evolution is so much slower than social evolution. we no longer need to differentiate.. but we're stuck with it. we're stuck here thinking people like us deserve improved living conditions more-so than 'them'.[/quote]
Well said.
[quote name='Ruined']#2 - No one is saying that anyone is lesser than anyone else. But if someone is making $200k-$500k or more it is likely because they are in a high pressure job or one that requires a ton of skill that a $20k worker could not provide. If they could, the company would simply hire the $20k worker and save themselves $180k. That being said, if you are going to "equalize" the money, then what is the motivation for the $200k-$500k worker to stay in a high pressure/difficult job? As a result we have much less of those skilled people, and the economy suffers drastically - if not collapsing entirely. As a result EVERYONE gets screwed then.[/QUOTE]
it's all rooted in us vs them. that's what it's all about. the refusal to accept that we're all just living is us vs them. but that's for another topic some other time, i guess.
to directly address your question: i kinda already have. i've said reward is necessary for society to thrive. i acknowledge that there needs to be incentive for good work, but currently the reward is often for "success" in ways that do not benefit humanity / the global economy, and even for the actions that do the reward need not be so extreme.
let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. that'll then go up to $250+k/yr within five years. that's absolutely ridiculous. on TV i see a family of 5 living on around 17k a year... without papers they worked for less than minimum wage. they worked hard. probably much harder than i've ever had to. and they were very fortunate, relative to the family members of theirs that stayed behind in mexico. my salary will be enough to sustain fifteen such families. that'sed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?
most people aren't bothered by it.. it's unfair. it's extraordinarily unfair.
it's all rooted in us vs them. that's what it's all about. the refusal to accept that we're all just living is us vs them. but that's for another topic some other time, i guess.
to directly address your question: i kinda already have. i've said reward is necessary for society to thrive. i acknowledge that there needs to be incentive for good work, but currently the reward is often for "success" in ways that do not benefit humanity / the global economy, and even for the actions that do the reward need not be so extreme.
let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. that'll then go up to $250+k/yr within five years. that's absolutely ridiculous. on TV i see a family of 5 living on around 17k a year... without papers they worked for less than minimum wage. they worked hard. probably much harder than i've ever had to. and they were very fortunate, relative to the family members of theirs that stayed behind in mexico. my salary will be enough to sustain fifteen such families. that's
ed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?most people aren't bothered by it.. it's unfair. it's extraordinarily unfair.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
...
Koggit?
Good posts.
Koggit?
Good posts.
[quote name='rickonker']Do you really believe that "saving is terrible for the economy"? That just makes your complaints even more ironic. Savings are what made higher standards of living possible. I think everyone might already understand this, but if not I'll explain.
This is why I talk about how worthless college can be. It's not just Koggit who's been told that saving is bad for the economy.[/QUOTE]
Consumption is 70 some odd percent of GDP.
Go College.
This is why I talk about how worthless college can be. It's not just Koggit who's been told that saving is bad for the economy.[/QUOTE]
Consumption is 70 some odd percent of GDP.
Go College.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. [/quote]
kogg, congrats on getting a good job, but I expect you to not be a complete hypocrite once you are hired and to donate $105,000 a year to charity right away. You can live on $20k. That's all you really need, and as you rightly said there are families with children living on less. It's only fair that you give most of your earnings for their benefit. Do your part to improve economic equality. Will you accept this challenge? Or will you be a typical limousine liberal arguing for the forced confiscation of other people's earnings while hoarding your own?
kogg, congrats on getting a good job, but I expect you to not be a complete hypocrite once you are hired and to donate $105,000 a year to charity right away. You can live on $20k. That's all you really need, and as you rightly said there are families with children living on less. It's only fair that you give most of your earnings for their benefit. Do your part to improve economic equality. Will you accept this challenge? Or will you be a typical limousine liberal arguing for the forced confiscation of other people's earnings while hoarding your own?
Last edited by a moderator:
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. that'll then go up to $250+k/yr within five years. that's absolutely ridiculous. on TV i see a family of 5 living on around 17k a year... without papers they worked for less than minimum wage. they worked hard. probably much harder than i've ever had to. and they were very fortunate, relative to the family members of theirs that stayed behind in mexico. my salary will be enough to sustain fifteen such families. that's ed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?
most people aren't bothered by it.. it's unfair. it's extraordinarily unfair.[/quote]
You know what you could do?
You could contact that family. Tell them how wonderful you're going to do. Then, offer to put the smartest member of their family through the exact same steps you have taken. If that smartest person succeeds, he or she will then be in the same position as you and will be able to support the other four members of his family with an income equivalent to yours. If that smartest person fails, you've done the remaining four members a favor by removing one of the mouths they have to feed for the time it requires that smartest person to fail. You could call it a focused scholarship.
ed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?most people aren't bothered by it.. it's unfair. it's extraordinarily unfair.[/quote]
You know what you could do?
You could contact that family. Tell them how wonderful you're going to do. Then, offer to put the smartest member of their family through the exact same steps you have taken. If that smartest person succeeds, he or she will then be in the same position as you and will be able to support the other four members of his family with an income equivalent to yours. If that smartest person fails, you've done the remaining four members a favor by removing one of the mouths they have to feed for the time it requires that smartest person to fail. You could call it a focused scholarship.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Capitalizt']kogg, congrats on getting a good job, but I expect you to not be a complete hypocrite once you are hired and to donate $105,000 a year to charity right away. You can live on $20k. [/QUOTE]
This, although I'll go ahead and extend that to 50k, because that's more realistic. Tons of people talk about inequality blah blah blah, but then don't actually want to do anything about it. Show me, don't tell me.
This, although I'll go ahead and extend that to 50k, because that's more realistic. Tons of people talk about inequality blah blah blah, but then don't actually want to do anything about it. Show me, don't tell me.
[quote name='Koggit']it's all rooted in us vs them. that's what it's all about. the refusal to accept that we're all just living is us vs them. but that's for another topic some other time, i guess.
to directly address your question: i kinda already have. i've said reward is necessary for society to thrive. i acknowledge that there needs to be incentive for good work, but currently the reward is often for "success" in ways that do not benefit humanity / the global economy, and even for the actions that do the reward need not be so extreme.
let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. that'll then go up to $250+k/yr within five years. that's absolutely ridiculous. on TV i see a family of 5 living on around 17k a year... without papers they worked for less than minimum wage. they worked hard. probably much harder than i've ever had to. and they were very fortunate, relative to the family members of theirs that stayed behind in mexico. my salary will be enough to sustain fifteen such families. that'sed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?
most people aren't bothered by it.. it's unfair. it's extraordinarily unfair.[/QUOTE]
And, while the family you saw does likely work hard, there is a difference between skilled and unskilled labor. That is why they hired you instead of one of them for 1/15th the cost.
Is it fair? Yes it is, lets get the obvious stuff out of the way first. First, you are being paid for skilled work, the family you quoted likely could not do it. If they could the company would hire them for 1/15th of the cost.
Second, you are a legal citizen, it appears from your story that the family in question is not - that will of course affect their salary. If they go through the process of becoming a citizen over time, that will allow them a significant pay increase.
Third, not everyone can make it big, but if you both work your butt off and have ambition you can make it big and/or make it much easier for your kids to make it big; my guess if you feel like you haven't really worked for your money, your parents (or their parents) most likely did so that you would be in the position to make money without as much effort as they had to go through. The family you questioned is likely in the fledgling stages of that same process; they are attempting to build their way towards a better future. It may not happen for the father of that family, but his child will likely be one step closer than he was. If the child keeps working, that trend will continue down the generations. So if you feel guilty, just be grateful that your parents/their parents had to work hard for their money so you didn't - whether its quality of life, easier ability to go to school, or the like.
Fourth, your job DOES benefit society. If you make $125k/yr, think of all the taxes you are paying! When you bought that BMW, you paid sales tax on it. When you get paid, you get taxed. Even using a flat tax @ 20%, 20% of $125k is a massive amount of money. You don't need to tax someone at 50% in order to get a wad of cash when they are making $125k+, even 20% is a massive amount of money. And, you are at a great position to donate to a charity of your liking - that will likely go much farther than the same amount of money going to the government.
Fifth, what happened if people who made $125k had to forfeit 75%? Why would you take a job like that over the many jobs in the 15-30k range that have much lessened pressure and/or skill needed? If you needed to go to school, why would people bother going to school? Its just as unfair to you to take a giant chunk of your money as it is to the family not making that much and working hard. And, as a result of that unfairness the economy would collapse as everyone goes for the easy & unskilled jobs over time because they plain require either less work (whether physical or mental) or less preparation (higher learning). History has proven this.
Sixth, our society's mainstream media and major educational institutions unfortunately has many who put a guilt trip on people who make a lot of money. It appears you are afflicted by this, and I am not surprised. If you want to alleviate some of that guilt through using your money simply donate money to charity. There is no reason the government should need to donate that money for you, especially when the government usually screws up royally and ends up wasting most of the money anyway. Your money to a reputable charity will probably go MUCH further than if it went to the government.
So in conclusion, don't feel guilty, and dont feel like you need to surrender your paycheck to the govt. They will likely blow half of it on wasteful shit anyway, donate the money you would have paid in hypothetically raised taxes to a well-known charity instead at the rate you wish. Once your money goes to the government you lose complete control over where it goes - with charities, you can pick specific causes you want your money to go towards. You are not a better person, you are simply a more successful person at this point in time. If you feel you didn't work for it, unless you are some extremely rare case my guess is your family did - and the father of the family you referenced may similarly be able to make his children, grandchildren, & grandchildren's children exponentially more successful through his hard work - assuming they all remain ambitious. While it may seem like "us vs. them," in time "they" become "us" if they keep up the hard work and ambition.
Sorry for the essay, but I think it is an important topic that the media never really treats properly.
to directly address your question: i kinda already have. i've said reward is necessary for society to thrive. i acknowledge that there needs to be incentive for good work, but currently the reward is often for "success" in ways that do not benefit humanity / the global economy, and even for the actions that do the reward need not be so extreme.
let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. that'll then go up to $250+k/yr within five years. that's absolutely ridiculous. on TV i see a family of 5 living on around 17k a year... without papers they worked for less than minimum wage. they worked hard. probably much harder than i've ever had to. and they were very fortunate, relative to the family members of theirs that stayed behind in mexico. my salary will be enough to sustain fifteen such families. that's
ed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?most people aren't bothered by it.. it's unfair. it's extraordinarily unfair.[/QUOTE]
And, while the family you saw does likely work hard, there is a difference between skilled and unskilled labor. That is why they hired you instead of one of them for 1/15th the cost.
Is it fair? Yes it is, lets get the obvious stuff out of the way first. First, you are being paid for skilled work, the family you quoted likely could not do it. If they could the company would hire them for 1/15th of the cost.
Second, you are a legal citizen, it appears from your story that the family in question is not - that will of course affect their salary. If they go through the process of becoming a citizen over time, that will allow them a significant pay increase.
Third, not everyone can make it big, but if you both work your butt off and have ambition you can make it big and/or make it much easier for your kids to make it big; my guess if you feel like you haven't really worked for your money, your parents (or their parents) most likely did so that you would be in the position to make money without as much effort as they had to go through. The family you questioned is likely in the fledgling stages of that same process; they are attempting to build their way towards a better future. It may not happen for the father of that family, but his child will likely be one step closer than he was. If the child keeps working, that trend will continue down the generations. So if you feel guilty, just be grateful that your parents/their parents had to work hard for their money so you didn't - whether its quality of life, easier ability to go to school, or the like.
Fourth, your job DOES benefit society. If you make $125k/yr, think of all the taxes you are paying! When you bought that BMW, you paid sales tax on it. When you get paid, you get taxed. Even using a flat tax @ 20%, 20% of $125k is a massive amount of money. You don't need to tax someone at 50% in order to get a wad of cash when they are making $125k+, even 20% is a massive amount of money. And, you are at a great position to donate to a charity of your liking - that will likely go much farther than the same amount of money going to the government.
Fifth, what happened if people who made $125k had to forfeit 75%? Why would you take a job like that over the many jobs in the 15-30k range that have much lessened pressure and/or skill needed? If you needed to go to school, why would people bother going to school? Its just as unfair to you to take a giant chunk of your money as it is to the family not making that much and working hard. And, as a result of that unfairness the economy would collapse as everyone goes for the easy & unskilled jobs over time because they plain require either less work (whether physical or mental) or less preparation (higher learning). History has proven this.
Sixth, our society's mainstream media and major educational institutions unfortunately has many who put a guilt trip on people who make a lot of money. It appears you are afflicted by this, and I am not surprised. If you want to alleviate some of that guilt through using your money simply donate money to charity. There is no reason the government should need to donate that money for you, especially when the government usually screws up royally and ends up wasting most of the money anyway. Your money to a reputable charity will probably go MUCH further than if it went to the government.
So in conclusion, don't feel guilty, and dont feel like you need to surrender your paycheck to the govt. They will likely blow half of it on wasteful shit anyway, donate the money you would have paid in hypothetically raised taxes to a well-known charity instead at the rate you wish. Once your money goes to the government you lose complete control over where it goes - with charities, you can pick specific causes you want your money to go towards. You are not a better person, you are simply a more successful person at this point in time. If you feel you didn't work for it, unless you are some extremely rare case my guess is your family did - and the father of the family you referenced may similarly be able to make his children, grandchildren, & grandchildren's children exponentially more successful through his hard work - assuming they all remain ambitious. While it may seem like "us vs. them," in time "they" become "us" if they keep up the hard work and ambition.
Sorry for the essay, but I think it is an important topic that the media never really treats properly.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='SpazX']States can be ridiculous about income taxes, I was just comparing VA and PA state income taxes a week or so ago (since I'll be moving). PA has a flat income tax, and VA has 4 almost completely useless brackets where the top one is $17,001 or more (so it's effectively a flat tax unless you're really poor). I don't even understand why VA has those brackets unless they're just for show or because they haven't been updated in over a hundred years.[/QUOTE]
States and the federal government are ridiculous about income taxes. When it costs the country $200 billion just to comply with the tax code, Houston, we've got a problem. The real problem is that our betters in Washington actually like the current system because it allows them to do social engineering and reward favored constituencies using tax law.
As for VA, I agree, but at least it's easy to do the paperwork through the state website.
States and the federal government are ridiculous about income taxes. When it costs the country $200 billion just to comply with the tax code, Houston, we've got a problem. The real problem is that our betters in Washington actually like the current system because it allows them to do social engineering and reward favored constituencies using tax law.
As for VA, I agree, but at least it's easy to do the paperwork through the state website.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']communism has its share of problems, but equality is not one of them.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Koggit, after reading those last few posts of yours, I think I've found where you belong.
Make sure to watch the orientation video: the video.
And no, I'm not joking. You sound like you'd fit right in. Which is cool, I have a few friends that are really into this sort of belief system too. I personally haven't decided what I think of it yet, and have too many questions.
Make sure to watch the orientation video: the video.
And no, I'm not joking. You sound like you'd fit right in. Which is cool, I have a few friends that are really into this sort of belief system too. I personally haven't decided what I think of it yet, and have too many questions.
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']
let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. that'll then go up to $250+k/yr within five years. that's absolutely ridiculous. on TV i see a family of 5 living on around 17k a year... without papers they worked for less than minimum wage. they worked hard. probably much harder than i've ever had to. and they were very fortunate, relative to the family members of theirs that stayed behind in mexico. my salary will be enough to sustain fifteen such families. that'sed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?[/quote]
What is your career path?
let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. that'll then go up to $250+k/yr within five years. that's absolutely ridiculous. on TV i see a family of 5 living on around 17k a year... without papers they worked for less than minimum wage. they worked hard. probably much harder than i've ever had to. and they were very fortunate, relative to the family members of theirs that stayed behind in mexico. my salary will be enough to sustain fifteen such families. that's
ed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?[/quote]What is your career path?
[quote name='Ruined']And, while the family you saw does likely work hard, there is a difference between skilled and unskilled labor. That is why they hired you instead of one of them for 1/15th the cost.
Is it fair? Yes it is, lets get the obvious stuff out of the way first. First, you are being paid for skilled work, the family you quoted likely could not do it. If they could the company would hire them for 1/15th of the cost.
Second, you are a legal citizen, it appears from your story that the family in question is not - that will of course affect their salary. If they go through the process of becoming a citizen over time, that will allow them a significant pay increase.
Third, not everyone can make it big, but if you both work your butt off and have ambition you can make it big and/or make it much easier for your kids to make it big; my guess if you feel like you haven't really worked for your money, your parents (or their parents) most likely did so that you would be in the position to make money without as much effort as they had to go through. The family you questioned is likely in the fledgling stages of that same process; they are attempting to build their way towards a better future. It may not happen for the father of that family, but his child will likely be one step closer than he was. If the child keeps working, that trend will continue down the generations. So if you feel guilty, just be grateful that your parents/their parents had to work hard for their money so you didn't - whether its quality of life, easier ability to go to school, or the like.
Fourth, your job DOES benefit society. If you make $125k/yr, think of all the taxes you are paying! When you bought that BMW, you paid sales tax on it. When you get paid, you get taxed. Even using a flat tax @ 20%, 20% of $125k is a massive amount of money. You don't need to tax someone at 50% in order to get a wad of cash when they are making $125k+, even 20% is a massive amount of money. And, you are at a great position to donate to a charity of your liking - that will likely go much farther than the same amount of money going to the government.
Fifth, what happened if people who made $125k had to forfeit 75%? Why would you take a job like that over the many jobs in the 15-30k range that have much lessened pressure and/or skill needed? If you needed to go to school, why would people bother going to school? Its just as unfair to you to take a giant chunk of your money as it is to the family not making that much and working hard. And, as a result of that unfairness the economy would collapse as everyone goes for the easy & unskilled jobs over time because they plain require either less work (whether physical or mental) or less preparation (higher learning). History has proven this.
Sixth, our society's mainstream media and major educational institutions unfortunately has many who put a guilt trip on people who make a lot of money. It appears you are afflicted by this, and I am not surprised. If you want to alleviate some of that guilt through using your money simply donate money to charity. There is no reason the government should need to donate that money for you, especially when the government usually screws up royally and ends up wasting most of the money anyway. Your money to a reputable charity will probably go MUCH further than if it went to the government.
So in conclusion, don't feel guilty, and dont feel like you need to surrender your paycheck to the govt. They will likely blow half of it on wasteful shit anyway, donate the money you would have paid in hypothetically raised taxes to a well-known charity instead at the rate you wish. Once your money goes to the government you lose complete control over where it goes - with charities, you can pick specific causes you want your money to go towards. You are not a better person, you are simply a more successful person at this point in time. If you feel you didn't work for it, unless you are some extremely rare case my guess is your family did - and the father of the family you referenced may similarly be able to make his children, grandchildren, & grandchildren's children exponentially more successful through his hard work - assuming they all remain ambitious. While it may seem like "us vs. them," in time "they" become "us" if they keep up the hard work and ambition.
Sorry for the essay, but I think it is an important topic that the media never really treats properly.[/QUOTE]
i feel like you're viewing this a little too black & white. 75% on 125k is an absurd proposition, even if everyone $125k paid flat tax it wouldn't need to be anywhere near that high.
but on point: you can have progressive tax without eliminating reward. something like SpazX posted, though i'd probably favor a system even easier on low income (up to 50k or so) and even heavier on the wealthy (with additional brackets above $1mil for the absurdly wealthy -- pretty sure our current brackets go up to $2.7mil). even if, say, a person making 60k lives tax free and a person making 125k is paying 30%, that 27k/yr is plenty incentive.
i think saying my job will benefit society simply because it's high-paying is a bit of cop-out. the money's there regardless. the real question is does the work itself benefit society / global economy. jobs like engineering, science, teaching, medicine, technology, etc... even farming. yes, i'll pay a lot of tax because i'll be given a lot of money, but i think the money should be incentivising jobs that benefit society.
[quote name='cochesecochese']What is your career path?[/QUOTE]
patent law - elec. engineering / comp sci
the engineers whose patents i'll be dealing with benefit society, but me directly, all i do is game a system.. no better than a day trader. there's a game to be played in which people can get rich.. even though it benefits noone other than those directly involved, and ultimately the money comes from greater causes (e.g. a sued company could've spent the money on research & development instead of litigation).
you could argue the engineers would have less reason to innovate without patent law, but fact of the matter is very few patents are innovative. the vast majority are just gaming the system.
Is it fair? Yes it is, lets get the obvious stuff out of the way first. First, you are being paid for skilled work, the family you quoted likely could not do it. If they could the company would hire them for 1/15th of the cost.
Second, you are a legal citizen, it appears from your story that the family in question is not - that will of course affect their salary. If they go through the process of becoming a citizen over time, that will allow them a significant pay increase.
Third, not everyone can make it big, but if you both work your butt off and have ambition you can make it big and/or make it much easier for your kids to make it big; my guess if you feel like you haven't really worked for your money, your parents (or their parents) most likely did so that you would be in the position to make money without as much effort as they had to go through. The family you questioned is likely in the fledgling stages of that same process; they are attempting to build their way towards a better future. It may not happen for the father of that family, but his child will likely be one step closer than he was. If the child keeps working, that trend will continue down the generations. So if you feel guilty, just be grateful that your parents/their parents had to work hard for their money so you didn't - whether its quality of life, easier ability to go to school, or the like.
Fourth, your job DOES benefit society. If you make $125k/yr, think of all the taxes you are paying! When you bought that BMW, you paid sales tax on it. When you get paid, you get taxed. Even using a flat tax @ 20%, 20% of $125k is a massive amount of money. You don't need to tax someone at 50% in order to get a wad of cash when they are making $125k+, even 20% is a massive amount of money. And, you are at a great position to donate to a charity of your liking - that will likely go much farther than the same amount of money going to the government.
Fifth, what happened if people who made $125k had to forfeit 75%? Why would you take a job like that over the many jobs in the 15-30k range that have much lessened pressure and/or skill needed? If you needed to go to school, why would people bother going to school? Its just as unfair to you to take a giant chunk of your money as it is to the family not making that much and working hard. And, as a result of that unfairness the economy would collapse as everyone goes for the easy & unskilled jobs over time because they plain require either less work (whether physical or mental) or less preparation (higher learning). History has proven this.
Sixth, our society's mainstream media and major educational institutions unfortunately has many who put a guilt trip on people who make a lot of money. It appears you are afflicted by this, and I am not surprised. If you want to alleviate some of that guilt through using your money simply donate money to charity. There is no reason the government should need to donate that money for you, especially when the government usually screws up royally and ends up wasting most of the money anyway. Your money to a reputable charity will probably go MUCH further than if it went to the government.
So in conclusion, don't feel guilty, and dont feel like you need to surrender your paycheck to the govt. They will likely blow half of it on wasteful shit anyway, donate the money you would have paid in hypothetically raised taxes to a well-known charity instead at the rate you wish. Once your money goes to the government you lose complete control over where it goes - with charities, you can pick specific causes you want your money to go towards. You are not a better person, you are simply a more successful person at this point in time. If you feel you didn't work for it, unless you are some extremely rare case my guess is your family did - and the father of the family you referenced may similarly be able to make his children, grandchildren, & grandchildren's children exponentially more successful through his hard work - assuming they all remain ambitious. While it may seem like "us vs. them," in time "they" become "us" if they keep up the hard work and ambition.
Sorry for the essay, but I think it is an important topic that the media never really treats properly.[/QUOTE]
i feel like you're viewing this a little too black & white. 75% on 125k is an absurd proposition, even if everyone $125k paid flat tax it wouldn't need to be anywhere near that high.
but on point: you can have progressive tax without eliminating reward. something like SpazX posted, though i'd probably favor a system even easier on low income (up to 50k or so) and even heavier on the wealthy (with additional brackets above $1mil for the absurdly wealthy -- pretty sure our current brackets go up to $2.7mil). even if, say, a person making 60k lives tax free and a person making 125k is paying 30%, that 27k/yr is plenty incentive.
i think saying my job will benefit society simply because it's high-paying is a bit of cop-out. the money's there regardless. the real question is does the work itself benefit society / global economy. jobs like engineering, science, teaching, medicine, technology, etc... even farming. yes, i'll pay a lot of tax because i'll be given a lot of money, but i think the money should be incentivising jobs that benefit society.
[quote name='cochesecochese']What is your career path?[/QUOTE]
patent law - elec. engineering / comp sci
the engineers whose patents i'll be dealing with benefit society, but me directly, all i do is game a system.. no better than a day trader. there's a game to be played in which people can get rich.. even though it benefits noone other than those directly involved, and ultimately the money comes from greater causes (e.g. a sued company could've spent the money on research & development instead of litigation).
you could argue the engineers would have less reason to innovate without patent law, but fact of the matter is very few patents are innovative. the vast majority are just gaming the system.
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']
patent law - elec. engineering / comp sci
the engineers whose patents i'll be dealing with benefit society, but me directly, all i do is game a system.. no better than a day trader. there's a game to be played in which people can get rich.. even though it benefits noone other than those directly involved, and ultimately the money comes from greater causes (e.g. a sued company could've spent the money on research & development instead of litigation).
you could argue the engineers would have less reason to innovate without patent law, but fact of the matter is very few patents are innovative. the vast majority are just gaming the system.[/quote]
Easy, easy. I'm not trying to push your buttons, just asking out of genuine curiosity
patent law - elec. engineering / comp sci
the engineers whose patents i'll be dealing with benefit society, but me directly, all i do is game a system.. no better than a day trader. there's a game to be played in which people can get rich.. even though it benefits noone other than those directly involved, and ultimately the money comes from greater causes (e.g. a sued company could've spent the money on research & development instead of litigation).
you could argue the engineers would have less reason to innovate without patent law, but fact of the matter is very few patents are innovative. the vast majority are just gaming the system.[/quote]
Easy, easy. I'm not trying to push your buttons, just asking out of genuine curiosity
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='willardhaven']We've got multi-quote, you just click the button with a "+" and then on the last post you're quoting click the regular quotation button.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I missed that without the label.
[quote name='Koggit']being equal..[/quote]
Be more specific. Equality with respect to what? You should be able to answer that question if you've really thought about what you're saying.
We? I don't believe people like "us" deserve access to improved conditions any more than "them". I'm not sure why you would.
[quote name='Msut77']Consumption is 70 some odd percent of GDP.
Go College.[/QUOTE]
You want to tell us how anything you said refutes what I said? Or did you just drop in to give us some random statistic and show your school spirit?
[quote name='Ruined']#2 - No one is saying that anyone is lesser than anyone else. But if someone is making $200k-$500k or more it is likely because they are in a high pressure job or one that requires a ton of skill that a $20k worker could not provide. If they could, the company would simply hire the $20k worker and save themselves $180k. That being said, if you are going to "equalize" the money, then what is the motivation for the $200k-$500k worker to stay in a high pressure/difficult job? As a result we have much less of those skilled people, and the economy suffers drastically - if not collapsing entirely. As a result EVERYONE gets screwed then.[/QUOTE]
Normally, this argument would apply, but not in today's world. There are many, many occupations where people are highly paid for no good reason. Nothing personal, but my guess is Koggit is about to be an example, as he himself admits.
[quote name='willardhaven']This would normally work, except the world is not fair. The financial sector is full of worthless people who lose money and swindle people for a living. They make millions and billions of dollars a year and when their business fails they just call their friends in Washington to fix everything up. Sucks doesn't it?[/quote]
This is the kind of thing I was referring to. You are absolutely correct that in today's world, many people in the financial sector are a drain on society.
[quote name='Koggit']to directly address your question: i kinda already have. i've said reward is necessary for society to thrive. i acknowledge that there needs to be incentive for good work, but currently the reward is often for "success" in ways that do not benefit humanity / the global economy, and even for the actions that do the reward need not be so extreme.
let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. that'll then go up to $250+k/yr within five years. that's absolutely ridiculous. on TV i see a family of 5 living on around 17k a year... without papers they worked for less than minimum wage. they worked hard. probably much harder than i've ever had to. and they were very fortunate, relative to the family members of theirs that stayed behind in mexico. my salary will be enough to sustain fifteen such families. that'sed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?
most people aren't bothered by it.. it's unfair. it's extraordinarily unfair.[/QUOTE]
Believe me, I'm very bothered by it. It is absolutely unfair. That family does not deserve to face such unnecessary difficulties while you are about to be overpaid for no good reason. Now the question is, why do things like this happen? I'll wait for you to answer cochese's question before I answer that one.
[quote name='Capitalizt']kogg, congrats on getting a good job, but I expect you to not be a complete hypocrite once you are hired and to donate $105,000 a year to charity right away. You can live on $20k. That's all you really need, and as you rightly said there are families with children living on less. It's only fair that you give most of your earnings for their benefit. Do your part to improve economic equality. Will you accept this challenge? Or will you be a typical limousine liberal arguing for the forced confiscation of other people's earnings while hoarding your own?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You know what you could do?
You could contact that family. Tell them how wonderful you're going to do. Then, offer to put the smartest member of their family through the exact same steps you have taken. If that smartest person succeeds, he or she will then be in the same position as you and will be able to support the other four members of his family with an income equivalent to yours. If that smartest person fails, you've done the remaining four members a favor by removing one of the mouths they have to feed for the time it requires that smartest person to fail. You could call it a focused scholarship.[/QUOTE]
These are pretty good ideas to start. I'll be interested to see what Koggit thinks of your scholarship idea.
[quote name='Ruined']And, while the family you saw does likely work hard, there is a difference between skilled and unskilled labor. That is why they hired you instead of one of them for 1/15th the cost.
Is it fair? Yes it is, lets get the obvious stuff out of the way first. First, you are being paid for skilled work, the family you quoted likely could not do it. If they could the company would hire them for 1/15th of the cost.[/quote]
This isn't really true. We don't know that the family couldn't do what Koggit does. And if they're here illegally, the company would have a hard time hiring them, even for 1/15th of the cost.
It's true that there is hope for future generations, but that doesn't excuse the artificial barriers put in place to obstruct this family and help people like Koggit unnecessarily.
Just because Koggit will be paying taxes doesn't necessarily mean his job will benefit society. It could be a net drain on society if money that is going to pay his salary would have been used more productively elsewhere - with that Mexican family, perhaps.
History hasn't proven this because it's not what happens. People will generally try to improve their conditions. You don't need schools or "skilled" jobs for that to be true.
There's some truth to this, but some well-paid people should feel guilty if they're a net drain on society. Again, the financial sector is a good example.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Koggit, after reading those last few posts of yours, I think I've found where you belong.
Make sure to watch the orientation video: the video.
And no, I'm not joking. You sound like you'd fit right in. Which is cool, I have a few friends that are really into this sort of belief system too. I personally haven't decided what I think of it yet, and have too many questions.[/QUOTE]
Like that thread in GG, good concept, bad execution.
[quote name='Koggit']patent law - elec. engineering / comp sci[/quote]
Did you go to law school?
I agree 100%. And now I can confirm what I was getting at earlier in the post - you are in a sector that is a net drain on society. The resources diverted to your sector could be more productively used elsewhere, and this is at least partly responsible for the plight of the poor.
Edit: Sorry if that sounds harsh. I'm only being so blunt because you alluded to it yourself.
Thanks, I missed that without the label.
[quote name='Koggit']being equal..[/quote]
Be more specific. Equality with respect to what? You should be able to answer that question if you've really thought about what you're saying.
I'm not happy with starvation in Africa or someone having to go into debt to care for their sick newborn.
We? I don't believe people like "us" deserve access to improved conditions any more than "them". I'm not sure why you would.
[quote name='Msut77']Consumption is 70 some odd percent of GDP.
Go College.[/QUOTE]
You want to tell us how anything you said refutes what I said? Or did you just drop in to give us some random statistic and show your school spirit?
[quote name='Ruined']#2 - No one is saying that anyone is lesser than anyone else. But if someone is making $200k-$500k or more it is likely because they are in a high pressure job or one that requires a ton of skill that a $20k worker could not provide. If they could, the company would simply hire the $20k worker and save themselves $180k. That being said, if you are going to "equalize" the money, then what is the motivation for the $200k-$500k worker to stay in a high pressure/difficult job? As a result we have much less of those skilled people, and the economy suffers drastically - if not collapsing entirely. As a result EVERYONE gets screwed then.[/QUOTE]
Normally, this argument would apply, but not in today's world. There are many, many occupations where people are highly paid for no good reason. Nothing personal, but my guess is Koggit is about to be an example, as he himself admits.
[quote name='willardhaven']This would normally work, except the world is not fair. The financial sector is full of worthless people who lose money and swindle people for a living. They make millions and billions of dollars a year and when their business fails they just call their friends in Washington to fix everything up. Sucks doesn't it?[/quote]
This is the kind of thing I was referring to. You are absolutely correct that in today's world, many people in the financial sector are a drain on society.
[quote name='Koggit']to directly address your question: i kinda already have. i've said reward is necessary for society to thrive. i acknowledge that there needs to be incentive for good work, but currently the reward is often for "success" in ways that do not benefit humanity / the global economy, and even for the actions that do the reward need not be so extreme.
let me tell yet another story. i'm in a story mood. this story makes me uncomfortable: i'm on track to start, at my first real job, making $125k+/yr before bonuses.. that'll then go up to $250+k/yr within five years. that's absolutely ridiculous. on TV i see a family of 5 living on around 17k a year... without papers they worked for less than minimum wage. they worked hard. probably much harder than i've ever had to. and they were very fortunate, relative to the family members of theirs that stayed behind in mexico. my salary will be enough to sustain fifteen such families. that's
ed up. that's epicly ed up. why am i being so rewarded? my job won't benefit society. i don't (and won't) work particularly hard. i'm fairly intelligent, but nothing super extraordinary. even if they weren't born as smart as me, even if they didn't work as ahrd or deal with as much stress, all of which i doubt, why should i make fifteen times as much money? why should i be buying a $50,000 BMW while they can't afford decent food?most people aren't bothered by it.. it's unfair. it's extraordinarily unfair.[/QUOTE]
Believe me, I'm very bothered by it. It is absolutely unfair. That family does not deserve to face such unnecessary difficulties while you are about to be overpaid for no good reason. Now the question is, why do things like this happen? I'll wait for you to answer cochese's question before I answer that one.
[quote name='Capitalizt']kogg, congrats on getting a good job, but I expect you to not be a complete hypocrite once you are hired and to donate $105,000 a year to charity right away. You can live on $20k. That's all you really need, and as you rightly said there are families with children living on less. It's only fair that you give most of your earnings for their benefit. Do your part to improve economic equality. Will you accept this challenge? Or will you be a typical limousine liberal arguing for the forced confiscation of other people's earnings while hoarding your own?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You know what you could do?
You could contact that family. Tell them how wonderful you're going to do. Then, offer to put the smartest member of their family through the exact same steps you have taken. If that smartest person succeeds, he or she will then be in the same position as you and will be able to support the other four members of his family with an income equivalent to yours. If that smartest person fails, you've done the remaining four members a favor by removing one of the mouths they have to feed for the time it requires that smartest person to fail. You could call it a focused scholarship.[/QUOTE]
These are pretty good ideas to start. I'll be interested to see what Koggit thinks of your scholarship idea.
[quote name='Ruined']And, while the family you saw does likely work hard, there is a difference between skilled and unskilled labor. That is why they hired you instead of one of them for 1/15th the cost.
Is it fair? Yes it is, lets get the obvious stuff out of the way first. First, you are being paid for skilled work, the family you quoted likely could not do it. If they could the company would hire them for 1/15th of the cost.[/quote]
This isn't really true. We don't know that the family couldn't do what Koggit does. And if they're here illegally, the company would have a hard time hiring them, even for 1/15th of the cost.
It's true that there is hope for future generations, but that doesn't excuse the artificial barriers put in place to obstruct this family and help people like Koggit unnecessarily.
Just because Koggit will be paying taxes doesn't necessarily mean his job will benefit society. It could be a net drain on society if money that is going to pay his salary would have been used more productively elsewhere - with that Mexican family, perhaps.
History hasn't proven this because it's not what happens. People will generally try to improve their conditions. You don't need schools or "skilled" jobs for that to be true.
There's some truth to this, but some well-paid people should feel guilty if they're a net drain on society. Again, the financial sector is a good example.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Koggit, after reading those last few posts of yours, I think I've found where you belong.
Make sure to watch the orientation video: the video.
And no, I'm not joking. You sound like you'd fit right in. Which is cool, I have a few friends that are really into this sort of belief system too. I personally haven't decided what I think of it yet, and have too many questions.[/QUOTE]
Like that thread in GG, good concept, bad execution.
[quote name='Koggit']patent law - elec. engineering / comp sci[/quote]
Did you go to law school?
I agree 100%. And now I can confirm what I was getting at earlier in the post - you are in a sector that is a net drain on society. The resources diverted to your sector could be more productively used elsewhere, and this is at least partly responsible for the plight of the poor.
Edit: Sorry if that sounds harsh. I'm only being so blunt because you alluded to it yourself.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Koggit']patent law - elec. engineering / comp sci[/quote]
Did you go to law school?
I agree 100%. And now I can confirm what I was getting at in my last post - you are in a sector that is a net drain on society. The resources diverted to your sector could be more productively used elsewhere, and this is at least partly responsible for the plight of the poor.
Edit: Sorry if that sounds harsh. I'm only being so blunt because you alluded to it yourself.
Did you go to law school?
I agree 100%. And now I can confirm what I was getting at in my last post - you are in a sector that is a net drain on society. The resources diverted to your sector could be more productively used elsewhere, and this is at least partly responsible for the plight of the poor.
Edit: Sorry if that sounds harsh. I'm only being so blunt because you alluded to it yourself.
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']Koggit, after reading those last few posts of yours, I think I've found where you belong.
Make sure to watch the orientation video: the video.
And no, I'm not joking. You sound like you'd fit right in. Which is cool, I have a few friends that are really into this sort of belief system too. I personally haven't decided what I think of it yet, and have too many questions.[/QUOTE]
Yes Koggit. I have a pamphlet you might enjoy as well....
Make sure to watch the orientation video: the video.
And no, I'm not joking. You sound like you'd fit right in. Which is cool, I have a few friends that are really into this sort of belief system too. I personally haven't decided what I think of it yet, and have too many questions.[/QUOTE]
Yes Koggit. I have a pamphlet you might enjoy as well....
This should not have to be explained to you... but consumption is how most people define standard of living, an economy based on saving would be like the Miser fable writ large.
Like it was said before saving is bad for the economy in the sense that consumption is far and away the biggest part of the economy, if everyone was (and lately many are) sitting on their cash it means basically everything stops. The role of saving in the economy is pretty much about making money work and not about saving as the be all end all.
It is not that having a negative savings rate is a good thing, but in my opinion the income inequality and trade deficit have even more of an impact.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']This should not have to be explained to you... but consumption is how most people define standard of living, an economy based on saving would be like the Miser fable writ large.
Like it was said before saving is bad for the economy in the sense that consumption is far and away the biggest part of the economy, if everyone was (and lately many are) sitting on their cash it means basically everything stops. The role of saving in the economy is pretty much about making money work and not about saving as the be all end all.
It is not that having a negative savings rate is a good thing, but in my opinion the income inequality and trade deficit have even more of an impact.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for going into more detail this time Msut. I was responding to this[quote name='Koggit']saving is terrible for the economy[/quote]when I said this[quote name='rickonker']Savings are what made higher standards of living possible.[/quote]
I never said saving is the "be all end all". That would be silly.
But think about human history for a minute. That's what I'm talking about when I say, "Savings are what made higher standards of living possible." You might question the relevance of this to today's world (I can address that later), but do you actually deny that savings are what made higher standards of living possible for the human race?
That's why what Koggit suggested is so dangerous - the idea that saving is actually bad, period.
Like it was said before saving is bad for the economy in the sense that consumption is far and away the biggest part of the economy, if everyone was (and lately many are) sitting on their cash it means basically everything stops. The role of saving in the economy is pretty much about making money work and not about saving as the be all end all.
It is not that having a negative savings rate is a good thing, but in my opinion the income inequality and trade deficit have even more of an impact.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for going into more detail this time Msut. I was responding to this[quote name='Koggit']saving is terrible for the economy[/quote]when I said this[quote name='rickonker']Savings are what made higher standards of living possible.[/quote]
I never said saving is the "be all end all". That would be silly.
But think about human history for a minute. That's what I'm talking about when I say, "Savings are what made higher standards of living possible." You might question the relevance of this to today's world (I can address that later), but do you actually deny that savings are what made higher standards of living possible for the human race?
That's why what Koggit suggested is so dangerous - the idea that saving is actually bad, period.
[quote name='rickonker']but do you actually deny that savings are what made higher standards of living possible for the human race?[/QUOTE]
I don't need to be told to consider human history thanks, I think that what you are missing is that saving in this sense is like what I said about making money work and how investing helps fuel even more consumption.
Like it was pointed out before in a very real sense it is.
I don't need to be told to consider human history thanks, I think that what you are missing is that saving in this sense is like what I said about making money work and how investing helps fuel even more consumption.
Like it was pointed out before in a very real sense it is.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']I don't need to be told to consider human history thanks,[/QUOTE]
I wasn't trying to be offensive. The reason I said that is because I think you're focusing on our current situation while I'm talking about a historical fact.
In other words, you're talking about how you think saving today would be a bad thing, and I'm talking about how, historically, again, savings are what made higher standards of living possible.
Do you disagree, with respect to human history?
I wasn't trying to be offensive. The reason I said that is because I think you're focusing on our current situation while I'm talking about a historical fact.
In other words, you're talking about how you think saving today would be a bad thing, and I'm talking about how, historically, again, savings are what made higher standards of living possible.
Do you disagree, with respect to human history?
[quote name='rickonker']The reason I said that is because I think you're focusing on our current situation while I'm talking about a historical fact.[/quote]
You can keep saying you are just stating facts if you wish but it is not going to change anything.
Could you possibly be any more vague than "in respect to human history"? One must wonder if it is intentional.
And no I am not and was not just talking about just the current situation.
"Historically" saving meant locking up and/or burying your specie (assuming by "historically" we are even up to the point of a money economy instead of say cows). I am not going to repeat myself about the whole money works business. I am not saying saving/s is unimportant, just that if people stop doing things with them it becomes less important in the big picture.
You can keep saying you are just stating facts if you wish but it is not going to change anything.
Could you possibly be any more vague than "in respect to human history"? One must wonder if it is intentional.
And no I am not and was not just talking about just the current situation.
"Historically" saving meant locking up and/or burying your specie (assuming by "historically" we are even up to the point of a money economy instead of say cows). I am not going to repeat myself about the whole money works business. I am not saying saving/s is unimportant, just that if people stop doing things with them it becomes less important in the big picture.
Last edited by a moderator:
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']You can keep saying you are just stating facts if you wish but it is not going to change anything.
Could you possibly be any more vague than "in respect to human history"? One must wonder if it is intentional.[/quote]
My point applies to human history as a whole, so I'm being general, not vague. Is it being vague to say, "every flower came from a plant" just because I'm not talking about a single flower?
No you are not what?
Now this is vague to me, but maybe I'm wrong about that. All I can tell from this is that you don't want people to save and then do nothing with their savings. Is that your only problem with people saving?
Could you possibly be any more vague than "in respect to human history"? One must wonder if it is intentional.[/quote]
My point applies to human history as a whole, so I'm being general, not vague. Is it being vague to say, "every flower came from a plant" just because I'm not talking about a single flower?
No you are not what?
Now this is vague to me, but maybe I'm wrong about that. All I can tell from this is that you don't want people to save and then do nothing with their savings. Is that your only problem with people saving?
[quote name='rickonker']My point applies to human history as a whole, so I'm being general, not vague.[/quote]
Vague fits perfectly, substituting general does nothing to change the point that what you wrote is so vague as to be useless.
I believe I told you I am not going to repeat myself.
Vague fits perfectly, substituting general does nothing to change the point that what you wrote is so vague as to be useless.
I believe I told you I am not going to repeat myself.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']Vague fits perfectly, substituting general does nothing to change the point that what you wrote is so vague as to be useless.[/quote]
Unfortunately, you've missed the point. What I said does apply to "human history", which is the part you thought was vague.
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Was that your only problem with savings, or was there something else?
Unfortunately, you've missed the point. What I said does apply to "human history", which is the part you thought was vague.
I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Was that your only problem with savings, or was there something else?
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']Yes, in a general sense.[/QUOTE]
Now you're just being silly. If you say, "The war devastated Europe," that doesn't apply to all of human history in a general sense.
But I think you know that, and you've just been avoiding answering my question for six posts now. One must wonder if it is intentional...
Now you're just being silly. If you say, "The war devastated Europe," that doesn't apply to all of human history in a general sense.
But I think you know that, and you've just been avoiding answering my question for six posts now. One must wonder if it is intentional...
[quote name='rickonker']If you say, "The war devastated Europe," that doesn't apply to all of human history in a general sense.[/quote]
Well that is just great except it would be more accurate to say it is akin to the statement "war is devastating" or saying "The war devastated Europe" in a European history class.
Coming from you? One might as well argue with an endless loop of the Girugamesh kid then you.
Well that is just great except it would be more accurate to say it is akin to the statement "war is devastating" or saying "The war devastated Europe" in a European history class.
Coming from you? One might as well argue with an endless loop of the Girugamesh kid then you.
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']Well that is just great except it would be more accurate to say it is akin to the statement "war is devastating" or saying "The war devastated Europe" in a European history class.
Coming from you? One might as well argue with an endless loop of the Girugamesh kid then you.[/QUOTE]
So you've changed your mind, apparently. Not everything applies to human history in a general sense.
8?
Edit:
[quote name='Msut77']Coming from you? One might as well argue with an endless loop of the Girugamesh kid then you.[/QUOTE]
Here's a case where "then" vs. "than" really matters.
Coming from you? One might as well argue with an endless loop of the Girugamesh kid then you.[/QUOTE]
So you've changed your mind, apparently. Not everything applies to human history in a general sense.
8?
Edit:
[quote name='Msut77']Coming from you? One might as well argue with an endless loop of the Girugamesh kid then you.[/QUOTE]
Here's a case where "then" vs. "than" really matters.
Last edited by a moderator:
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']Well unless you are saying Europeans are not human... No.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand what I'm saying, or you're just pretending not to, and since you don't want to answer my question it's not really going anywhere. It's too bad this wasn't in a different thread so it would be easier for others to get back to what was being discussed earlier.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying, or you're just pretending not to, and since you don't want to answer my question it's not really going anywhere. It's too bad this wasn't in a different thread so it would be easier for others to get back to what was being discussed earlier.
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']You don't understand what you are saying.[/quote]
I don't think anyone understands what rickonker is saying.
I don't think anyone understands what rickonker is saying.
[quote name='Koggit']with additional brackets above $1mil for the absurdly wealthy -- pretty sure our current brackets go up to $2.7mil[/quote]
The federal income tax brackets? They only go up to ~$370k for 2009 I think, it was like $350k for 2008. That's why I had mine go up to 1 mil, right now the top bracket is just "over $370k" and it's 35%. I think it would make sense to go even higher than 1mil though.
But back on topic:
Flat income taxes are so inherently unequal the first thing you have to do when proposing them is make a bunch of exceptions. They favor the rich, and everybody knows it.
No income taxes with only (flat) sales taxes also favor the rich. You'd again have to make some kind of progressive sales tax or a bunch of exceptions to make it work in any kind of fair or equal way. There would have to be low taxes on food and necessities and high taxes on "luxury" goods (which would be hard enough to determine), and would probably just ensure that the rich are the only ones who can afford "luxury" goods. Sales taxes are essentially just a one-step-removed income tax anyway. You have to buy things with your money, even if you're saving you're doing it with the intention of buying something in the future or just saving in the event that something comes up which you cannot ordinarily afford and then using that money to pay for it. There would have to be crazy capital gains taxes or else it would just be a system that makes the rich richer and keeps the poor poor.
The easiest thing to me to solve the problem of unequal burden is a progressive income tax. I would actually favor having no sales taxes and simply higher and more progressive income taxes. I realize that sales taxes are state taxes, so they'd have to be the ones raising the income taxes for the state, etc. and it's not something easy to do, but I just think it's something that would be more fair theoretically. Even if there are to be both sales taxes and income taxes though, the income taxes must be progressive or you're justing the poor and favoring the rich. It would be better if the sales taxes were also progressive, but that would be damn near impossible to implement via income, so it would have to be a "necessities" vs "luxury" thing, or that "prebate" shit that flat-sales-tax-only people are into, which isn't as good since it's an assumed allowance.
So there, a bit more on topic, discuss.
The federal income tax brackets? They only go up to ~$370k for 2009 I think, it was like $350k for 2008. That's why I had mine go up to 1 mil, right now the top bracket is just "over $370k" and it's 35%. I think it would make sense to go even higher than 1mil though.
But back on topic:
Flat income taxes are so inherently unequal the first thing you have to do when proposing them is make a bunch of exceptions. They favor the rich, and everybody knows it.
No income taxes with only (flat) sales taxes also favor the rich. You'd again have to make some kind of progressive sales tax or a bunch of exceptions to make it work in any kind of fair or equal way. There would have to be low taxes on food and necessities and high taxes on "luxury" goods (which would be hard enough to determine), and would probably just ensure that the rich are the only ones who can afford "luxury" goods. Sales taxes are essentially just a one-step-removed income tax anyway. You have to buy things with your money, even if you're saving you're doing it with the intention of buying something in the future or just saving in the event that something comes up which you cannot ordinarily afford and then using that money to pay for it. There would have to be crazy capital gains taxes or else it would just be a system that makes the rich richer and keeps the poor poor.
The easiest thing to me to solve the problem of unequal burden is a progressive income tax. I would actually favor having no sales taxes and simply higher and more progressive income taxes. I realize that sales taxes are state taxes, so they'd have to be the ones raising the income taxes for the state, etc. and it's not something easy to do, but I just think it's something that would be more fair theoretically. Even if there are to be both sales taxes and income taxes though, the income taxes must be progressive or you're just
ing the poor and favoring the rich. It would be better if the sales taxes were also progressive, but that would be damn near impossible to implement via income, so it would have to be a "necessities" vs "luxury" thing, or that "prebate" shit that flat-sales-tax-only people are into, which isn't as good since it's an assumed allowance.So there, a bit more on topic, discuss.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/04/19/social-class-and-the-tax-burden/
Pay attention, folks. It ain't complex:
Right.
Oh, my. We must make sure we take away that $1600 in growth from the bottom quintile. Wouldn't want them to buy brand-name groceries with that, now, would we?
Perhaps we should do the following, and see what y'all Davis and Moore knucklehead post-hoc ends-justify the means start with your conclusion then work backwards thinkinging numbskulls.
Let's have a flat tax.
Yep, I said it. A flat tax. Same income tax for all income quintiles. We can start with whatever percent. 2. 40. 80. Doesn't matter.
You make 4 times what I do. We both pay X% of our incomes in tax. Let's do that.
But, (of course you realize that it's me posting, so there's more to it than that), there is a hitch.
Breaking up groups into income quintiles, starting as far back as income quintile data are available, THAT is where we start with the flat percentage tax rate.
And then we control and identify the change in average quintile earnings over time, adjusting that flat tax rate accordingly.
Here's the kicker, though: every year, the rates are balanced based upon the changes between quintiles. If the top quintile makes 200% of the average at year one, and 400% at year ten, then their tax rate in year ten will be double the average tax percentage.
Comparing the portion of taxes paid on the whole is a useless statistic by itself. Coupled with comparative longitudinal changes in earnings (using constant dollars) and the change in tax rates over time, the picture painted is more robust and accurate. Shamefully for the supply-side dipshits in here, those data don't paint a very sympathetic picture for the rich folks as well as their incomplete singular datum does.
Pay attention, folks. It ain't complex:
Right.
Oh, my. We must make sure we take away that $1600 in growth from the bottom quintile. Wouldn't want them to buy brand-name groceries with that, now, would we?
Perhaps we should do the following, and see what y'all Davis and Moore knucklehead post-hoc ends-justify the means start with your conclusion then work backwards thinking
ing numbskulls.Let's have a flat tax.
Yep, I said it. A flat tax. Same income tax for all income quintiles. We can start with whatever percent. 2. 40. 80. Doesn't matter.
You make 4 times what I do. We both pay X% of our incomes in tax. Let's do that.
But, (of course you realize that it's me posting, so there's more to it than that), there is a hitch.
Breaking up groups into income quintiles, starting as far back as income quintile data are available, THAT is where we start with the flat percentage tax rate.
And then we control and identify the change in average quintile earnings over time, adjusting that flat tax rate accordingly.
Here's the kicker, though: every year, the rates are balanced based upon the changes between quintiles. If the top quintile makes 200% of the average at year one, and 400% at year ten, then their tax rate in year ten will be double the average tax percentage.
Comparing the portion of taxes paid on the whole is a useless statistic by itself. Coupled with comparative longitudinal changes in earnings (using constant dollars) and the change in tax rates over time, the picture painted is more robust and accurate. Shamefully for the supply-side dipshits in here, those data don't paint a very sympathetic picture for the rich folks as well as their incomplete singular datum does.
Last edited by a moderator:
rickonker
CAGiversary!
[quote name='itachiitachi']I don't think anyone understands what rickonker is saying.[/QUOTE]
Yeah the last few posts with Msut were just not very useful. But again my main point is that savings made it possible for us to have higher standards of living, and that was in response to the idea that savings are terrible for the economy. Or was it something else that you didn't understand?
[quote name='Msut77']He goes to absurd lengths to avoid saying anything at all.
I swear he was channeling Sarah Palin.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why you're accusing me of not saying anything when you've been avoiding clear answers to my simple questions for so long now. Some people here are at least able to answer questions about their point of view, even (or especially) when they disagree.
If you can't answer questions about your point of view, I have to wonder if you even have an informed point of view. I mean, sure, you could keep insulting me instead, but that's not very interesting to me and there's not much else to say then.
Yeah the last few posts with Msut were just not very useful. But again my main point is that savings made it possible for us to have higher standards of living, and that was in response to the idea that savings are terrible for the economy. Or was it something else that you didn't understand?
[quote name='Msut77']He goes to absurd lengths to avoid saying anything at all.
I swear he was channeling Sarah Palin.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why you're accusing me of not saying anything when you've been avoiding clear answers to my simple questions for so long now. Some people here are at least able to answer questions about their point of view, even (or especially) when they disagree.
If you can't answer questions about your point of view, I have to wonder if you even have an informed point of view. I mean, sure, you could keep insulting me instead, but that's not very interesting to me and there's not much else to say then.
Capitalizt
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
myke, the problem with your charts is that you assume the same people are in the same quintiles every year.. This is not the case. How it would it be fair to a have a low flat rate for a certain quintile one year then double it for them the next year when the "average" goes up? The average is meaningless to most people like knogg here. He could be making jack shit this year..working his butt off in school..racking up tens of thousands and debt, and finally gets paid next year, only to be forced to pay more than what people in his income group are paying currently. The economy is not static. People's wages rise and fall, especially in voltatile industries like sales.
There will always be a lower quintile because there are always inexperienced teenagers entering the workforce..immigrants...and seniors who work part time, etc.. This is a permanent sector of the workforce even though the people working change from year to year. There will always be a large number of transitory jobs that don't pay well..but to assume most people are permanently "stuck" in one category or another is false. To assume the poor will always be poor and the rich will always stay rich is a mistake most politicians make. All of our policies therefore should be dedicated to CREATING wealth..to fostering an environment that allows the poor to pull themselves out of poverty. If you want to help the masses of people succeed, your policies should focus on growth, opportunity, and incentives for success..rather than redistribution.
There will always be a lower quintile because there are always inexperienced teenagers entering the workforce..immigrants...and seniors who work part time, etc.. This is a permanent sector of the workforce even though the people working change from year to year. There will always be a large number of transitory jobs that don't pay well..but to assume most people are permanently "stuck" in one category or another is false. To assume the poor will always be poor and the rich will always stay rich is a mistake most politicians make. All of our policies therefore should be dedicated to CREATING wealth..to fostering an environment that allows the poor to pull themselves out of poverty. If you want to help the masses of people succeed, your policies should focus on growth, opportunity, and incentives for success..rather than redistribution.
Last edited by a moderator:
bread's done