"We are the Super Rich"

[Divinity]

A blog post made by a man about his struggling to make ends meet and complains about raise of the tax bracket that will cost him.

I'm not political by any means. I still found this interesting. The comments after gave me reason to think and thought the forum audience might like this too.





We are the Super Rich

Posted by Todd Henderson on September 15, 2010

The rhetoric in Washington about taxes is about millionaires and the super rich, but the relevant dividing line between millionaires and the middle class is pegged at family income of $250,000. (I’m not a math professor, but last time I checked $250,000 is less than $1 million.) That makes me super rich and subject to a big tax hike if the president has his way.

I’m the president’s neighbor in Chicago, but we’ve never met. I wish we could, because I would introduce him to my family and our lifestyle, one he believes is capable of financing the vast expansion of government he is planning. A quick look at our family budget, which I will happily share with the White House, will show him that like many Americans, we are just getting by despite seeming to be rich. We aren’t.

I, like the president before me, am a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and my wife, like the first lady before her, works at the University of Chicago Hospitals, where she is a doctor who treats children with cancer. Our combined income exceeds the $250,000 threshold for the super rich (but not by that much), and the president plans on raising my taxes. After all, we can afford it, and the world we are now living in has that familiar Marxian tone of those who need take and those who can afford it pay. The problem is, we can’t afford it. Here is why.

The biggest expense for us is financing government. Last year, my wife and I paid nearly $100,000 in federal and state taxes, not even including sales and other taxes. This amount is so high because we can’t afford fancy accountants and lawyers to help us evade taxes and we are penalized by the tax code because we choose to be married and we both work outside the home. (If my wife and I divorced or were never married, the government would write us a check for tens of thousands of dollars. Talk about perverse incentives.)

Our next biggest expense, like most people, is our mortgage. Homes near our work in Chicago aren’t cheap and we do not have friends who were willing to help us finance the deal. We chose to invest in the University community and renovate and old property, but we did so at an inopportune time.

We pay about $15,000 in property taxes, about half of which goes to fund public education in Chicago. Since we care the education of our three children, this means we also have to pay to send them to private school. My wife has school loans of nearly $250,000 and I do too, although becoming a lawyer is significantly cheaper. We try to invest in our retirement by putting some money in the stock market, something that these days sounds like a patriotic act. Our account isn’t worth much, and is worth a lot less than it used to be.

Like most working Americans, insurance, doctors’ bills, utilities, two cars, daycare, groceries, gasoline, cell phones, and cable TV (no movie channels) round out our monthly expenses. We also have someone who cuts our grass, cleans our house, and watches our new baby so we can both work outside the home. At the end of all this, we have less than a few hundred dollars per month of discretionary income. We occasionally eat out but with a baby sitter, these nights take a toll on our budget. Life in America is wonderful, but expensive.

If our taxes rise significantly, as they seem likely to, we can cut back on some things. The (legal) immigrant from Mexico who owns the lawn service we employ will suffer, as will the (legal) immigrant from Poland who cleans our house a few times a month. We can cancel our cell phones and some cable channels, as well as take our daughter from her art class at the community art center, but these are only a few hundred dollars per month in total. But more importantly, what is the theory under which collecting this money in taxes and deciding in Washington how to spend it is superior to our decisions? Ask the entrepreneurs we employ and the new arrivals they employ in turn whether they prefer to work for us or get a government handout.

If these cuts don’t work, we will sell our house – into an already spiraling market of declining asset values – and our cars, assuming someone will buy them. The irony here, of course, is that the government is working to save both of these industries despite the impact that increasing taxes will have.

The problem with the president’s plan is that the super rich don’t pay taxes – they hide in the Cayman Islands or use fancy investment vehicles to shelter their income. We aren’t rich enough to afford this – I use Turbo Tax. But we are rich enough to be hurt by the president’s plan. The next time the president comes home to Chicago, he has a standing invitation to come to my house (two blocks from his) and judge for himself whether the Hendersons are as rich as he thinks.



http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kpzaEp0IVw4J:truthonthemarket.com/2010/09/15/we-are-the-super-rich/%20site:truthonthemarket.com/%20Xxxx%20Xxxxxxxxx&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

[Skeeter]

I'd gladly take the problems of the $250,000 family. No sympathy here.

[Drevihyin]

Indeed a little more than half way through reading it I had to stop and wipe a tear.

[waywardgs]

I wish I had grass I could pay someone to cut.

[peam]

Successful troll is successful?

[Tgo01]

We pay about $15,000 in property taxes, about half of which goes to fund public education in Chicago. Since we care the education of our three children, this means we also have to pay to send them to private school.

I love how he wants credit for paying property taxes that goes towards education that he supposedly doesn't benefit from because he's rich enough to send his kids to private school.

[m444w]

considering how much of a joke public education is I don't blame him for thinking his 15,000 is going down the tube.

Maybe Oprah/Bill Gates/Mark Zuckerburg can get something done by lobbying to fix education considering we aren't even in the top 25 most educated in the world anymore...

For the first time in the history of America, this generation will be less literate than the one before it... No wonder you have crazy bitches getting elected to public positions claiming evolution does not exist.

and if you don't see that it is a problem that the richest country in the world is not even top 25 most educated, you clearly went to a public school.

Whatever happened to those school vouchers Bush wanted? That was a good idea of his...

[Bobmuhthol]

Is it possible to feel bad for these people?

[Tgo01]

and if you don't see that it is a problem that the richest country in the world is not even top 25 most educated, you clearly went to a public school

Who said that wasn't a problem? I merely pointed out the fact that he believes he doesn't benefit from paying for public education. Love the public education system or not it's better than nothing, a lot better than nothing. Everyone benefits from a society that has free education for it's citizens, whether or not you went to school or have kids who go to school.

[Bobmuhthol]

considering how much of a joke public education is I don't blame him for thinking his 15,000 is going down the tube.

Excuse me? I went to a public school.


and if you don't see that it is a problem that the richest country in the world is not even top 25 most educated, you clearly went to a public school.

What the fuck does this even mean? Where are you getting this idea? Why are you so retarded?

[Drew]

Excuse me? I went to a public school

Exactly :yes:

[Oscar76]

Er, yeah. So did Jeffery Dahmer. Not really an argument, there.

I went to a public school, too. While I turned out reasonably fine, meaning I can hold a job, I sure don't ascribe that to the public school system. If I can get my kids out of government schools, I will. If not, they'll learn at home.

[Tgo01]

I went to a public school, too. While I turned out reasonably fine, meaning I can hold a job, I sure don't ascribe that to the public school system.

What do you ascribe it to?

[Oscar76]

"meaning I can hold a job"

Growing up on a farm and a good family.

If you want to seize upon where I learned algebra, I'll concede I did in public school. But a mere baseline education (which is what I got in the sticks) didn't prepare me for life. Hard work and some pretty hard discipline did.

[Drew]

I welcome your red rep:


These people are both performing valuable services to society, the way they are taxed creates disincentives for people to succeed them. Why saddle yourself with tons of debt and then lose over 100k of what you've earned yearly to live in the same manner that someone who makes much less than you can? It's a perverse disincentive. Both of these people delayed their earning potential for a number of years so they could earn more but because of the current tax structure are barely better off than someone who makes 150k less than them.

We talk about the growing gap between the super rich and the rest of America but the reason is because there's a huge no-man's land in-between those two areas (that this couple is in) where there is almost no reason to enter, because our tax structure by design or happenstance creates a two tiered society.

[Tgo01]

If you want to seize upon where I learned algebra, I'll concede I did in public school. But a mere baseline education (which is what I got in the sticks) didn't prepare me for life. Hard work and some pretty hard discipline did.

And silly things like reading, writing and basic math (which almost every job requires), where did you learn that at?


These people are both performing valuable services to society, the way they are taxed creates disincentives for people to succeed them. Why saddle yourself with tons of debt and then lose over 100k of what you've earned yearly to live in the same manner that someone who makes much less than you can? It's a perverse disincentive. Both of these people delayed their earning potential for a number of years so they could earn more but because of the current tax structure are barely better off than someone who makes 150k less than them.

I actually agreed with him on a few things he mentioned. Other things, such as the education bit, I disagree with him.

[Bobmuhthol]

Let me be the first to say that nobody asked either him or his wife to take on debt and their decisions should not factor into tax policy. If having someone pay for your education was a guarantee that you'd be highly successful and able to pay them back shortly thereafter, you might have an argument. However, income is not a right, and higher income is certainly not demanded because you chose to get a $500,000 education instead of a $30,000 one.

[Warriorbird]

I welcome your red rep:


These people are both performing valuable services to society, the way they are taxed creates disincentives for people to succeed them. Why saddle yourself with tons of debt and then lose over 100k of what you've earned yearly to live in the same manner that someone who makes much less than you can? It's a perverse disincentive. Both of these people delayed their earning potential for a number of years so they could earn more but because of the current tax structure are barely better off than someone who makes 150k less than them.

We talk about the growing gap between the super rich and the rest of America but the reason is because there's a huge no-man's land in-between those two areas (that this couple is in) where there is almost no reason to enter, because our tax structure by design or happenstance creates a two tiered society.

People who make a lot of money are much better at not paying taxes and hiring tax lawyers and accountants. A larger middle class actually benefits them.

[Parkbandit]

The biggest expense for us is financing government. Last year, my wife and I paid nearly $100,000 in federal and state taxes, not even including sales and other taxes. This amount is so high because we can’t afford fancy accountants and lawyers to help us evade taxes and we are penalized by the tax code because we choose to be married and we both work outside the home. (If my wife and I divorced or were never married, the government would write us a check for tens of thousands of dollars

I find this very difficult to believe.

I disagree with the entire class warfare the current Administration is engaging in as I believe it's a bad economic policy. Some of you will probably be in the same boat as these people one day.. I'm certain you will embrace the tax hikes as your patriotic duty to give more and more and more to the Federal Government, because they are very wise and thrifty with the tax revenue they collect.

[Jarvan]

I love how people consider 250k a year BEFORE taxes "rich".

Would I love to have their income and problems myself, sure. But do you honestly think they think of themselves as rich? I always thought of rich people as the people that don't have to worry about money at all. the kind of people that just buy things, and don't look at the cost.

I think Chris rock put it best in his stand up routine, though he was referring to the difference between black people and white people. he said something along the lines of there is rich and there is wealthy.

Shaq is rich, the guy who signs his checks is wealthy.

Same thing with upper income class. There is well off, then there is rich. And then there are the people that are filthy rich.

How is the family that makes 249,999 a year is middle class, and the family that makes 250,001 rich?

And really, the best part is when the Government says give us more money, as if they are going to spend the money more wisely. LOL This is an institution that takes the lowest bid from contractors, then still tends to pay them more then what the highest bid was.

BTW, do you think people in congress intend to pay more in taxes? Why bother? when they can lie cheat and file false reports and not get in trouble.

[Drew]

People who make a lot of money are much better at not paying taxes and hiring tax lawyers and accountants. A larger middle class actually benefits them.

I agree that the actual super rich can afford to hide money, that's why I support a flat consumption based tax that no one could avoid. That way those who consumed more would be taxed more.

[Warriorbird]

I love how people consider 250k a year BEFORE taxes "rich".

Would I love to have their income and problems myself, sure. But do you honestly think they think of themselves as rich? I always thought of rich people as the people that don't have to worry about money at all. the kind of people that just buy things, and don't look at the cost.

I think Chris rock put it best in his stand up routine, though he was referring to the difference between black people and white people. he said something along the lines of there is rich and there is wealthy.

Shaq is rich, the guy who signs his checks is wealthy.

Same thing with upper income class. There is well off, then there is rich. And then there are the people that are filthy rich.

How is the family that makes 249,999 a year is middle class, and the family that makes 250,001 rich?

And really, the best part is when the Government says give us more money, as if they are going to spend the money more wisely. LOL This is an institution that takes the lowest bid from contractors, then still tends to pay them more then what the highest bid was.

BTW, do you think people in congress intend to pay more in taxes? Why bother? when they can lie cheat and file false reports and not get in trouble.

It's awesome how they've got you defending an entirely different bracket.

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/100Tyranny.png

[Back]

I agree that the actual super rich can afford to hide money, that's why I support a flat consumption based tax that no one could avoid. That way those who consumed more would be taxed more.

That would mean you would have to be rich to be rich. Wait...

[Warriorbird]

I agree that the actual super rich can afford to hide money, that's why I support a flat consumption based tax that no one could avoid. That way those who consumed more would be taxed more.

Consumption based taxes hit the poor much harder. The 'Flat Tax' would also lead to massive government shortfalls, but then again, the Flat Tax people would love to remove services from people.

It's like in VA. 87% business property tax cuts. Of course it doesn't actually draw more business in. It was a retarded idea. Massive government shortfall. New governor strolls in. "OMG, shortfall." Then he cuts education, because teachers didn't vote for his ass. Later the Republicans can go, "Education is terrible! Let's stop doing it." and fuck the poor more.

[Parkbandit]

I agree that the actual super rich can afford to hide money, that's why I support a flat consumption based tax that no one could avoid. That way those who consumed more would be taxed more.

No system is unavoidable. You would have people on the blackmarket selling stuff out of their trucks.

But I agree.. consumption tax is a better option that what we currently have. More people would have skin in the game.

[Stretch]

We've been on an unsustainable debt binge for the last twenty years. People and the government need to learn how to get their shit under control.

[Drew]

No system is unavoidable. You would have people on the blackmarket selling stuff out of their trucks.

But I agree.. consumption tax is a better option that what we currently have. More people would have skin in the game.


True, but it's hard to buy - say - a 2 million dollar house without paying it. A pizza, yes.

[Parkbandit]

We've been on an unsustainable debt binge for the last twenty years. People and the government need to learn how to get their shit under control.

Problem is.. the government doesn't really answer to anyone. Sure we have elections.. but shit never changes. They simply spend more and more money. And if there isn't enough money to spend, then they simply create more money or raise it through legislation.

[Archigeek]

First of all, it's not a tax increase, it's the expiration of a tax break. Call it symantics if you will, but I think it's an important issue, considering how we've been running so far into the red for the last 9 years or so. Any plans to reduce the deficit without raising taxes will pretty much be works of fiction.

Second, if they're paying 100k in taxes off of 250k of income, they're doing it wrong. I'm pretty sure there's a fair bit of fiction in that little letter. You can probably start with, "a little over 250k" meaning a bit further north of that number than most people are thinking. These two have huge earning potential and really don't have much to bitch about. If they manage their money right, before long more and more of their "income" will be in the form of capital gains and dividends, which are both taxed at far far lower rates. That's where your real advantage comes in if you're wealthy.

Once you reach the point where you aren't earning most of your income from your job, but instead are earning it from investments, your taxes as a percentage of what you make each year start to go down.

[Stretch]

The other funny thing is, it's a f'ing progressive tax system.

If they don't make much more than $250K...they aren't going to see that much of an increase anyway.

[Tgo01]

First of all, it's not a tax increase, it's the expiration of a tax break.

Pretty sure there are more new taxes being piled on to people who make 250k+. The first one that springs to mind is the .9% increase to FICA for people who fall under this bracket. Also some unearned income that is currently exempt from Medicare taxes will also now be taxable.

[4a6c1]

Trickle down economics....I am not smart enough to understand it. Someone explain it please. Until then, I dont feel bad for these people and support the RAISING of taxes above the 250k mark.

[Bobmuhthol]

Trickle down economics is what I like to call "retarded economics." If we don't tax businesses, everything becomes cheaper, so we all win!

[4a6c1]

Doesnt seem to make much sense.

[Bobmuhthol]

Which is why Reagan never made it to Chairman of the Fed.

[Parkbandit]

First of all, it's not a tax increase, it's the expiration of a tax break. Call it symantics if you will, but I think it's an important issue, considering how we've been running so far into the red for the last 9 years or so. Any plans to reduce the deficit without raising taxes will pretty much be works of fiction.

Will my tax bill be more or less starting next year if this expiration of a tax break happens?

Oh, it will go up. That's a tax raise and a stupid game only Obama's staunchest supporters believe. When he says "I never raised those tax rates", you can be in the front row with your 2008 "Hope and Change" sign.



Second, if they're paying 100k in taxes off of 250k of income, they're doing it wrong. I'm pretty sure there's a fair bit of fiction in that little letter. You can probably start with, "a little over 250k" meaning a bit further north of that number than most people are thinking. These two have huge earning potential and really don't have much to bitch about. If they manage their money right, before long more and more of their "income" will be in the form of capital gains and dividends, which are both taxed at far far lower rates. That's where your real advantage comes in if you're wealthy.

Not really. The tax rate for someone living in Chicago, IL is:

State: 3%
Federal: 33%

Total: 36%

$250,000 x 36% = $90,000.00

Also, what is your source that the capital gains rates are "far, far lower" than the 33% they are paying?




Once you reach the point where you aren't earning most of your income from your job, but instead are earning it from investments, your taxes as a percentage of what you make each year start to go down.

Is that using your "far, far lower" capital gains rate?

[Bobmuhthol]

Not really. The tax rate for someone living in Chicago, IL is:

State: 3%
Federal: 33%

Total: 36%

$250,000 x 36% = $90,000.00

WOAH WHAT THE FUCK I HOPE YOU'RE NOT AN ACCOUNTANT

[Archigeek]

Trickle down economics....I am not smart enough to understand it. Someone explain it please. Until then, I dont feel bad for these people and support the RAISING of taxes above the 250k mark.

Sure, easy:

Open fly, pee. Pee, like all liquids flows down hill, and everyone knows that the wealthy live at the top of the hill, so everyone benefits from their benevolent urine. See? Easy. The problem though, is that on the way down hill, some of the benevolent urine evaporates into thin air! This too is what happens with trickle down economics. That, and the wealthy like to keep their pee and save it, so it doesn't trickle down. Thus endeth the lesson.

This economic theory brought to you by my horse. Give it a lick, it tastes just like raisins.

[RichardCranium]

So, making 50k a year qualifies me as...?

[Parkbandit]

Trickle down economics....I am not smart enough to understand it. Someone explain it please. Until then, I dont feel bad for these people and support the RAISING of taxes above the 250k mark.

You shouldn't feel bad for them... but you also shouldn't expect to get the unemployment rate much lower either.

I've never been hired by a poor person. Those evil rich people do all the hiring... so feel free to tax the shit out of them. They will find a way to make the same amount of money by not hiring someone, by not giving their employees a raise, by cutting out benefits, etc...

I'll make the same amount of money next year whether this tax hike goes through or not. I'll simply cut out non-essential things in my life to save the extra money... but those non-essential things will inevitably cost some people their jobs.

[Warriorbird]

Intelligent people in Chicago don't pay anywhere near 90k on 250k income.

[Archigeek]

The tax rate for someone living in Chicago, IL is:

State: 3%
Federal: 33%

Total: 36%

$250,000 x 36% = $90,000.00

Also, what is your source that the capital gains rates are "far, far lower" than the 33%?

You're taking their gross income and flat out applying their highest tax rate. That isn't how it works. It's a graduated system. They don't pay 33% on their entire net income, let alone gross. There are plenty of accountants on the PC who can explain it better than I can though.

Qualified dividends and capital gains are currently taxed at between 0% and 15%. And yes, I do believe that's scheduled to go up too. Source is the IRS website.

[Latrinsorm]

Why saddle yourself with tons of debt and then lose over 100k of what you've earned yearly to live in the same manner that someone who makes much less than you can?Who making $100,000 a year can afford to send 3 kids to private school? The private high school I went to would amount to $45,000 a year for 3 kids.

[Valthissa]

Consumption based taxes hit the poor much harder. The 'Flat Tax' would also lead to massive government shortfalls, but then again, the Flat Tax people would love to remove services from people.

It's like in VA. 87% business property tax cuts. Of course it doesn't actually draw more business in. It was a retarded idea. Massive government shortfall. New governor strolls in. "OMG, shortfall." Then he cuts education, because teachers didn't vote for his ass. Later the Republicans can go, "Education is terrible! Let's stop doing it." and fuck the poor more.

Technically speaking, Virginia had a surplus in 2010

This doesn't invalidate your theory regarding property tax cuts not generating new business.

C/Valth

[Warriorbird]

2009.

[Drew]

Who making $100,000 a year can afford to send 3 kids to private school? The private high school I went to would amount to $45,000 a year for 3 kids.

The one I went to was 10k for one child, 9k for two, 7k for three or more. Also there were various other ways to get a discount (for instance being a part time employee at the school got you 50% off which is what a lot of families who had a single breadwinner did, the mother worked at school while the kids were at school). So for the one I went to (the second best in the county) you would have to pay 21k for three children and they would receive a much better than public school education. That's easily doable on 100k income (families who made a lot less than that did so with scholarships and what not).

[4a6c1]

I know some peeps in DC who work at the Castle who are married and live seperate so as to avoid some terrible tax bracket or something. I dont feel sorry for them either.

[Jarvan]

First of all, it's not a tax increase, it's the expiration of a tax break. Call it symantics if you will, but I think it's an important issue, considering how we've been running so far into the red for the last 9 years or so. Any plans to reduce the deficit without raising taxes will pretty much be works of fiction.



Then why not just let them all expire, after all he wouldn't be raising taxes at all, and frankly the Middle class costs are MUCH higher then the upper class costs. As they put it.

[Jarvan]

Trickle down economics....I am not smart enough to understand it. Someone explain it please. Until then, I dont feel bad for these people and support the RAISING of taxes above the 250k mark.

I always thought of trickle down economics as the idea that if you leave a business or wealthy person with more money, they are more likely to invest it and grow their business or start new ones. I very rarely see someone that makes 50k do many of those things. Usually, they are just getting by.

Whereas the government taking it will just waste it on stupid things like they always do.

Also, frankly, as anyone knows. You tell a company they have to pay say $2 mill more in taxes that year, the company will consider that 2 mill an expense, and add it into the cost of doing business, thereby increasing the cost of the item/service they provide. Hence, tax on the consumers. Basically, we pay for all company taxes already. of course if company taxes were removed, I doubt the prices would fall dramatically, we already are willing to pay said price for the item, why change it?

The more I think about it, the more I feel that we are slowly working back towards a feudal system, and certainly a feudal tax system. Where the "rich" ( Nobility, merchants, and High end artisans ) Pay 90% of the taxes, and the "peasants" pay little to none. The lower class artisans paid some taxes, but the people that worked the fields generally paid nothing. Of course they also had nothing, but some could claim they have nothing now.

[Warriorbird]

Wealthy people get wealthier by not giving it away.

[Archigeek]

I always thought of trickle down economics as the idea that if you leave a business or wealthy person with more money, they are more likely to invest it and grow their business or start new ones. I very rarely see someone that makes 50k do many of those things. Usually, they are just getting by.

That might have been the case when people had pensions, but now that pretty much everyone in the middle class has 401k's and IRA's etc, they're all investing in business.

[Bobmuhthol]

The smartest people are investing in gold.

[Tgo01]

The smartest people are investing in gold.

Glenn Beck posts on these forums?

[Gelston]

I invest in GS items.

[Skeeter]

So, making 50k a year qualifies me as...?

In Louisiana? Probably top 10% :tumble:

[Rinualdo]

Glenn Beck posts on these forums?

I heard he killed a woman.

[Traelin]

Screw any American who believes the money they earn actually belongs to them! I'm glad we have the government to forcefully take it away to fund government programs that have documented proven success.

[Parkbandit]

Screw any American who believes the money they earn actually belongs to them! I'm glad we have the government to forcefully take it away to fund government programs that have documented proven success.

:rofl:

[crb]

I've a question.

What is a fair amount for the rich to pay?

The top 7% of people pay for 80% of the government.

What would be a fair level of the tax burden for them to shoulder? If you feel they are not paying their fair share, what do you think their fair share would be?

Consequently, today, almost 50% of people cover 0% of the tax burden. What do you think their fair share is?

Things to think about.

Only partially related. If you believe in higher taxes (on anyone) you believe a government spending money can do so more efficiently and create more jobs than that same money being spent by people and businesses.

Even if you accept Obama's math, the Stimulus has spent hundredsof thousands of dollars per job. This is not efficiency.

So you have to ask yourself, who can get more value for their dollar? The person who earned the dollar, or a series of government bureaucrats working through committee?

Assuming, anyone, your goal is economic growth, and not forced equality.

[phantasm]

Its irritating enough paying 15-25% income tax. The 6% social security (which is apparently not going to be available when I retire) and 2% medicare are just icing. Actually I think I will have to pay 15% medicare/social security this year, fuck I forgot about that.

Taxes need to be lowered all across the board, and that means cutting government spending.

[Ryvicke]

I've just been saving even opening this thread cause I knew it would be so fun inside.

The funniest thing to me is that the main issue the letter in the OP has is that they're rich, but they're not rich enough to afford an accountant that can find them tax loopholes, so they end up paying their full tax burden. That's seriously reiterated twice as the reason these people are pissed. And it's bullshit, my Mom is a (omg PUBLIC) high school teacher making around 60k and has an accountant helping her find the most effective deductions and qualifying programs to save her money. I don't believe for a second this guy uses TURBO TAX (I'm assuming the family is fictitious, right? I didn't really care to check but the letter was too moronic to be from a lawyer with a Dr. wife and 2.5 kids or whatever).


The top 7% of people pay for 80% of the government.

Awesome. Source?


Any raise in taxes is bad brawg brawg

Original Bush tax cuts were recommended 5 months before 9/11 because Alan Greenspan (working off of the financial trends of the Clinton presidency) predicted budget surpluses forevar moar and that when the deficit was completely paid there would need to be massive tax cuts to prevent government investments from pushing out the little guy. So his idea was to make tax cuts now that would help those massive tax cuts (when the deficit was gone, lol) not be so massive.

Unfortunately those surpluses never came and the country got financially fucked by ill-planned wars and an industry so de-regulated by corporate interest that it had the ability to almost destroy the US dollar.

So reasonably, these hilariously rose-tinted tax cuts can now expire. We're going to put on our big boy pants and realize that we did not have budget surpluses for the last 10 years and someone who isn't a child is now running the country and is going to do it fucking responsibly. I wish that we could somehow see what McCain/Palin would've done with the mountain of shit Obama inherited and has dealt with while keeping the country afloat. Just thinking about Palin anywhere near these decisions gives me the giggles.

[Ryvicke]

Taxes need to be lowered all across the board, and that means cutting government spending.

Yes it does. So which programs to cut? Or which programs can you say you want to cut that will lose you the least votes?

[Traelin]

Awesome. Source?


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls

[Ryvicke]

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls

I'm not sure if you were trying to prove or disprove V's claim:


The top 7% of people pay for 80% of the government.

Your spreadsheet plainly refudiates it...

[Traelin]

The point is that the top 50% of wage earners almost pay 97% of the taxes. He was a little off by his number but not much. Plus this data is only through 2005, looking at the trend I'm sure it's higher now. The top 10% pay ~70% of the taxes.

[Deathravin]

The point is that the top 50% of wage earners almost pay 97% of the taxes. He was a little off by his number but not much. Plus this data is only through 2005, looking at the trend I'm sure it's higher now. The top 10% pay ~70% of the taxes.

If only there were a way to... research this 'fact' instead of just posting your opinion AS a fact. hmmm.

One day somebody will invent a system where we can do just that; with a minimum amount of effort, say 10 minutes...

Oh well, I'm going to base my opinion off of your facts because as we all know 99% of all statistics posted on forums is correct. I know because I said so and because I made a chart to back it up.
3107

... AROUND 70%... you've got to be fucking kidding me with this shit. Can't be bothered to LOOK for the answer to help with the discussion, lets just make it up based off my own flawed memory of something I read once and tweak it to fit my conclusions.

Are you a young earth creationist by any chance?

[TheEschaton]

Even if it was correct, are you seriously suggesting that the bottom 25% should pay for 25% of the government, and the top 25% should pay only 25% of the government? That's literally retarded.

Was anyone else amused that he bragged about needing to send his kids to private school, because they "care the education of [their] kids"?

-TheE-

[Showal]

Was anyone else amused that he bragged about needing to send his kids to private school, because they "care the education of [their] kids"?

-TheE-

Because I care about how smooth my car rides, I need to own a Mercedes.

[TheEschaton]

By the way, 39% is not high. It's lower than the rest of the first world, and it's lower than it was in this country 30 years ago. It was drastically reduced by Reagan, a man who introduced financial scandals to the world.

And capital gains taxes max out at 15%, a rate lower than many of the middle class tax brackets. Now, last I checked, a significant majority of the super rich's (1m+) income are executives who get money through stock options, and thus only have to pay capital gains. For example, if an executive is paid 5m, often only about 300k of that is actually salary, and the rest is capital gains through preferred stock options, etc. He then pays 39% of 300k (and even that is a gross overestimate), which is 117k, and, maximum, 15% of 4.7m, which is 705k, for a total of 822k, an effective tax rate of...oh, 16.44%. Good times.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

Who making $100,000 a year can afford to send 3 kids to private school? The private high school I went to would amount to $45,000 a year for 3 kids.


He, like most professors at U of C, likely sends his kids to the U of Chicago Lab Schools, where tuition is about 23k a year per student.

http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/admission/tuition/index.aspx

This guy needs to cry me a river. He's like one of these people that refuse to pass the midway because they don't want to deal with the squalor and yet somehow think people have the responsibility to sustain their standard of living.

[Deathravin]

The article just says, "People live at the level they can afford".

I'm sorry he'll have to do his own housework, (heaven forbid) his own lawn, and even... God bless him, ease up on the extracurricular activity of his children...

Why doesn't he just have a full-time nanny so he can go out and enjoy life? Because he can't afford it under his current situation. Just as his current situation won't allow him to afford a Leno-esque car collection (or a fancy smancy lawyer to hide his money) or a private jet either.

He'll adjust his lifestyle to his new income just as he did his current income.

[Daniel]

I always thought of trickle down economics as the idea that if you leave a business or wealthy person with more money, they are more likely to invest it and grow their business or start new ones. I very rarely see someone that makes 50k do many of those things. Usually, they are just getting by.

Whereas the government taking it will just waste it on stupid things like they always do.

Also, frankly, as anyone knows. You tell a company they have to pay say $2 mill more in taxes that year, the company will consider that 2 mill an expense, and add it into the cost of doing business, thereby increasing the cost of the item/service they provide. Hence, tax on the consumers. Basically, we pay for all company taxes already. of course if company taxes were removed, I doubt the prices would fall dramatically, we already are willing to pay said price for the item, why change it?

The more I think about it, the more I feel that we are slowly working back towards a feudal system, and certainly a feudal tax system. Where the "rich" ( Nobility, merchants, and High end artisans ) Pay 90% of the taxes, and the "peasants" pay little to none. The lower class artisans paid some taxes, but the people that worked the fields generally paid nothing. Of course they also had nothing, but some could claim they have nothing now.

Dramatic much?

Oh, and you do realize that the Feudal system was not exactly a free ride for the peasants right?

[TheEschaton]

P.S. an oncologist at one of the best university medical systems in the world who doesn't make 250k on her own? A law professor at one of the best law schools in the world not adding significantly on top of that? I call bulllllllshit.

[Showal]

The article just says, "People live at the level they can afford".

I'm sorry he'll have to do his own housework, (heaven forbid) his own lawn, and even... God bless him, ease up on the extracurricular activity of his children...

Why doesn't he just have a full-time nanny so he can go out and enjoy life? Because he can't afford it under his current situation. Just as his current situation won't allow him to afford a Leno-esque car collection (or a fancy smancy lawyer to hide his money) or a private jet either.

He'll adjust his lifestyle to his new income just as he did his current income.

That's not the point. You can clearly see from his letter that he's just barely making ends meet. His house is probably so large that he NEEDS to hire a housekeeper to keep it clean just so he can work outside of the house. Without the housekeeper, he'd probably have to quit his job just to keep up with house maintenance. (that was sarcasm) So he'll take the only reasonable solution to any raise in taxes, sell his house and sell his cars.

I wish someone told this guy that if you live at the absolute edge of what you can afford, something's going to give if there's a slight disruption in the amount of money coming in. That's true if you make just slightly more than 250k a year or if you make 30k a year.

[Tgo01]

For anyone who is still interested I couldn't find the article I read recently that stated over 50% of Americans in 2009 had a zero tax liability or a negative tax liability, but I did find this for 2006:


During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

And this:


For the first time this year, we are also presenting data on the top 0.1% of tax returns (the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent). This 10 percent of the returns in the top 1 percent amounts to only 141,000 tax returns but accounts for nearly 12 percent of the adjusted gross income earned and approximately 20 percent of the nation's federal individual income taxes.

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $66,532) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $410,096) earned approximately 22.8 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid more in federal individual income taxes than the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

So the top .1% earn 12% of the nations income and pay 20% of the federal income taxes collected, the top 1% earn 22.8% of the nations income and pay 40.4% of the income taxes collected, the top 25% earn 68.7% of the nations income but pay 86.6% of the federal income taxes collected and 41% pay no income tax or actually make a profit off the tax system.

Of course to be fair this is just income tax, anyone with a job still has to pay medicare and social security taxes and let's not forget the whopping 18.4 cents per gallon the federal government makes taxing gasoline or things like that.

[Tgo01]

Yes it does. So which programs to cut? Or which programs can you say you want to cut that will lose you the least votes?


someone who isn't a child is now running the country and is going to do it fucking responsibly

A grown man is running the country and is going to do it fucking responsibly! As long as it doesn't cost him or his party votes.

[TheEschaton]

I'm sorry, he's done lots of things which are unpopular with his party constituents, and if you can't see that, you're not only blind, you're retarded.

[Tgo01]

I'm sorry, he's done lots of things which are unpopular with his party constituents, and if you can't see that, you're not only blind, you're retarded.

I'm sorry, did I say he didn't? I just found it funny Ryvicke claims Obama is somehow different because he's 'not a child' and will run things 'responsibly' yet at the end of the day he admits Obama is just like any other politician, worrying more about getting reelected than doing what's right.

[TheEschaton]

And getting re-elected hasn't been even near the forefront of anything he's done, rhetorically at least. I'm not sure it's even been part of his policy reality, though I suppose re-election could have swayed some of the (stupid, IMO) compromises he's made with a petulant opposition. He's passed unpopular agendas, supported unpopular policy positions, etc, etc, because he thought they were right.

-TheE-

[Tgo01]

And getting re-elected hasn't been even near the forefront of anything he's done, rhetorically at least.

Are you being serious?


I'm not sure it's even been part of his policy reality, though I suppose re-election could have swayed some of the (stupid, IMO) compromises he's made with a petulant opposition.

Yes.


He's passed unpopular agendas, supported unpopular policy positions, etc, etc, because he thought they were right.

He, like most Democrats who voted for the bailout and healthcare reform, thought that people would be in favor of these bills after they were passed and people could see the effects first hand. Unfortunately that backfired in both cases, and I was even in favor of the bailout.

[Daniel]

For anyone who is still interested I couldn't find the article I read recently that stated over 50% of Americans in 2009 had a zero tax liability or a negative tax liability, but I did find this for 2006:



http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

And this:



http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

So the top .1% earn 12% of the nations income and pay 20% of the federal income taxes collected, the top 1% earn 22.8% of the nations income and pay 40.4% of the income taxes collected, the top 25% earn 68.7% of the nations income but pay 86.6% of the federal income taxes collected and 41% pay no income tax or actually make a profit off the tax system.

Of course to be fair this is just income tax, anyone with a job still has to pay medicare and social security taxes and let's not forget the whopping 18.4 cents per gallon the federal government makes taxing gasoline or things like that.


So, wait. The people who earn 70% of the income in this country pay about 80% of the taxes. That's some grave injustice?

It's so unfair that those who benefit the most from American society and can easily afford a marginal decrease in disposable income have to front a bit more for the general well being of the country?

[Kranar]

What is a fair amount for the rich to pay?


An amount proportional to their wealth. If the top 7% own 80% of the capital in the country, then they should pay 80% of the income tax.

[Tgo01]

So, wait. The people who earn 70% of the income in this country pay about 80% of the taxes. That's some grave injustice?

I like your selective rounding skills. 68.7% turns into 70% and 86.6% turns into 80%. Basically the people who make 68.7% of the wealth in this country pay an extra 17.9% in taxes. Honestly to me that doesn't sound like a big deal, it sounds about fair actually. I think looking at how much these people make is what a lot of people forget to take into account when they say things like "the top 1% pay almost a quarter of the taxes in this country!" Yes but the top 1% also makes 12% of the money in this country.

Honestly though I see no reason why 50% of the people in this country pay no taxes or get a refund. I'm not saying they should be paying half their paycheck or anything stupid like that but the number of people who do not pay any income taxes has been steadily increasing for years now, we can't honestly expect less and less people to pay taxes and think the high end earners can continue to pick up the slack.

[Rinualdo]

Honestly though I see no reason why 50% of the people in this country pay no taxes or get a refund.

I really wish people would clarify statements like this.

That 50% includes a rather large percentage of teenagers or early 20-somethings, a good amount are in college, etc...
Also, its inaccurate to state they pay no taxes. They may not pay federal taxes, but unless they purchase no goods, they certainly pay taxes.

[Tgo01]

No one gets a refund for more then they paid.

Yes, yes they do. Ever heard of things like Earned Income Tax Credit?

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96406,00.html


The Earned Income Tax Credit or the EITC is a refundable federal income tax credit for low to moderate income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. When EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit.


Also, its inaccurate to state they pay no taxes. They may not pay federal taxes, but unless they purchase no goods, they certainly pay taxes.

I have specifically been referring to federal income taxes only when discussing this bit. Even the paragraph of the sentence you quoted of mine I specifically mentioned this was income tax I was referring to.

[Traelin]

If only there were a way to... research this 'fact' instead of just posting your opinion AS a fact. hmmm.

One day somebody will invent a system where we can do just that; with a minimum amount of effort, say 10 minutes...

Oh well, I'm going to base my opinion off of your facts because as we all know 99% of all statistics posted on forums is correct. I know because I said so and because I made a chart to back it up.
3107

... AROUND 70%... you've got to be fucking kidding me with this shit. Can't be bothered to LOOK for the answer to help with the discussion, lets just make it up based off my own flawed memory of something I read once and tweak it to fit my conclusions.

Are you a young earth creationist by any chance?

Um all of the data that I used was in a link that I posted, which is provided by the IRS. So I really don't see your argument?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls

Lines 154-174

[Tsa`ah]

....

Not to mention, who in the fuck lives in Hyde Park and sends their kids to a private school when nearly every public school in Hyde Park is on par, and in some cases better, than the private schools?

They don't do it for the "better" education, they do it for status. If status means that much to you ... take it up the ass and stfu. I don't really care to read some idiot crying about his poor financial decisions.


....

I can only imagine a juvenile oncologist at those facilities probably steps into their fellowship making significantly more than 250k ... I highly doubt it's much lower. A law professor, according to a 2009 SALT finding reports a median of 200k. The caliber required by UC isn't going to start below that.

This family makes between 450 -600k easy ... if the claims are true. The reason we know the entire post is complete bullshit (outside of the claims of positions, pay, and schools) is that he claims they don't make much over 250k while paying 100k in taxes (federal and state).

To have a tax liability of 100k in IL, one needs to earn around 350k. I'm sorry, 29% (100k) is significant ... not insignificant.

He makes the choice to hire a house keeper and lawn care. He made the choice to live in one of the most expensive areas of Chicago ... and he probably chooses to have a pair of luxury sedans while living within biking distance of either job, but not dropping a few hundred to a grand on an accountant. While living less than a block's walk away from a 7 minute bus ride or to just ride a bike. He could have decided on a home in Matteson for a third of the total expense and 10 minutes added on the metra commute.

The tax cuts are expiring, taxes aren't being raised ... and the increase isn't something that is going to harm those making 200-250k or more. My taxes are going to go up by 4.5% before deductions and whatever else my accountant can work with ... big fucking deal. I mowed my own lawn and cleaned my own house, tutored my kids, and pretty much lived on a 50k a year budget before I started crapping cash, nothing has changed since.

[Daniel]

Not to mention, who in the fuck lives in Hyde Park and sends their kids to a private school when nearly every public school in Hyde Park is on par, and in some cases better, than the private schools?

They don't do it for the "better" education, they do it for status. If status means that much to you ... take it up the ass and stfu. I don't really care to read some idiot crying about his poor financial decisions.


Eh....

Let's not get too carried away. There definitely are good public schools in Chicago, but Hyde Park and Kenwood aren't exactly in the same league as the Lab School. Apparently, some good charter schools have opened up in the area, but I really have no idea.

[Tsa`ah]

Eh....

Let's not get too carried away. There definitely are good public schools in Chicago, but Hyde Park and Kenwood aren't exactly in the same league as the Lab School. Apparently, some good charter schools have opened up in the area, but I really have no idea.

Well no school is going to be. It's a university run institution ... similar to Uni at UIUC (I just don't know if they've turned out two Nobel laureates). The point was that he attempted to use a broad brush on public education in Chicago to justify the "need" for private education ... when the area he lives in has some pretty damned good public schools. Well, at least the area he claims to live in.

[Daniel]

Well no school is going to be. It's a university run institution ... similar to Uni at UIUC (I just don't know if they've turned out two Nobel laureates). The point was that he attempted to use a broad brush on public education in Chicago to justify the "need" for private education ... when the area he lives in has some pretty damned good public schools. Well, at least the area he claims to live in.

Yea. I know. He's being a fucking tool. I went to those public schools. There's no reason why he can't get his kids a good education without going to Lab. His QQing because he has to balance his budget to give his kids a 100 yard head start on everyone else is absurd.

[Daniel]

I like your selective rounding skills. 68.7% turns into 70% and 86.6% turns into 80%. Basically the people who make 68.7% of the wealth in this country pay an extra 17.9% in taxes. Honestly to me that doesn't sound like a big deal, it sounds about fair actually. I think looking at how much these people make is what a lot of people forget to take into account when they say things like "the top 1% pay almost a quarter of the taxes in this country!" Yes but the top 1% also makes 12% of the money in this country.

Honestly though I see no reason why 50% of the people in this country pay no taxes or get a refund. I'm not saying they should be paying half their paycheck or anything stupid like that but the number of people who do not pay any income taxes has been steadily increasing for years now, we can't honestly expect less and less people to pay taxes and think the high end earners can continue to pick up the slack.

I was being lazy. The point is that you can't act like we're just raping and pillaging the rich people of this country. They aren't paying an exorbitant amount of taxes when comparing their wealth relative to the nation. This isn't anywhere close to socialism or wealth redistribution. It's people the who benefit from the system paying their dues to the system.

How about we throw up the demographics of those who serve in the Armed Forces and call it even.

[Tsa`ah]

It's kind of funny that taxes are the lowest they have been in decades and a top 4.5% reversion (and let's be honest, it's not like they're actually going to pay it) to pre-Bush era (when we had record economic growth) is suddenly "rape".

As Lincoln stated (in a nut shell), capitol is the result of labor ... not the other way around. Labor can exist without capitol ... capitol can't exist without labor.

We know low taxes for the rich creates nothing but more wealth for the rich. It certainly doesn't create jobs and it certainly doesn't benefit anyone but the rich. I've yet to read or hear a valid reason why the rich should get tax breaks that are detrimental to the national and state budgets ... while leaving the middle and lower classes to shoulder a disproportionate burden.

[Tgo01]

I was being lazy. The point is that you can't act like we're just raping and pillaging the rich people of this country. They aren't paying an exorbitant amount of taxes when comparing their wealth relative to the nation. This isn't anywhere close to socialism or wealth redistribution.

Isn't that exactly what wealth redistribution is? Rich paying more in taxes compared to their income and some of that money going towards helping the people at the bottom 50% who pay no income taxes? Social programs the rich never use such as food stamps, welfare, medicaid, low income housing assistance or social programs the rich do use but don't receive anywhere near the same benefit compared to how much they paid into it such as social security and medicare? Or those programs that the rich pay into but rarely use such as unemployment insurance?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a lot of social programs we have here in this country. But let's go ahead and call it what it is.

[Rinualdo]

"don't use" is a stupid argument. Should childless families not have to pay property taxes to fund their local schools?

I'm all for cutting spending; lets start with our single largest percentage.

[Tgo01]

"don't use" is a stupid argument. Should childless families not have to pay property taxes to fund their local schools?

'Don't use' and 'don't benefit from' are two totally different arguments. I have already made the same argument in regards to families with no children should still pay property taxes to fund public education.


I'm all for cutting spending; lets start with our single largest percentage.

Military spending or social security? They're both roughly the same.

[LMingrone]

Let us also not forget where these taxes are going, education or otherwise. Yeah, that kid behind the counter at the store your shopping at learned math somewhere. The stock boys learned to read somewhere, so your organic herbs are in the right place. The roads your driving on? Yeah, those aren't maintained by a scholar with a Masters in engineering. This guy is a douche. Don't pay your taxes. Just don't expect the peons to be there to do all the shit you use everyday.

[Rinualdo]

What is your argument about not benefiting then? You could certainly argue that all of society benefits from social programs, and further argue that social programs reduce crime and have a net impact on society, from both a moral and fiscal level.

Military. FY'09 had a 3% difference between SS and military budget, without including all the emergency expenditures for Iraq/Afghanistan.
Not to mention that SS is solvent.

[LMingrone]

What is your argument about not benefiting then? You could certainly argue that all of society benefits from social programs, and further argue that social programs reduce crime and have a net impact on society, from both a moral and fiscal level.

That's exactly what drives me nuts. I'm in no way for giving people who feed of the system a free ride with tax dollars. But at the same time, you have people who use that argument as a reason their taxes are too high. They never seem to realize the benefits that they, themselves, are getting because of it. Let's not fund schools, see how that effects these rich snobs.

Edit: Same reason why Communism is the perfect form of government....well if you didn't have the greedy vs. the lazy. Human nature and all that.

[LMingrone]

I'd also love to see when one of these people complaining about taxes has their personal chef start a kitchen fire in their mansion. I hope it goes something like this:

Mr. douche: "911! My house is on fire! Help!"
911: "Sorry sir. The guy making 25k a year down the street didn't pay his taxes. We don't have a fire department anymore, can't afford it."
Mr Douche: "But when he needed his son to get an education I gave a few bucks!"
911: "Then you complained that you weren't benefiting off the taxes you paid. I don't see his house burning. Guess you guys are even now. ::click::"

[Daniel]

Isn't that exactly what wealth redistribution is? Rich paying more in taxes compared to their income and some of that money going towards helping the people at the bottom 50% who pay no income taxes? Social programs the rich never use such as food stamps, welfare, medicaid, low income housing assistance or social programs the rich do use but don't receive anywhere near the same benefit compared to how much they paid into it such as social security and medicare? Or those programs that the rich pay into but rarely use such as unemployment insurance?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of a lot of social programs we have here in this country. But let's go ahead and call it what it is.

No. That's not wealth redistribution at all.

That's called paying higher taxes and contributing to society.

[Daniel]

You're all over the place. I never said the rich don't benefit from social programs, in fact I have made the exact opposite argument. You were the one who was equating the rich 'not using these social programs' to 'not benefiting from these social programs.' I was merely pointing out they are not the same thing which is why I am in favor of most social programs in the US, which I have already pointed out in a previous post.



That is not true. I think it's starting in 2011 or 2012 that payments will exceed tax revenue for social security and they figure the program will only remain solvent until 2035.

You conveniently miss the point that everyone contributes to society in some way. The rich pay more in taxes and don't get to utilize social welfare programs. So? They also get to enjoy more of the protection of services and benefits of being an American citizen and all that entails than poor people do. Meanwhile, the poor disproportionately serve in the military. Why should the rich get to enjoy the freedoms I fight for without doing their fair share?

That's, of course, an asinine argument. Everyone makes a contribution to society, some moreso than others, but we all get the benefit of being American. Suck it up.

[Clove]

The article just says, "People live at the level they can afford".

I'm sorry he'll have to do his own housework, (heaven forbid) his own lawn, and even... God bless him, ease up on the extracurricular activity of his children...This.

And I'm sorry if he's paying 100k in State and Federal taxes his GROSS family income is far more than 250k or he's stupidly not even bothering to look for deductions; even TurboTax could do a better job.

[LMingrone]

Maybe people like this should move to inner city Detroit. Maybe then they'd see that their taxes are going to keep their culdesacs looking nice with trees and nicely paved streets, low crime rates, and the hope that their kids can rides their bikes without the threat of being capped in the head.

[Daniel]

Maybe people like this should move to inner city Detroit. Maybe then they'd see that their taxes are going to keep their culdesacs looking nice with trees and nicely paved streets, low crime rates, and the hope that their kids can rides their bikes without the threat of being capped in the head.

If he seriously teaches at the U of Chicago then all he has to do is go four blocks south, something I'm sure he'll never do.

[Divinity]

(I'm assuming the family is fictitious, right? I didn't really care to check but the letter was too moronic to be from a lawyer with a Dr. wife and 2.5 kids or whatever).

I was reading an article that was a response to what this man wrote as a blog post. The blog post had some internet fame and was saved before the owner removed it from his blog because he was getting flamed for it.

ETA: I'll try to find the article.

[Divinity]

Here's the article that prompted me to find his blog post that was archived elsewhere.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110801/advice-for-the-poor-rich?mod=bb-budgeting

[AnticorRifling]

My 50s don't fit in my wallet and my diamond shoes are too tight, such problems I am to be having.

[NocturnalRob]

My 50s don't fit in my wallet and my diamond shoes are too tight, such problems I am to be having.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5aEGO1Ueyc

[AnticorRifling]

Can't see youtube at work. Fuck you Rob for rubbing it in my face.

[NocturnalRob]

Can't see youtube at work. Fuck you Rob for rubbing it in my face.
Don't blame me. Blame Lord T & Eloise.

[Latrinsorm]

I've a question.

What is a fair amount for the rich to pay?

The top 7% of people pay for 80% of the government.

What would be a fair level of the tax burden for them to shoulder? If you feel they are not paying their fair share, what do you think their fair share would be?

Consequently, today, almost 50% of people cover 0% of the tax burden. What do you think their fair share is?

Things to think about.Each side is about right. Little tweaks either way aren't a big deal, ethically.
Only partially related. If you believe in higher taxes (on anyone) you believe a government spending money can do so more efficiently and create more jobs than that same money being spent by people and businesses.

Even if you accept Obama's math, the Stimulus has spent hundredsof thousands of dollars per job. This is not efficiency.

So you have to ask yourself, who can get more value for their dollar? The person who earned the dollar, or a series of government bureaucrats working through committee?

Assuming, anyone, your goal is economic growth, and not forced equality.My goal is sustainable societal growth, because without society people die. Things to avoid, then, are revolutions, massacres, wars, autocracies, monopolies, etc.: these have been repeatedly demonstrated as Bad for all societies involved. There are sometimes things that are Worse, but they are very few and very far in between.

Specific to your question, the goal is not and has never been "efficiency". Many obvious examples are available to demonstrate this, but due to their inflammatory nature I will leave them to the reader. What private industry has demonstrated is that eventually someone will do everything to get more money. What government has demonstrated is that eventually they will stop the abhorrent parts of that everything from happening. Society doesn't need Rockefeller and his museums, society needs Truman and his integration, Eisenhower and his highways. Of course it is an inefficient process, we are all human beings and human beings are incredibly dumb.
Isn't that exactly what wealth redistribution is?Obviously, yes. (Sorry Daniel.) This is (part of) what makes all the "OBAMA IS COMMUNIST" people hilarious. America has been redistributing wealth for as long as America has been collecting progressive taxes.
My 50s don't fit in my wallet and my diamond shoes are too tight, such problems I am to be having.And you gave me heat about a measly tennis skirt?!? Which... I may or may not have been wearing?!?

[Daniel]

I say it's not wealth redistribution because it's not specifically being done to re-distribute wealth throughout the nation. Rather it's to close the fiscal deficit, which can be attributed to any number of expenditures.

Obviously it's a semantical game, but I'd rather not play into the emotion of a loaded term.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

One thing I think is, and should be, true; The more wealthy you are, the more you should pay in taxes. What's the right amount for a given person? I don't know, and I'm sure everyone has their own version that's "right".

It's the way tax money is spent is where I have issue, not that the wealthy pay more.

[Parkbandit]

One thing I think is, and should be, true; The more wealthy you are, the more you should pay in taxes. What's the right amount for a given person? I don't know, and I'm sure everyone has their own version that's "right".

It's the way tax money is spent is where I have issue, not that the wealthy pay more.

I have no problem with that.

My issue is the way tax money is spent and never having enough so they have to raise taxes, fees, etc... to get it.

[Methais]

So, making 50k a year qualifies me as...?

In Livingson Parish, it probably makes you rich.

[Rocktar]

I say it's not wealth redistribution because it's not specifically being done to re-distribute wealth throughout the nation.



And you prove yet again that you are simply a moron and too stupid to be allowed to operate anything more complex or dangerous than a piece of chewing gum. The income tax structure of this country has been, since it's inception, all about wealth redistribution in the pursuit of "fairness" and "equality" because some people can't stand the idea that there are people out there that won't do anything beyond feed themselves unless forced. They believe that it is somehow unfair that there are those that have no ambition, no drive and take no personal responsibility in their life and they will live their life that way while blaming others and crying a sob story.

[Bobmuhthol]

Please stop making things up. The income tax not only was not created for wealth redistribution, but it never has been used that way in the history of this country.

[Tgo01]

The income tax structure of this country has been, since it's inception, all about wealth redistribution in the pursuit of "fairness" and "equality"

That's pretty amazing considering the current income tax structure was introduced in 1919 and the first social programs weren't enacted until the 1930's.

[Rocktar]

Please stop making things up. The income tax not only was not created for wealth redistribution, but it never has been used that way in the history of this country.

Were you born this stupid or did something happen to you along the way?

Personal income tax has always been about wealth redistribution. You can suck up any drivel you want about "why" it was created and delude yourself about how it is and has been used but that won't change the fact that it is, has and always will be about taking personal wealth from those that have it to provide support and services for those that don't. Just because your lovely texts on economics don't specifically say so, doesn't mean it isn't true.

And the first social welfare programs in the US started in the 1800's, thanks.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/

[Paradii]

Rocktar, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, you are still a little fucking bitch.

[radamanthys]

Actually, the first income tax (3%>$800,5%>$3000, or something close I think) was enacted to pay for the Civil War. The sixteenth came later.

You're correct though, it's setup to fund the operation of the government. The government's only function, really, is to redistribute wealth taken in (they set limits on what people can do and then fund the enforcement of those provisions). However, not all of that wealth goes to those who don't have it- some of it is spent on everyone equally. Wealth is redistributed, for example, to soldiers and contractors to help provide for the common defense.

[Tgo01]

And the first social welfare programs in the US started in the 1800's, thanks.

Did you make sure to read those links of yours? Even going by your links welfare has been around since the original 13 colonies and income tax was first created in 1862 to help pay for the civil war and was done away with 6 years later in 1868. As I said before our current income tax structure was not created until 1913 and the real social services we see here in America today were not created until the 1930's.

Again going by your links the early welfare system here in America focused on assisting the people who are unable to work with money and other assistance while those who were able to work yet were unemployed were put to work. That is nothing like the welfare we see here in America today.

Sorry, but your own links kind of poke a lot of holes in your theory.

[Back]

Rocktar, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, you are still a little fucking bitch.

This is classic PC arguing 101. Well done.

[Rocktar]

Did you make sure to read those links of yours? Even going by your links welfare has been around since the original 13 colonies and income tax was first created in 1862 to help pay for the civil war and was done away with 6 years later in 1868. As I said before our current income tax structure was not created until 1913 and the real social services we see here in America today were not created until the 1930's.

Again going by your links the early welfare system here in America focused on assisting the people who are unable to work with money and other assistance while those who were able to work yet were unemployed were put to work. That is nothing like the welfare we see here in America today.

Sorry, but your own links kind of poke a lot of holes in your theory.

Continue to discount what doesn't agree with your concept, it works for you, unfortunately, reality doesn't agree.

[Tgo01]

Continue to discount what doesn't agree with your concept, it works for you, unfortunately, reality doesn't agree.

Darn that reality! It never agrees with me!

[Daniel]

Actually, the first income tax (3%>$800,5%>$3000, or something close I think) was enacted to pay for the Civil War. The sixteenth came later.

You're correct though, it's setup to fund the operation of the government. The government's only function, really, is to redistribute wealth taken in (they set limits on what people can do and then fund the enforcement of those provisions)

That's a pretty loose (and questionable) usage of the word redistribution.

I'd suggest referencing the constitution for other roles of the government.

[Daniel]

And you prove yet again that you are simply a moron and too stupid to be allowed to operate anything more complex or dangerous than a piece of chewing gum. The income tax structure of this country has been, since it's inception, all about wealth redistribution in the pursuit of "fairness" and "equality" because some people can't stand the idea that there are people out there that won't do anything beyond feed themselves unless forced. They believe that it is somehow unfair that there are those that have no ambition, no drive and take no personal responsibility in their life and they will live their life that way while blaming others and crying a sob story.

Lol.

[Paradii]

This is classic PC arguing 101. Well done.

In order to argue there must be an alternative viewpoint.

There is not, I am clearly stating a self evident truth.

[AnticorRifling]

Did we determine how much our taxes weigh in stone? If I was going to open the distance to twelve feet between myself and an H&R Block would I yield a higher(hell let's stack that paper and measure it in horts) return?

[Keller]

Continue to discount what doesn't agree with your concept, it works for you, unfortunately, reality doesn't agree.

Have you ever read the legislative history to the '13 act? It's about 17 pages, I can provide it to you if you'd like. Then you'd understand reality.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Did we determine how much our taxes weigh in stone? If I was going to open the distance to twelve feet between myself and an H&R Block would I yield a higher(hell let's stack that paper and measure it in horts) return?

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/8083/lolgortaxes.jpg

[Rocktar]

Have you ever read the legislative history to the '13 act? It's about 17 pages, I can provide it to you if you'd like. Then you'd understand reality.

Beings that you are a lawyer and all, you propose that just because something is written that it is 100% factual, honest and clear? The history and arguments presented in public and the public record of many pieces of legislation tell great stories when in fact, the truth behind the matter is far different. A modern example could be health care legislation. It sounds great in theory, all well meaning, warm and fuzzy until you actually read it and watch what the over all flow of it does. It was written to sound good, cover a metric shit ton of pork, raise taxes onerously and to facilitate the government take over of 1/6th of the economy. It is about power, control and money and nothing more. If it actually helps anyone at any time, it will be purely incidental to the real purpose of the legislation as written.

Personal income taxes have always been used as a means of wealth redistribution and control. In the middle ages, it was used to keep the poor under control and weaken the rising guilds and tradesmen, in modern times it has been used to take from those that produce to support a growing class of those that don't. Personal income has been used for social engineering (marriage tax breaks and rights) and it has been used to unfairly manipulate the economy of the people in an onerous way under the guise of "making the rich pay their fair share." The problem is, the "rich" is us working folks and we pay way more than our "fair share" and are now paying everyone else's share too.

We are at the limit of the economy on tax burden and debt as well as supporting non-productive dead weight. We cannot continue and no rational economist can effectively argue that we can continue to support the growing debt. It has been proven many times in history that lowering taxes increases revenue by building economic activity. Taxing the "rich" is counter productive and flat out destructive. It is time we made real strides to reduce the level of social welfare provided and force a transition of people into the work force along with forcing out illegal competition in that same workforce.

[Keller]

Next time, save us the time and just post

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll135/1segasonic12/DogPoop102.jpg

[Cephalopod]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Real-vs.-Imagined-Wealth-Distribution-in-the-U.S-1.jpeg

[Jarvan]

The whole tax issue is rather stupid in a sense. It comes down to a matter of only a few points.

Should the Government decide what to do with my money, or me.

Should the Government take care of people that can't take care of themselves, or should charities do this.

If the Government spent less, does that mean it can tax less?

Most people that want the rich to pay more in taxes generally refer to the moral issue that they should, since they have more. The people they refer to, also tend to be the largest funders of charities, granted, they may do this for the tax breaks, but even without the breaks, a large portion of them still would.

Most people that bash the rich, are just pissed they are not one of them.

And remember, even with a flat tax, the "rich" are still paying more then the middle class. The real reason taxes are even progressive is due to the fact that The Government wants more money, and they have to get it from somewhere. It's easier to piss off a few people, then allot of people. Especially when you can easily get the masses to follow you like sheep.

As for taxing the rich more to pay off the deficit, how about spending less to pay it off instead? Funny thing is, the 10 year cost of all the bush tax cuts is 4.4 trillion. The top 2% cost is 700 billion. In that case, if the deficit was your concern, you shouldn't extend any tax cuts.

P.S. I am not the "super Rich" But I wouldn't mind being one, someday. How many of you that think the rich should pay even more in taxes then they do now, would still feel that way if you were suddenly in this group? or would you try to find ways to hide your money from the IRS?

[Keller]

. The real reason taxes are even progressive is due to the fact that The Government wants more money

Or the marginal utility of money.

Taxes should be an equal burden, not an equal amount.

[Jarvan]

Or the marginal utility of money.

Taxes should be an equal burden, not an equal amount.

25% flat rate would be an equal burden really. An equal amount is everyone pays 2500$.

Also, just like to point out, Obama's newest school plan of longer year, and more money for teachers means one thing, Higher taxes. Unless he plans to cut spending somewhere else, which so far he has shown no interest in doing. heck, remember when he said he would veto any bill in it sent to him that had pork? And then every bill that came to him with pork, which normally is every bill, or at least every spending bill. he claimed it wasn't pork, or it was from Bush's time in office so didn't count?

Simple, Taxes suck but are needed, paying more in taxes suck, period. No matter what claims or assurances the government gives about higher taxes only going to pay off the debt or deficit, it never happens.

[Keller]

25% flat rate would be an equal burden really. An equal amount is everyone pays 2500$.

Also, just like to point out, Obama's newest school plan of longer year, and more money for teachers means one thing, Higher taxes. Unless he plans to cut spending somewhere else, which so far he has shown no interest in doing. heck, remember when he said he would veto any bill in it sent to him that had pork? And then every bill that came to him with pork, which normally is every bill, or at least every spending bill. he claimed it wasn't pork, or it was from Bush's time in office so didn't count?

Simple, Taxes suck but are needed, paying more in taxes suck, period. No matter what claims or assurances the government gives about higher taxes only going to pay off the debt or deficit, it never happens.

The burden is measured in utility, not in dollars. Dollars are an imprecise measure of burden.

[Rocktar]

Or the marginal utility of money.

Taxes should be an equal burden, not an equal amount.

Why? Especially when given the fact that on average, lower income non-tax payers benefit much more from government tax money than rich tax payers given equal utility of things like roads, fire trucks and border patrols, though piss poor border patrols really hurts the poor far more than the rich.

[Showal]

Why? Especially when given the fact that on average, lower income non-tax payers benefit much more from government tax money than rich tax payers given equal utility of things like roads, fire trucks and border patrols, though piss poor border patrols really hurts the poor far more than the rich.

Isolate one person responsible for this injustice and cut out their tongue.

[Keller]

Why? Especially when given the fact that on average, lower income non-tax payers benefit much more from government tax money than rich tax payers given equal utility of things like roads, fire trucks and border patrols, though piss poor border patrols really hurts the poor far more than the rich.

It is a chicken/egg question. Without security, roads, and national defense, our economy (and the ability to employ workers) would not be the size it is. That would have two consequences - poor people would not have jobs and rich people would not have employees/consumers.

I think a better example of equal utility would have been health care.

[Bobmuhthol]

Rocktar doesn't understand what utility is.

WAIT HOLD ON A SECOND DID ROCKTAR JUST USE PUBLIC GOODS AS A REASON WHY TAXES SHOULD NOT BE PROGRESSIVE? WHAT THE FUCK?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Isolate one person responsible for this injustice and cut out their tongue.

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/9181/lolgortothecage.jpg

[AnticorRifling]

I love everything you stand for.

[Jarvan]

The burden is measured in utility, not in dollars. Dollars are an imprecise measure of burden.

So those that get more from the government should give more?

Well, that would be the poor, so the poor should pay more of the burden, since they get more from the government to begin with. Yep, that clears it up.

Healthcare would not have been a good example of it if we had a single payer system, due to the fact that the rich would still be able to pay out of pocket for services that were not covered.

[Daniel]

So those that get more from the government should give more?

Well, that would be the poor, so the poor should pay more of the burden, since they get more from the government to begin with. Yep, that clears it up.

.


You figure this how?

[AnticorRifling]

AFK rubbing my car down with fresh hundred dollar bills.

[Bobmuhthol]

So those that get more from the government should give more?

Well, that would be the poor, so the poor should pay more of the burden, since they get more from the government to begin with. Yep, that clears it up.

I hope Keller doesn't mind that I am speaking for him but he never made that argument ever. What you said is not even close to being related.

[Bobmuhthol]

Why am I even talking to someone who said flat taxes provided equal burden?

[Latrinsorm]

Most people that bash the rich, are just pissed they are not one of them. ... The real reason taxes are even progressive is due to the fact that The Government wants more money, and they have to get it from somewhere. It's easier to piss off a few people, then allot of people. Especially when you can easily get the masses to follow you like sheep. ... How many of you that think the rich should pay even more in taxes then they do now, would still feel that way if you were suddenly in this group? or would you try to find ways to hide your money from the IRS?Does it bother you that the only counterpoint you can make is to malign the character of people who disagree with you?
Personal income taxes have always been used as a means of wealth redistribution and control. In the middle ages, it was used to keep the poor under control and weaken the rising guilds and tradesmen, in modern times it has been used to take from those that produce to support a growing class of those that don't.Can you cite any specific cases (as in country/region and date) of personal income taxes in the Middle Ages?
Personal income has been used for social engineering (marriage tax breaks and rights) and it has been used to unfairly manipulate the economy of the people in an onerous way under the guise of "making the rich pay their fair share." The problem is, the "rich" is us working folks and we pay way more than our "fair share" and are now paying everyone else's share too.This is confusing, as it has been pointed out in this very thread that around 50% of people who are eligible to don't pay income taxes at all. Even if we assume that every person who is unemployed is in that group, that leaves around 40% of "working folks" who don't pay a nickel. Does this make you reconsider your assertions?

[Jarvan]

Does it bother you that the only counterpoint you can make is to malign the character of people who disagree with you?

I made a number of counter points, you simply looked at one thing and came to a conclusion. Which speaks for itself.

[Keller]

So those that get more from the government should give more?

I take it you don't understand what I mean by "the marginal utility of money" and "utility"?

[Keller]

I hope Keller doesn't mind that I am speaking for him but he never made that argument ever. What you said is not even close to being related.

I don't mind. His point was out of the blue. I think he's not tracking the conversation. Either that or he's being intentionally obtuse.

[Jarvan]

I hope Keller doesn't mind that I am speaking for him but he never made that argument ever. What you said is not even close to being related.

Actually.. he said..


Or the marginal utility of money.

Taxes should be an equal burden, not an equal amount.

and then..

The burden is measured in utility, not in dollars. Dollars are an imprecise measure of burden.

I replied that if we pay taxes based on the burden or utility we use, then the poor would have to pay more. Public services like roads, bridges, and such are equally used by all. The truly rich most likely don't send their kids to public school, or receive welfare, medicare, medicaid, or foodstamps to name a few. In this case, tell me what services the rich receive that the poor or middle class don't? Or if I am misunderstanding what he is saying, then please feel free to explain it better.

As to a flat tax rate, tell me how that would not be fair? If I make a million a year, and I pay 25% I pay 250k. If you make 50k a year you pay 12,500. I am still paying a larger portion of the taxes, and I would still be getting a smaller portion of the government services as your likely to receive allot more in aid from the government, in most cases, allot more then the 12,500 you would have paid in.

[Latrinsorm]

I made a number of counter points, you simply looked at one thing and came to a conclusion. Which speaks for itself.Apparently I should have clarified: does it bother you that the only counterpoint you can make that is not immediately and trivially demonstrated as false by basic economics is to malign the character of people who disagree with you?

[Tgo01]

The truly rich most likely don't send their kids to public school, or receive welfare, medicare, medicaid, or foodstamps to name a few. In this case, tell me what services the rich receive that the poor or middle class don't?

I think it's pretty naive to think the rich don't benefit from things such as public schools, welfare, medicare and etc.

[Bobmuhthol]

Yeah it's okay, Jarvan and Rocktar both just don't understand utility.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

P.S. I am not the "super Rich" But I wouldn't mind being one, someday. How many of you that think the rich should pay even more in taxes then they do now, would still feel that way if you were suddenly in this group? or would you try to find ways to hide your money from the IRS?

I am part of a DINK household. I don't make the majority of it, but we bring in close to 250k and by the time I graduate, we will definitely be over.

Perhaps it's because I'm a liberal, perhaps it's because I live in a liberal area, perhaps it's because we've never owed come April 15 and always get money back (we both have the maximum withheld from our checks) but I have always viewed paying taxes as my social responsibility. Do we do what we can to get the maximum refund back? Absolutely, but we don't evade the IRS or avoid paying our share.

I'll never forget what it felt like to be financially fucked over by Bank of America as a struggling 19 year old, or to live off of buttered noodles for two weeks because of a stupid bill-paying error made during a particularly lean year. I'll always be thankful that I went to an excellent public school, and have had health insurance even when I was unemployed. I'll also always remember that I came from a family that went from well-off to being dirt poor in a matter of years and while quite a large part of our current good fortune is from good decisions and skills, there is DEFINITELY a luck/randomness factor involved too.

Beyond that, whether I directly utilize the services I am paying into by paying my taxes or not is irrelevant to me. As Donne put it, no man is an island. I feel like I still benefit from what I pay out, even if it's not something immediate.

And this is my disclaimer that all of the above is just my opinion. I'm sure some people at or approaching the 250k mark are pissed and feel differently.

[TheEschaton]

My family is well above 250k as well, and my dad doesn't mind paying more taxes at all, because he sold peanuts on the streets of New Delhi for most of his childhood, and relied on the goodwill of others to get his education, his student, and consequently work, visa, etc, etc.

If I ever make more than 250k (doubtful) I'll a) have sold out my principles to work in the private sector, and b) gladly pay the "extra" 3% for social services, even if I never use them once.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

I am part of a DINK household. I don't make the majority of it, but we bring in close to 250k and by the time I graduate, we will definitely be over.

There's no such thing as "definitely" in that context.



Perhaps it's because I'm a liberal, perhaps it's because I live in a liberal area, perhaps it's because we've never owed come April 15 and always get money back (we both have the maximum withheld from our checks) but I have always viewed paying taxes as my social responsibility. Do we do what we can to get the maximum refund back? Absolutely, but we don't evade the IRS or avoid paying our share.

You are not only doing your "social responsibility".. but you are also doing your "civil responsibility" to lend the US Government money tax free throughout the year.

You are truly "patriotic".



I'll never forget what it felt like to be financially fucked over by Bank of America as a struggling 19 year old, or to live off of buttered noodles for two weeks because of a stupid bill-paying error made during a particularly lean year. I'll always be thankful that I went to an excellent public school, and have had health insurance even when I was unemployed. I'll also always remember that I came from a family that went from well-off to being dirt poor in a matter of years and while quite a large part of our current good fortune is from good decisions and skills, there is DEFINITELY a luck/randomness factor involved too.

Luck and randomness takes a huge back seat to motivation, goals and drive.



Beyond that, whether I directly utilize the services I am paying into by paying my taxes or not is irrelevant to me. As Donne put it, no man is an island. I feel like I still benefit from what I pay out, even if it's not something immediate.

And this is my disclaimer that all of the above is just my opinion. I'm sure some people at or approaching the 250k mark are pissed and feel differently.

To believe this would require you to believe that the US Government is a thrifty entity that spends your "donations" wisely and doesn't waste a cent.

Truth is, you are far better at deciding how your money is spent on helping people than the US Government is.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

There's no such thing as "definitely" in that context.

Barring Mike losing his job (not likely) or dying in a freak accident, we'll be over the threshold come January. But, there is always a chance that something can/will happen and we'll be in the poorhouse.. in which case, thank god for MassHealth, food stamps, and housing vouchers!




You are not only doing your "social responsibility".. but you are also doing your "civil responsibility" to lend the US Government money tax free throughout the year.

You are truly "patriotic".
I'm not sure why you're trying to be snarky here besides that you don't share my personal beliefs.

No one is required to withhold the maximum from their paychecks. We choose to for a lot of reasons, most of them related to convenience and budgeting purposes. In exchange for this, the government gets to be the keepers of a small forced no-interest savings. We're okay with that.




Luck and randomness takes a huge back seat to motivation, goals and drive.

Indeed, merit is the driving force, which is why I explicitly stated so. I'm not being disingenuous by also stating, however, that randomness does play it's part, whether we like it or not. It doesn't mean we don't deserve what we have and have not earned it, but it does keep us humble and thankful for the opportunities we've been provided that allowed us to achieve the income we do.




To believe this would require you to believe that the US Government is a thrifty entity that spends your "donations" wisely and doesn't waste a cent.

Truth is, you are far better at deciding how your money is spent on helping people than the US Government is.

I would only have to believe this if I saw the world in black and white. I do not, and like most things, I see Government spending in shades of grey. I'm pleased with how my local taxes are spent and while Federal spending has a long way to go, I do feel we're starting to move in the right direction.

Is the Government ever wasteful? Yes. Does the Government ever spend money on things I don't agree with? Yes. But that doesn't negate the value I personally see in many of the things it also spends on.

Again, I get that not everyone shares my views and that's perfectly fine. I personally have no problem paying higher taxes instead of donating to charities.

[Rocktar]

It is a chicken/egg question. Without security, roads, and national defense, our economy (and the ability to employ workers) would not be the size it is. That would have two consequences - poor people would not have jobs and rich people would not have employees/consumers.

I think a better example of equal utility would have been health care.

Still not addressing the question.

[Rocktar]

Rocktar doesn't understand what utility is.

WAIT HOLD ON A SECOND DID ROCKTAR JUST USE PUBLIC GOODS AS A REASON WHY TAXES SHOULD NOT BE PROGRESSIVE? WHAT THE FUCK?

Shut up retard, you haven't added anything to a discussion in weeks other than taking up space.

The lovely progressive utility argument is simply tired and old and does not hold up to simple scrutiny. People that gain the most utility from personal income tax money (the poor) pay the least tax money in(zero). I haven't taken the time to look up the latest numbers but last time I looked just over 40% of the legal people in this country don't pay any personal income tax. Of those lower income 40%, they consume the massive majority of public services and welfare. How does the utility of those dollars they DON'T pay equal the utility of the dollars they receive? Simple, it doesn't, so, you end up with a large mass of unproductive people taking money from those that are, this is wealth redistribution at it's simplest. Even you can understand this, I think, I could be wrong.

[Rocktar]

I think it's pretty naive to think the rich don't benefit from things such as public schools, welfare, medicare and etc.

I know it is naive to think the value the rich get out of roads, schools, welfare, medicare and other social programs is anywhere near the value that the poor do, both in money and marginal utility.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I know it is naive to think the value the rich get out of roads, schools, welfare, medicare and other social programs is anywhere near the value that the poor do, both in money and marginal utility.

Roads? Really?

[AnticorRifling]

Roads? Really?

Fuck roads, I float on a pile of money.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Fuck roads, I float on a pile of money.

True, I have a palanquin and a space shuttle to get me around.

[Cephalopod]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/7/30/roadswherewe128619495250955812.jpg

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

ALL THE COOL KIDS ARE DOING IT.

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5482/hoverdogs.jpg

[Cephalopod]

This thread is now about flying wiener dogs.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3108/2768797782_acb8ae4919.jpg

[Bobmuhthol]

<<People that gain the most utility from personal income tax money (the poor) pay the least tax money in(zero).>>

That's not the point. The people whose marginal utility for one more dollar is the lowest (the rich) are able to pay the most in taxes (almost 100% of every dollar above the money they already have). The goal of a society is to MAXIMIZE UTILITY and you literally just made the argument that maximizing utility is bad because poor people don't deserve to be happy.

[Keller]

I would say, "a goal of society" or "I view the goal of society as". I don't think it's fair to say that is THE goal of society.

[Bobmuhthol]

I also said a society, not our society.

I'll go one step further: THE goal of any rational society is to maximize utility.

[Keller]

I also said a society, not our society.

I'll go one step further: THE goal of any rational society is to maximize utility.

I missed the "a".

And I agree with the new version, but I would probably write, "the goal of a rational society should be to maximize utility." Should gives you a little subjectivity that makes the sentence that much more true.

[Kuyuk]

My idea regarding the goal of society is to keep the internets filled with ladies who do naughty things for money. Or for free.

But if they do it for free, it doesn't help society because they dont pay tax on it.

[Keller]

My idea regarding the goal of society is to keep the internets filled with ladies who do naughty things for money. Or for free.

Tons of utility there.

[ElvenFury]

My idea regarding the goal of society is to keep the internets filled with ladies who do naughty things for money. Or for free.
They do that stuff in the real world too, in case you've forgotten. :hump:

[Valthissa]

Utilitarianism has been around in economic theory for a couple hundred years. I read 'On Liberty' sometime in my last two years of college.

I think John Stuart Mill would be for a flat tax.

C/Valth

[waywardgs]

Utilitarianism has been around in economic theory for a couple hundred years. I read 'On Liberty' sometime in my last two years of college.

I think John Stuart Mill would be for a flat tax.

C/Valth

And slavery. Enslaving 10% of the population benefits the next 90, thus maximizing utility. yay.

[Kuyuk]

They do that stuff in the real world too, in case you've forgotten. :hump:



Lies.

Besides, I'm still bitter.

Easier and cheaper to get my kicks watching it for free.


Besides, Allereli refuses to come to atlanta.

I BOUGHT THESE ROOFIES FOR NOTHING!!!!
http://www.bloggers.it/raffaelecamilletti/itcommenti/nooo.jpg

[LMingrone]

I'd also say, that a good % of "Gen Y" had parents that helped them pay their university debt. Think about someone that doesn't have that luxury. I'll use myself as an example, although I don't really exactly fit that situation.

I have friends that work, and strive to learn just as hard as I do. My parents were beyond rich (millions) when I entered higher education....I was a smart but stupid 18 year old and they convinced me to go to the most expensive school I could get into. "Hey, go for a triple major son!". Worked two jobs on top of doing CS, Ec, and Physics work. Three years later, after seeing that I owe $200k (My University was $48,000 a year) I had to drop out. Doesn't really matter now, as I'm liquid now.

Point is, imagine haveing no one but rich, self-entitled twenty-somethings running things. They have no grasp on reality. I was unemployed for a while before starting my own businesses, and didn't complain. I walked on the beaches, and played sports on the land my taxes payed for while I was out of work.

I really don't even know what my point is. Pay your taxes or don't. Don't complain.

Think about the people that don't have this opportunity.

[Tgo01]

I really don't even know what my point is. Pay your taxes or don't. Don't complain.

I think those who pay their taxes have the most right of all to complain. Sounds kind of silly to expect people to pay taxes and also expect them to never complain about how much they pay or how their tax dollars are being spent.

[LMingrone]

Maybe I was a little wrong when I said that, as It wasn't really what I meant. Too much hyperbole. Complaining is alright. I didn't mean it against the normal public, but against people that don't realize that they are benefiting from their tax dollars. Everyone has the right to defend their made money.

[Back]

Hey if you aren’t a millionaire you are worthless scum and don’t deserve shit.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'd also say, that a good % of "Gen Y" had parents that helped them pay their university debt. Think about someone that doesn't have that luxury. I'll use myself as an example, although I don't really exactly fit that situation.

I have friends that work, and strive to learn just as hard as I do. My parents were beyond rich (millions) when I entered higher education....I was a smart but stupid 18 year old and they convinced me to go to the most expensive school I could get into. "Hey, go for a triple major son!". Worked two jobs on top of doing CS, Ec, and Physics work. Three years later, after seeing that I owe $200k (My University was $48,000 a year) I had to drop out. Doesn't really matter now, as I'm liquid now.

Point is, imagine haveing no one but rich, self-entitled twenty-somethings running things. They have no grasp on reality. I was unemployed for a while before starting my own businesses, and didn't complain. I walked on the beaches, and played sports on the land my taxes payed for while I was out of work.

I really don't even know what my point is. Pay your taxes or don't. Don't complain.

Think about the people that don't have this opportunity.
This is a huge load of bullshit.

Sorry but most of Gen Y were raised by parents who told them "Go to college, it means you'll make money and be comfortable and won't have to struggle as much!".... then everyone went to college, and now a bachelors isn't really as big of a deal as our parents made it seem. I can't blame anyone for feeling at the least kind of resentful for being fed what turned out to be a lie.

And while a lot of people have parents who try to help out how they can, I'm yet to meet or know many people who had their entire way paid for them. Gen Y is bearing the brunt of the unemployment- they are graduating on the heels of recession when people are retiring a lot later and jobs are scarce and their bachelors means shit next to someone with a bachelors and 10 years of experience. Meanwhile, they now have to pay off that bachelors/Sallie Mae. Gen Y is the first generation in a CENTURY geared up to end up less financially successful than their parents. Is Gen Y perfect? No, but I'm sick and tired of Gen Y being demonized.

[LMingrone]

.

That was my point. I'm not crying that my parents didn't throw money at me. I was just saying that they're people that don't even have that. I might have been a little vague, but what you said is exactly what I was trying to say.

Edit: I am Gen Y. I was making the point that Gen X thinks, in most cases, that Y has as much opportunity as they had. Which is obviously not true. I guess we're arguing the same point.

[Rocktar]

This is a huge load of bullshit.
Gen Y is the first generation in a CENTURY geared up to end up less financially successful than their parents. Is Gen Y perfect? No, but I'm sick and tired of Gen Y being demonized.

Wrong. Generation X, that's me and my generation are the first generation in the history of the US and pretty much the world to have a lower standard of living and employment than our parents. Now, consider that we were born at the end of the 60's and the rise of the welfare class along with this punishing tax system and rewarding unproductive people that make babies and you just might have a coincidence. I don't think so, but a hell of a lot of people pass it off that way. OH, and a major ass load of people that I work with are your age and even though they get a bonus in CASH every paycheck for good work attendance, the number one reason for termination is poor attendance. A great many in your generation have even less work ethic than mine (hard to believe considering how lazy many of my peers are) and in general the entitlement mentality built on top of the lazy couch potato mentality is a central factor in fucking things up.

After all, I think you even said you were too good to work the jobs I have worked to keep from sucking at the public tit of welfare. Education is not a guarantee of success and wealth, it is simply a building block, you still have to get off your ass and work long and hard to become wealthy. Ask any self made millionaire how many 40 hour weeks they worked in the first 20 years of their working life and I bet you will find it less than 5% and likely it is closer to 1% or even less. And yes Bob and others, even if you do have all those great people skills and education you must still get off your ass and work long and hard to rise above mediocre.

[Paradii]

It takes a lot of time and energy to get a full stable of hypo-bondage lactation slaves. Learn from the Professor, you lazy peons!

[Showal]

and before anyone knew what was happening, rocktar opened the distance between him and bob to 12 feet! What is your next move, Bob?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Wrong. Generation X, that's me and my generation are the first generation in the history of the US and pretty much the world to have a lower standard of living and employment than our parents.

Proof/source, please. Every article/statistic sheet I've read about Gen Y points to them, not Gen X on this point.


OH, and a major ass load of people that I work with are your age and even though they get a bonus in CASH every paycheck for good work attendance, the number one reason for termination is poor attendance. A great many in your generation have even less work ethic than mine (hard to believe considering how lazy many of my peers are) and in general the entitlement mentality built on top of the lazy couch potato mentality is a central factor in fucking things up.

Again, this is misguided and founded mostly on the whole 'omg the new generation is ruining everything!' mindset. Everything I've read about Gen Y as a generation points to a focus on/desire for teamwork, efficiency, merit-based (not seniority based) praise, mentorship, and work-life balance. When you come from a generation that may not idealize those things it's easy to see it come off as entitlement, but it's more just a shift in ideals.


After all, I think you even said you were too good to work the jobs I have worked to keep from sucking at the public tit of welfare.
I've never said anything like that. I've also never worked a shit job (and I have worked plenty) and then mocked people who were more successful/working a better job, which is something YOU have definitely done.


And yes Bob and others, even if you do have all those great people skills and education you must still get off your ass and work long and hard to rise above mediocre.
It's statements like this that give me the impression that "work long and hard" = "do a bunch of stuff you hate and don't like to do." You don't win a special award for being miserable in your career (or lack thereof), even if you're doing it for money.

[Showal]

OH, and a major ass load of people that I work with are your age and even though they get a bonus in CASH every paycheck for good work attendance, the number one reason for termination is poor attendance.

What kind of place did you work at that they gave a bonus in CASH every paycheck for good work attendance? Were you in summer school? Isn't the fact that you show up and they pay you to be there and work (in CASH) the whole point of the employer/employee relationship? They should have just put a reminder in their paycheck and a sign on the door that just said "You don't work, we don't pay."

[Paradii]

I've only had one job where a cash bonus was given if "everyone" showed up on time each pay period. And that was a liftie at a ski resort. I am pretty sure those bonuses only go to shitty jobs where you are getting paid so little that it's almost worth it to sleep in and get fired.

[Tgo01]

What kind of place did you work at that they gave a bonus in CASH every paycheck for good work attendance? Were you in summer school? Isn't the fact that you show up and they pay you to be there and work (in CASH) the whole point of the employer/employee relationship? They should have just put a reminder in their paycheck and a sign on the door that just said "You don't work, we don't pay."

There are quite a few places that give you a bonus for being on time every day and not missing any work. Some places do it every week some every month. My brother in law (who is an adult not in summer school) used to get bonuses for being on time and not missing any work for the whole month.


I've only had one job where a cash bonus was given if "everyone" showed up on time each pay period. And that was a liftie at a ski resort. I am pretty sure those bonuses only go to shitty jobs where you are getting paid so little that it's almost worth it to sleep in and get fired.

My brother in law is the only person I know personally to get such a bonus and his job paid decently. I'm not sure why you guys think it's such an impossible idea that employers want to encourage their employees to be on time and not fuck around and call in sick every other week. Yeah you don't get paid if you don't show up but the fact that they are willing to pay you to be there probably means they are making more money off of your productivity than they are paying you. Not to mention depending on what type of job you have it can be a pain in the ass to have to find someone to cover your position.

Are we having such a hard time believing this concept because Rocktar said it?

[Rinualdo]

Rocktar logic = vagina repellant.

[CrystalTears]

Are we having such a hard time believing this concept because Rocktar said it?Mostly, since he's the kind that exaggerates and pulls "data" out of his ass to suit his needs.

Or it could be that people aren't familiar with that rule because they haven't had a job that paid extra for good attendance. If you didn't work, you didn't get paid. Getting paid extra to show up is a new concept for most of us, so yeah, call us skeptical when the one to bring that up is Rocktar.

[Rocktar]

It takes a lot of time and energy to get a full stable of hypo-bondage lactation slaves. Learn from the Professor, you lazy peons!

Here we have an example of a lame old troll who lacks the ability to add anything to the conversation. They merely cruised by, trying to add to their reputation by clawing onto the coat tails of other detractors without actually having to add any content other than "Me to, I don't like Roctar either, can I be a cool kid too, huh huh, can I?"

Learn from the best boys and girls, how to appear cool while being pathetic and lazy.

[Showal]

There are quite a few places that give you a bonus for being on time every day and not missing any work. Some places do it every week some every month. My brother in law (who is an adult not in summer school) used to get bonuses for being on time and not missing any work for the whole month.

My brother in law is the only person I know personally to get such a bonus and his job paid decently.

Are we having such a hard time believing this concept because Rocktar said it?

You believe in this concept because you know only one person who gets such a bonus. Why are you having such a hard time believing that other people have not heard of such a bonus?

I've had some shitty jobs. Never once have I needed my boss to give me a bonus on top of my normal pay for showing up on time or just being present. I've had bosses who tell you the time they expect you at work and if you call out sick repeatedly, are chronically late, or just don't show up, you risk getting fired.

Pardon me for thinking that fear of keeping your job should be motivation enough to show up when you're expected. Pardon me for thinking that people don't need an extra chunk of change held over their head to do the bare minimum anyone would be expected to do at a job - show up.

[Rocktar]

Proof/source, please. Every article/statistic sheet I've read about Gen Y points to them, not Gen X on this point.

Look up the rising numbers of those in their 40's moving back home because of job loss or home loss. Look at the numbers of people loosing homes and moving back home, most are not generation Y. I am not trying to minimalize the difficulties that Gen Y is facing at all, just saying that the snowball didn't start with you.


Again, this is misguided and founded mostly on the whole 'omg the new generation is ruining everything!' mindset. Everything I've read about Gen Y as a generation points to a focus on/desire for teamwork, efficiency, merit-based (not seniority based) praise, mentorship, and work-life balance. When you come from a generation that may not idealize those things it's easy to see it come off as entitlement, but it's more just a shift in ideals.

Actually, no, when you look at the job market and the facts that people don't hold jobs, the number one reason for termination in a company employing over 75,000 people world wide is attendance and my previous experience with the largest private employer in the US being similar, one can draw some conclusions about people and their attitudes about work. Or in this case, their attitudes that they are too good to work.

You can desire what you want, the thing is, the rest of the world doesn't give a shit. A lot of people talk about balancing things and compromise and so on, and in reality they mean "give me loads of money for sub-par work because I deserve it." I too would like to see more merit based pay, recognition and promotion, that is one of the reasons I changed employment. In Walmart, it typically takes 3-5 years to get to the level of assistant manager and then 7 more to get a chance at a store manager position (manages from 3-500 employees or so). In my new employer, the division I work in, of around 600 people, is managed by a woman that has been with the company a total of 12 years and came up from the bottom. There are managers that were promoted out of their first 90 days due to ability and pay is leveraged based a lot on merit and performance.

The real issue comes with the "I want balance and don't want to work that hard" clashing with "I don't want to give up anything in exchange." This is where the entitlement mentality comes in.



I've never said anything like that. I've also never worked a shit job (and I have worked plenty) and then mocked people who were more successful/working a better job, which is something YOU have definitely done.

Actually, I only mock people that decided to look down on me about it. You haven't been paying attention at all. There are several people here that own their own businesses, have excellent jobs and make a lot more money than I do. I don't say a word about it to them because I don't resent them for it at all, nor do I resent anyone for being more successful than I am. I do, however, resent and mock those who think they are too good to work shit jobs and who think they are superior to those that do.



It's statements like this that give me the impression that "work long and hard" = "do a bunch of stuff you hate and don't like to do." You don't win a special award for being miserable in your career (or lack thereof), even if you're doing it for money.

That is an incorrect assumption fostered by the prevailing mentality. Most business owners that are successful love what they do, they work long, hard and do it for years at low pay to get the big payoff at the end of being wealthy. It is still long, hard work and must be done to get the payoff, most people are no where near willing to do the work needed.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I liked this thread a lot more when it was about hover dogs and not arguing with a brick wall.

Back to hoverdogs nao.

[Keller]

An angry brick wall that is graffiti'd with hyperbole.

[Lumi]

You believe in this concept because you know only one person who gets such a bonus. Why are you having such a hard time believing that other people have not heard of such a bonus?

I've had some shitty jobs. Never once have I needed my boss to give me a bonus on top of my normal pay for showing up on time or just being present. I've had bosses who tell you the time they expect you at work and if you call out sick repeatedly, are chronically late, or just don't show up, you risk getting fired.

Pardon me for thinking that fear of keeping your job should be motivation enough to show up when you're expected. Pardon me for thinking that people don't need an extra chunk of change held over their head to do the bare minimum anyone would be expected to do at a job - show up.

^

[Tgo01]

You believe in this concept because you know only one person who gets such a bonus. Why are you having such a hard time believing that other people have not heard of such a bonus?

As I said before there are a lot of places that provide such a bonus, I only personally know of one person who enjoys such a bonus. Also I never said I don't believe other people haven't heard of such a bonus, I asked why people find the concept so hard to believe. The concept actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.


I've had some shitty jobs. Never once have I needed my boss to give me a bonus on top of my normal pay for showing up on time or just being present. I've had bosses who tell you the time they expect you at work and if you call out sick repeatedly, are chronically late, or just don't show up, you risk getting fired.

Employers spend upwards of 3,000 dollars or more (depending on the job) finding someone to hire and the money they lose training someone until they get up to speed on their job. It makes a lot more sense to encourage people to actually show up everyday than it is to let them slack off and end up firing them and replacing people every couple of months.


Pardon me for thinking that fear of keeping your job should be motivation enough to show up when you're expected. Pardon me for thinking that people don't need an extra chunk of change held over their head to do the bare minimum anyone would be expected to do at a job - show up.

Pardon me for not realizing that you had no clue that many people get fired for just that reason, not showing up to work enough and that employers really don't like having to deal with those types of people and would prefer their employees to show up everyday.

[CrystalTears]

The concept actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.Actually no, it's rather sad that people have to paid extra to do what is expected of them when it comes to working... showing up.


Employers spend upwards of 3,000 dollars or more (depending on the job) finding someone to hire and the money they lose training someone until they get up to speed on their job. It makes a lot more sense to encourage people to actually show up everyday than it is to let them slack off and end up firing them and replacing people every couple of months.

Pardon me for not realizing that you had no clue that many people get fired for just that reason, not showing up to work enough and that employers really don't like having to deal with those types of people and would prefer their employees to show up everyday.
I personally feel that it sends the wrong signals. You should feel threatened if you do not show up for work. You shouldn't be rewarded. If a company cannot handle the attendance of their employees and would rather give them money to stay in order to avoid retraining someone else who will take their job seriously... well... that's just fucking retarded.

"I take care of my kids."
"What do you want, a cookie? You're SUPPOSED to take care of your kids!"

[Rocktar]

Actually no, it's rather sad that people have to paid extra to do what is expected of them when it comes to working... showing up.

I actually agree with that, though I am not going to give back any money because I have a strong work ethic.



I personally feel that it sends the wrong signals. You should feel threatened if you do not show up for work. You shouldn't be rewarded. If a company cannot handle the attendance of their employees and would rather give them money to stay in order to avoid retraining someone else who will take their job seriously... well... that's just fucking retarded.

Welcome to dealing with a large population of entitlement minded people. A lot of people tend to think that they are entitled to a job, pay and benefits even though they don't want to work, show up or pass a drug test. It is just cheaper to pay people a small reward for showing up and thus teach them proper behavior than to pay for retraining someone else. And it costs my company a lot more than $3K to get one person from the street to being a productive employee. After all, schools certainly didn't teach them that showing up and meeting standards were required.



"I take care of my kids."
"What do you want, a cookie? You're SUPPOSED to take care of your kids!"

Not according to some people, but that is an entirely different subject.

[Tgo01]

I'm not quite sure what the disconnect is here. Yes people should show up to work everyday and on time unless there is a legitimate reason why they cannot. However the reality of it is there are a lot of people out there who would rather call in sick and hang out at the beach than to be responsible and go to work. If it's cheaper for you to pay people to encourage them to be responsible than it is for you to fire and hire people over and over again than how does such an idea not make sense?

[Warriorbird]

Recently, in an educational setting at the least, performance based pay incentives have been shown to not actually raise test scores.

[Drevihyin]

My company contemplated giving savings bonds to employees with perfect attentance it never made it out of the planning stage. The cost to hire and train and new employees (including potential production loss during the training) for the average company far exceeds $3000.00.

[Showal]

As I said before there are a lot of places that provide such a bonus, I only personally know of one person who enjoys such a bonus. Also I never said I don't believe other people haven't heard of such a bonus, I asked why people find the concept so hard to believe. The concept actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

And I'm arguing that are not a lot of places that provide such a bonus. I'm using your own experience of only knowing one person who works in such an environment combined with my never having heard of such a reward system as evidence. Other people are apparently in the same boat. Now this is a very very limited sample size, I understand, but I don't think there are a lot of places that provide such a bonus.

I wasn't trying to say that you don't believe other people haven't heard of such a bonus. I was saying that it's not so unreasonable to believe that people are saying they've never heard of this sort of bonus because they have, truly, never heard of this sort of bonus, not just because it was brought up by Rocktar.


Employers spend upwards of 3,000 dollars or more (depending on the job) finding someone to hire and the money they lose training someone until they get up to speed on their job. It makes a lot more sense to encourage people to actually show up everyday than it is to let them slack off and end up firing them and replacing people every couple of months.

I understand the expense of hiring/firing/re-hiring employees. I know the training time involved. I do agree still that it makes a lot more sense to encourage people to just show up everday than it does to let them slack off and end up firing them. I believe that the system of "Here's $50! Thanks for coming to work today!" is fucking stupid. It is absolutely ridiculous. If your managers have a low employee retention rate, if your business has a high rate of turnover, if your employees need a few bucks dangled in front of their face or else they're not going to come in, SOMETHING is wrong. Whether it be with the type of people you continue to hire or the work environment and culture, something is wrong that should not be fixed by giving money to people for doing their most basic task of their work day - showing up.


Pardon me for not realizing that you had no clue that many people get fired for just that reason, not showing up to work enough and that employers really don't like having to deal with those types of people and would prefer their employees to show up everyday.

You're pardoned, but I never said I had no clue that many people got fired for just that reason. Let me assure you, I did not have some great epiphany reading your post. I understand that work attendance is a common reason people get fired. I've also worked in many jobs where no one receives a bonus for attendance and I know that the people who have been fired for attendance issues are not people that anyone else in my groups would have liked to keep around were it not for their pesky issue of NEVER BEING THERE. Having an attendance issue hints at a deeper work ethic issue.

People requiring such an incentive are probably (*now this is my opinion and you can feel free to dispute it*) people who are not as likely to be as productive, even when they are present, as someone who does not have this issue. Keeping people around that require a bonus to even come to work would affect your other workers' morale. That being said, if you don't need to collect a bonus to show up to work, but your work offers it, there's no reason you shouldn't take advantage of this absurd policy but you would also be a fool not to recognize the other implications this may have about your employer and your coworkers.

Your company would be better off fixing the heart of the issue regarding attendance and actually hire employees that will not only come to work, but be more productive when they are actually present.

[Rocktar]

Recently, in an educational setting at the least, performance based pay incentives have been shown to not actually raise test scores.

That's because the efforts toward performance based pay for teachers are pretty bad, and they tend to be focused on one mechanic as a measure without taking into account other influences. If you want to pay based on performance then you need to level the playing field for the teachers. No one wants to do this because randomly placing a student in a class throughout the school system regardless of where they live and who they have been with all along is both costly and not going to fly for the general populous. Otherwise, you have to accept that a lot of other issues are at play and you need to develop a metric that is school/location/class grouping specific and that is also very very hard and most people don't like it.

[Clove]

Wow this thread has taken some interesting turns. Let me see if I'm following:

Rocktar: Doesn't understand marginal utility. Doesn't believe the wealthy benefit from public services as much as the poor. Believes his generation was the first generation to face harder times than the previous one.

Nikki: Believes in paying taxes because they fund important government programs that she may or may not use, but values regardless.

PB: Believes that luck and random misfortune are subordinate to motivation and personal responsibility and generally LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL's at all of Nikki's opinions and values.

Paradii: Understands Rocktar best.

Backlash: Has nothing to contribute.

Keller and Bob: Briefly tried to explain the concept of an equal tax burden.

AR: Has the biggest stones and wants to compare his horts to Rocktar's.

Most PC posters: Think it's dumb to use a bonus incentive system to get employees to meet minimum employment requirements because it costs more than 3k per position to acquire and train an employee who meets minimum employment requirements (without needing a bonus).

[CrystalTears]

People requiring such an incentive are probably (*now this is my opinion and you can feel free to dispute it*) people who are not as likely to be as productive, even when they are present, as someone who does not have this issue. Keeping people around that require a bonus to even come to work would affect your other workers' morale. That being said, if you don't need to collect a bonus to show up to work, but your work offers it, there's no reason you shouldn't take advantage of this absurd policy but you would also be a fool not to recognize the other implications this may have about your employer and your coworkers.

Your company would be better off fixing the heart of the issue regarding attendance and actually hire employees that will not only come to work, but be more productive when they are actually present.
^This.

[Warriorbird]

That's because the efforts toward performance based pay for teachers are pretty bad, and they tend to be focused on one mechanic as a measure without taking into account other influences. If you want to pay based on performance then you need to level the playing field for the teachers. No one wants to do this because randomly placing a student in a class throughout the school system regardless of where they live and who they have been with all along is both costly and not going to fly for the general populous. Otherwise, you have to accept that a lot of other issues are at play and you need to develop a metric that is school/location/class grouping specific and that is also very very hard and most people don't like it.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/01/33tap.h29.html?tkn=SLLFZe8XVYfHJJSsSgGYCI87ZvETbCb N/XmT&cmp=clp-edweek

Interesting at the least... and Arne Duncan backpedals a bunch so you should like it from an Obama failing perspective.

[Back]

Wow this thread has taken some interesting turns. Let me see if I'm following:

Rocktar: Doesn't understand marginal utility. Doesn't believe the wealthy benefit from public services as much as the poor. Believes his generation was the first generation to face harder times than the previous one.

Nikki: Believes in paying taxes because they fund important government programs that she may or may not use, but values regardless.

PB: Believes that luck and random misfortune are subordinate to motivation and personal responsibility and generally LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL's at all of Nikki's opinions and values.

Paradii: Understands Rocktar best.

Backlash: Has nothing to contribute.

Keller and Bob: Briefly tried to explain the concept of an equal tax burden.

AR: Has the biggest stones and wants to compare his horts to Rocktar's.

Most PC posters: Think it's dumb to use a bonus incentive system to get employees to meet minimum employment requirements because it costs more than 3k per position to acquire and train an employee who meets minimum employment requirements (without needing a bonus).

Clove: Has a bone to pick, a chip on his shoulder and can’t pour piss out of a rubber boot.

SOMEBODY needs a hug today. Hugs for Clove!

[Parkbandit]

Wow this thread has taken some interesting turns. Let me see if I'm following:

Rocktar: Doesn't understand marginal utility. Doesn't believe the wealthy benefit from public services as much as the poor. Believes his generation was the first generation to face harder times than the previous one.

Nikki: Believes in paying taxes because they fund important government programs that she may or may not use, but values regardless.

PB: Believes that luck and random misfortune are subordinate to motivation and personal responsibility and generally LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL's at all of Nikki's opinions and values.

Paradii: Understands Rocktar best.

Backlash: Has nothing to contribute.

Keller and Bob: Briefly tried to explain the concept of an equal tax burden.

AR: Has the biggest stones and wants to compare his horts to Rocktar's.

Most PC posters: Think it's dumb to use a bonus incentive system to get employees to meet minimum employment requirements because it costs more than 3k per position to acquire and train an employee who meets minimum employment requirements (without needing a bonus).

Couple notes if we're being honest:

Nikki didn't articulate "all" of her opinions and values.. so I'm not sure how I could LOLOLOLOLOL at them "all". For a self proclaimed liberal, I actually agree with her more than I don't.

Backlash contributed the as much as you did in this thread.

Most of the PC Posters did not participate in this thread, so I'm not sure where you are able to speak for everyone.

tgo01 and Daniel posted more often in this thread than most of the people you gave your 'notes' about.

I heard through a very informed individual that Anticor's stones are not all that large.

[AnticorRifling]

I heard through a very informed individual that Anticor's stones are not all that large.

All meat no potatos.

[Parkbandit]

Clove: Has a bone to pick, a chip on his shoulder and can’t pour piss out of a rubber boot.

SOMEBODY needs a hug today. Hugs for Clove!

Trite Expression Alert.

[Cephalopod]

Is this the hoverdog thread?

http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/funny-dog-pictures-hoverdog-has-a-sidecar.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Is this the hoverdog thread?

http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/funny-dog-pictures-hoverdog-has-a-sidecar.jpg

http://behrrake.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/hover-dog-landing.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Dog facepalm

http://yoshi.backupot.com/Werewolf%20Pics/facepalm-dog.jpg

[Tgo01]

Showal you posted an asinine comment about how only 'summer time jobs' give an attendance bonus without actually thinking about if it was possible 'real' companies gave such a bonus simply because Rocktar was the one who mentioned it. After others pointed out 'real' companies do such things you then turn the whole argument around and are now arguing about the merits of such an idea and not whether or not companies engage in such a practice.

Since you are so far in denial now about how wrong you were in the first place it's obvious the only thing that will make you happy is for me to apologize and say you were right. And that's just what I'm going to do since I'm a giver like that and because you apparently need this not just desire it.

So here goes. I'm sorry Showal, you were right and I was wrong. Want to get a beer sometime?

[pabstblueribbon]

Haha. Giver.

Cue Methais.

[Paradii]

Here we have an example of a lame old troll who lacks the ability to add anything to the conversation. They merely cruised by, trying to add to their reputation by clawing onto the coat tails of other detractors without actually having to add any content other than "Me to, I don't like Roctar either, can I be a cool kid too, huh huh, can I?"

Learn from the best boys and girls, how to appear cool while being pathetic and lazy.


I post to let you know that you are an asshat. Read your first post in this thread, read your first post in any thread. You come in spewing bullshit and insulting everyone.

This thread was actually relatively civil until you starting "contributing"

Btw, what's the simplest answer for no one liking you? That everyone wants more positive rep by insulting you, or that you are completely unlikable?

So eat a bag o' dicks.

[Rocktar]

Rocktar: Doesn't understand marginal utility. Doesn't believe the wealthy benefit from public services as much as the poor. Believes his generation was the first generation to face harder times than the previous one.

Understand marginal utility just fine, I don't think that it is a valid argument supporting taxing the rich more while not taxing the poor at all. I don't believe that the rich receive the same marginal utility out of public services than the poor do, no. And no, I don't believe that the times are harder, only that in the history of the US that mine is the first to have a lower over all standard of living. For fuck's sake, learn to read.

You are a good student of the Paradii "trying to look cool by association" school of trolling.

Edited to add:

And the flying wiener dogs are damn funny.

[Warriorbird]

Who makes rich people rich, Rocktar?

[Rocktar]

I post to let you know that you are an asshat. Read your first post in this thread, read your first post in any thread. You come in spewing bullshit and insulting everyone.

This thread was actually relatively civil until you starting "contributing"

Btw, what's the simplest answer for no one liking you? That everyone wants more positive rep by insulting you, or that you are completely unlikable?

So eat a bag o' dicks.

It isn't about being liked dipshit, it is about what is right and what is right for this country. You, among others, come in, make no contribution other than to try and look cool by insulting me and then expect to have your little noses wiped and your head patted. And then you get asshurt because I call you on it accurately and now you are all full of more QQ and insults for me.

Boo fricking hoo.

If and that is a huge IF I gave a fuck if I was liked on a small time political backwater board, I might be like you, cruising by, kissing other's asses and sucking up to people with the balls to present and defend an opinion, even if that opinion is wrong. And then you have the ultimate of insults by small minded turds like yourself, "suck a bag of dicks". Yeah, intellectually crushing insult there, might get you by in 3rd grade, but most of us graduated from there a long time ago.

[Rocktar]

Who makes rich people rich, Rocktar?

Either one of two things by whatever means. A person makes themselves rich or they inherit.

[Warriorbird]

What is the vehicle that allows people to make themselves rich?

[Tea & Strumpets]

What is the vehicle that allows people to make themselves rich?

Cars.

[Ryvicke]

What is the vehicle that allows people to make themselves rich and become unbearable assholes?

Reading Ayn Rand

[waywardgs]

What is the vehicle that allows people to make themselves rich?

Hoverdogs...

[Showal]

Showal you posted an asinine comment about how only 'summer time jobs' give an attendance bonus without actually thinking about if it was possible 'real' companies gave such a bonus simply because Rocktar was the one who mentioned it. After others pointed out 'real' companies do such things you then turn the whole argument around and are now arguing about the merits of such an idea and not whether or not companies engage in such a practice.


I asked if he was in 'summer school'. Some of the towns around me pay failing students for attendance to summer school. I made no mention of time jobs. No one other than you and rocktar know of a company with this practice. Someone said they were considering it but didn't go through with it. Please reread my asinine comment.

I would love a beer.

[Showal]

I only posted an argument against such a reward system in response to you arguing for such a system. You hinted that I don't understand why it would be in place.

[Rocktar]

What is the vehicle that allows people to make themselves rich?

Of all the things studied about all the richest people in the world over the past 100+ years, it is belief, mental attitude toward wealth (not necessarily being all nice, but you don't have to be an ass either) and willingness to pay the price in time and effort to make yourself rich.

[Warriorbird]

Of all the things studied about all the richest people in the world over the past 100+ years, it is belief, mental attitude toward wealth (not necessarily being all nice, but you don't have to be an ass either) and willingness to pay the price in time and effort to make yourself rich.

The vehicle that allows people to become rich is other people.

[Tea & Strumpets]

The vehicle that allows people to become rich is other people.

That's like, your opinion, man. I think the guy that said hoverdogs was closer to the truth.

[Warriorbird]

Okay okay. Other people AND hoverdogs.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Okay okay. Other people AND hoverdogs.

It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. Respekt.

[Cephalopod]

Rocktar's vehicle to wealth:
http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/hoverdogsaval128413073088240000.jpg

[Jarvan]

Okay okay. Other people AND hoverdogs.

I agree with this.

Money comes from somewhere.

I was told by my gramps, "easiest way to make money is sell small things to allot of people, Easiest way to keep money is sell expensive things to a few"

For awhile he was a door to door salesman. When times were hard he sold necessities to the masses, cause they generally always have to buy them. When times were good, he would sell luxuries to rich people.

Guess you can consider people the small things and the hoverdogs as the luxuries.

[4a6c1]

http://behrrake.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/neverending-story-the-early-years1.jpg



(the never ending stoooreeeeeeey. la la la, la la la, la la laaaaa)

[4a6c1]

And other notables:

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/1/27/4/other-uses-for-hover-dogs-23996-1233049121-10.jpg

[LMingrone]

That picture is so win that I'm going to name my next white dog Falcor. Then I'm going to throw him into the pool.

[waywardgs]

Hoverdogs = maximum utility. It's a well-known equation.

[CrystalTears]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/16/128922507201288894.jpg

[Clove]

Understand marginal utility just fine, I don't think that it is a valid argument supporting taxing the rich more while not taxing the poor at all. I don't believe that the rich receive the same marginal utility out of public services than the poor do, no.You really do deserve respect. It only took you two sentences to demonstrate that you don't know the difference between "utility" and "marginal utility".
And no, I don't believe that the times are harder, only that in the history of the US that mine is the first to have a lower over all standard of living. For fuck's sake, learn to read.I suppose the Great Depression didn't impress you.


You are a good student of the Paradii "trying to look cool by association" school of trolling.You're a good example of someone who desperately wants to be taken seriously.

[Clove]

Couple notes if we're being honest:

Nikki didn't articulate "all" of her opinions and values.. so I'm not sure how I could LOLOLOLOLOL at them "all". For a self proclaimed liberal, I actually agree with her more than I don't.-

Backlash contributed the as much as you did in this thread.

Most of the PC Posters did not participate in this thread, so I'm not sure where you are able to speak for everyone.

tgo01 and Daniel posted more often in this thread than most of the people you gave your 'notes' about.

I heard through a very informed individual that Anticor's stones are not all that large.Are you drunk?

[Cephalopod]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/16/128922507201288894.jpg

Alright, bitch, it's on. Get these gay-ass hovercats out of my hoverdog thread.

http://www.felineunderground.com/uploaded_images/hover-dog-727477.jpg

[Clove]

http://cheesygoodness.psiraptor.com/media/blogs/cheesy/February2009/Feb26/HoverCat.jpg

[CrystalTears]

http://www.al1uk.com/gallery/Funny/lolcat/hover_cat.jpg

[Paradii]

That picture is so win that I'm going to name my next white dog Falcor. Then I'm going to throw him into the pool.

Be careful, the authorities didn't like it when I named my first kid Artax and left him in a swamp.