The Rich and Taxes: A Debate

[tzor]

My mother used to work in a library; I worked in the High School lbrary. The mantra is burned into my brain; "we never guess; we look it up."

N.Y.C. so costly you need to earn six figures to make middle class: Friday, February 6th 2009, 1:04 PM

Full-time day care costs can run up to $25,000 a year for one child, depending on the neighborhood, or about as much as some college tuitions.

Now do you want me to really BLOW YOUR MIND?

Think You're Making $250K In Manhattan? Think Again

Those buzzkills at CNNMoney created a Google Map that shows what it really means to have $250K/year—which the White House says is a mark that someone is wealthy. Since cost of living is different in various cities, however, that is a sweeping generalization. In some parts of Texas and Florida it may be accurate, but here in New York City (and more specifically, in Manhattan) the local equivalent is $545K. Meaning that is how much you'd have to make to maintain the same lifestyle as someone living in, say, Missoula, Montana. On the upside, you don't live in Missoula; their fresh air is so overrated anyway.

[Phatscotty]

I will tell you this. When I went to NY to train in the new crew, the guys there got the same salary starting as I had after 5 years with max raises....

Forghet about itttttt son! Don't worry about ittttttt

[Timminz]

Dude, there are plenty of pot-heads in NY.

Got a few friends there, do you Scott?

[Phatscotty]

Dude, there are plenty of pot-heads in NY.

Got a few friends there, do you Scott?

Just Pimpdave.

Yes I still do talk to a few of my trainees regularly. Deion still calls me it seems every time the Twins are playing in NY, or when he hears it's 60 below windchill and get a good laugh.

[InkL0sed]

My mother used to work in a library; I worked in the High School lbrary. The mantra is burned into my brain; "we never guess; we look it up."

N.Y.C. so costly you need to earn six figures to make middle class: Friday, February 6th 2009, 1:04 PM

Full-time day care costs can run up to $25,000 a year for one child, depending on the neighborhood, or about as much as some college tuitions.

Now do you want me to really BLOW YOUR MIND?

Think You're Making $250K In Manhattan? Think Again

Those buzzkills at CNNMoney created a Google Map that shows what it really means to have $250K/year—which the White House says is a mark that someone is wealthy. Since cost of living is different in various cities, however, that is a sweeping generalization. In some parts of Texas and Florida it may be accurate, but here in New York City (and more specifically, in Manhattan) the local equivalent is $545K. Meaning that is how much you'd have to make to maintain the same lifestyle as someone living in, say, Missoula, Montana. On the upside, you don't live in Missoula; their fresh air is so overrated anyway.

All this indicates is that the people who live in the rich neighborhoods of Manhattan are (gasp) rich enough to afford it. And they wouldn't be living there if they preferred Missoula.

Also, note how the people fleeing Manhattan was associated with the boom. It's not about taxes - it's about real estate value, which causes everything else to inflate (including income). Are you advocating rent-control?

...did you vote for The Rent Is Too Damn High Party?

[Phatscotty]

Some taxation is necessary to maintain a civilized society, however I tend to think the majority of taxation is just theft. Ultimately although I think the rich would pay too much in taxes under it a flat tax system would be the fairest we could implement. If every person paid the same amount of taxes we would see an end to a lot of frivolous government spending, but that will not happen since we have the evils of class warfare being perpetrated constantly by the left.

If everybody paid the same amount of tax, how would it be that the rich would be the ones to have paid too much?

There is no way that a rich person could ever use 5 million $/month in gov't services, yet there would be many rich people paying 5 million or more every month in taxes. I see what he is saying (and disagree somehwat) but it is true that the guy who only pays in 100$/month is far more likely to get back more than he put it. Not talking about fairness or justification, just facts.

Share what ya got...

or else we will put you in jail!

[radiojake]

Some taxation is necessary to maintain a civilized society, however I tend to think the majority of taxation is just theft. Ultimately although I think the rich would pay too much in taxes under it a flat tax system would be the fairest we could implement. If every person paid the same amount of taxes we would see an end to a lot of frivolous government spending, but that will not happen since we have the evils of class warfare being perpetrated constantly by the left.

If everybody paid the same amount of tax, how would it be that the rich would be the ones to have paid too much?

There is no way that a rich person could ever use 5 million $/month in gov't services, yet there would be many rich people paying 5 million or more every month in taxes. I see what he is saying (and disagree somehwat) but it is true that the guy who only pays in 100$/month is far more likely to get back more than he put it. Not talking about fairness or justification, just facts.

Share what ya got...

or else we will put you in jail!

Nice play on words with my signature - Your take on it is quite interesting -

Now, $5 million or more in taxes a month? Obviously we have now jumped to the super-rich. What would be the income of one if they were paying $5 million in taxes? (or were you refering to a collective amount of tax?)

I am not so naive as to think that all government action is benevolent or benign - but at the same time, no one needs million dollar plus salaries. I have no sympathy for those who believe they are taxed too much - Some people act as though people's salary rises in accordane with how hard one works. This is a fallacy perpetuated by those who already have too much money. There is very often little correlation between the word 'earned' and one's salary.

[Phatscotty]

Some taxation is necessary to maintain a civilized society, however I tend to think the majority of taxation is just theft. Ultimately although I think the rich would pay too much in taxes under it a flat tax system would be the fairest we could implement. If every person paid the same amount of taxes we would see an end to a lot of frivolous government spending, but that will not happen since we have the evils of class warfare being perpetrated constantly by the left.

If everybody paid the same amount of tax, how would it be that the rich would be the ones to have paid too much?

There is no way that a rich person could ever use 5 million $/month in gov't services, yet there would be many rich people paying 5 million or more every month in taxes. I see what he is saying (and disagree somehwat) but it is true that the guy who only pays in 100$/month is far more likely to get back more than he put it. Not talking about fairness or justification, just facts.

Share what ya got...

or else we will put you in jail!

Nice play on words with my signature - Your take on it is quite interesting -

Now, $5 million or more in taxes a month? Obviously we have now jumped to the super-rich. What would be the income of one if they were paying $5 million in taxes? (or were you refering to a collective amount of tax?)

I am not so naive as to think that all government action is benevolent or benign - but at the same time, no one needs million dollar plus salaries. I have no sympathy for those who believe they are taxed too much - Some people act as though people's salary rises in accordane with how hard one works. This is a fallacy perpetuated by those who already have too much money. There is very often little correlation between the word 'earned' and one's salary.

If no-one needs million plus dollar salaries, then you don't need 600 thousand of that million in taxes.

They would both disappear. Have you realized this?

As for your statement about "if you work harder, you will earn more." It's working just fine for me. I try to keep my name out of my bosses mouth and I do that by following the rules of the company to a T, which means, I work harder and more efficiently to assure those things become reality, and I always get a max raise. (I know, how greedy)

It's a great fallacy. Have you ever tried it?

[tzor]

...did you vote for The Rent Is Too Damn High Party?

No I didn't. (Naturally I voted for the one with the baseball bat.) And while I have worked in Manhattan in the past I never lived there. I am, however, all too familiar with the economics of places like downtown Manhattan and the various solutions to the problem. There will always be core concentrations where the cost of living is too high but laborers are needed that cannot exist at that level of cost of living. The banking industry drives this for Manhattan (downtown Manhattan is no longer the real financial capitol and that has moved to mid-town) but in many other locations this is caused by the tourism industry.

Rent controls simply do not work (although one might feel for the "grandfather" cause approach in that it's not nice to kick someone out because of development moves the cost of living above what the original residents can afford it still doesn't work). The economics of supply and demand are a harsh mistress; the only long term solution is to move the demand to where the supply is. In other words suburbs with rapid effective commuting systems.

This doesn't work in Manhattan. There are simply not enough connection points across the Hudson so NJ is only a partial solution. To the north is the cumulative result of mindless liberal policy, the ethnically broken and highly crippled land called the Bronx (but hey, we can take solice in that at one time it was so bad, the major purchased decals to cover up the broken windows of the abandoned skyscrappers).

Personally, I don't think the guy who created the party had any real understanding of how to get out of the mess because he was a progressive at heart and it is progressive regulations that caused the mess.

[spurgistan]

...did you vote for The Rent Is Too Damn High Party?

No I didn't. (Naturally I voted for the one with the baseball bat.) And while I have worked in Manhattan in the past I never lived there. I am, however, all too familiar with the economics of places like downtown Manhattan and the various solutions to the problem. There will always be core concentrations where the cost of living is too high but laborers are needed that cannot exist at that level of cost of living. The banking industry drives this for Manhattan (downtown Manhattan is no longer the real financial capitol and that has moved to mid-town) but in many other locations this is caused by the tourism industry.

Rent controls simply do not work (although one might feel for the "grandfather" cause approach in that it's not nice to kick someone out because of development moves the cost of living above what the original residents can afford it still doesn't work). The economics of supply and demand are a harsh mistress; the only long term solution is to move the demand to where the supply is. In other words suburbs with rapid effective commuting systems.

This doesn't work in Manhattan. There are simply not enough connection points across the Hudson so NJ is only a partial solution. To the north is the cumulative result of mindless liberal policy, the ethnically broken and highly crippled land called the Bronx (but hey, we can take solice in that at one time it was so bad, the major purchased decals to cover up the broken windows of the abandoned skyscrappers).

Personally, I don't think the guy who created the party had any real understanding of how to get out of the mess because he was a progressive at heart and it is progressive regulations that caused the mess.

But dude, he is a Karate expert.

[thegreekdog]

...did you vote for The Rent Is Too Damn High Party?

No I didn't. (Naturally I voted for the one with the baseball bat.) And while I have worked in Manhattan in the past I never lived there. I am, however, all too familiar with the economics of places like downtown Manhattan and the various solutions to the problem. There will always be core concentrations where the cost of living is too high but laborers are needed that cannot exist at that level of cost of living. The banking industry drives this for Manhattan (downtown Manhattan is no longer the real financial capitol and that has moved to mid-town) but in many other locations this is caused by the tourism industry.

Rent controls simply do not work (although one might feel for the "grandfather" cause approach in that it's not nice to kick someone out because of development moves the cost of living above what the original residents can afford it still doesn't work). The economics of supply and demand are a harsh mistress; the only long term solution is to move the demand to where the supply is. In other words suburbs with rapid effective commuting systems.

This doesn't work in Manhattan. There are simply not enough connection points across the Hudson so NJ is only a partial solution. To the north is the cumulative result of mindless liberal policy, the ethnically broken and highly crippled land called the Bronx (but hey, we can take solice in that at one time it was so bad, the major purchased decals to cover up the broken windows of the abandoned skyscrappers).

Personally, I don't think the guy who created the party had any real understanding of how to get out of the mess because he was a progressive at heart and it is progressive regulations that caused the mess.

As I type this, I firmly believe that the professional service industry (accountants, lawyers, engineers, investment bankers) could do all of their work from their own homes. There is no need for 10 floors in a fancy high rise in NYC or anywhere else. I think once the 20-somethings and 30-somethings become 50-somethings and 60-somethings, we'll see "work from home" be the norm. Companies will move their offices to the suburbs and employees will be permitted to work from home every day they choose. I would say 80-90% of my clients aren't even in the city of Philadelphia, so I have to commute from my office to theirs every time we meet.

[alex951]

I guess people feel "robbed" almost you know like tax money had to bail them out, then they funded the tea party to regain some power in congress. the middle and lower class want the upper class to finally pay for lunch instead of the other way around. idk

[Night Strike]

I guess people feel "robbed" almost you know like tax money had to bail them out, then they funded the tea party to regain some power in congress. the middle and lower class want the upper class to finally pay for lunch instead of the other way around. idk

Actually, the Tea Party wants everyone to pay for their own lunches, not make the rich pay for the poor.

[alex951]

I guess people feel "robbed" almost you know like tax money had to bail them out, then they funded the tea party to regain some power in congress. the middle and lower class want the upper class to finally pay for lunch instead of the other way around. idk

Actually, the Tea Party wants everyone to pay for their own lunches, not make the rich pay for the poor.

depends on who you think the Tea Party represents

[Night Strike]

I guess people feel "robbed" almost you know like tax money had to bail them out, then they funded the tea party to regain some power in congress. the middle and lower class want the upper class to finally pay for lunch instead of the other way around. idk

Actually, the Tea Party wants everyone to pay for their own lunches, not make the rich pay for the poor.

depends on who you think the Tea Party represents

Well we know it's not the corporations. It's people. Not unions, not professional protesters, it's grassroots people.

[spurgistan]

I guess people feel "robbed" almost you know like tax money had to bail them out, then they funded the tea party to regain some power in congress. the middle and lower class want the upper class to finally pay for lunch instead of the other way around. idk

Actually, the Tea Party wants everyone to pay for their own lunches, not make the rich pay for the poor.

depends on who you think the Tea Party represents

Well we know it's not the corporations. It's people. Not unions, not professional protesters, it's grassroots people.

Right, corporations have no voice in the Great American Tea Party. It's just coincidental that "The People" want massive rollbacks on environmental legislation and corporate taxes, and tons of new mining permits. That's what grassroots people want.

[alex951]

I guess people feel "robbed" almost you know like tax money had to bail them out, then they funded the tea party to regain some power in congress. the middle and lower class want the upper class to finally pay for lunch instead of the other way around. idk

Actually, the Tea Party wants everyone to pay for their own lunches, not make the rich pay for the poor.

depends on who you think the Tea Party represents

Well we know it's not the corporations. It's people. Not unions, not professional protesters, it's grassroots people.

[BigBallinStalin]

NS, all politicians will have vested interests on behalf of some business or industry (corporations, NPOs, unions, etc) regardless of their political affiliation.

There are just varying degrees... like Ron Paul. He's probably closest to "man of the people," but the Tea Party? I really have my doubts...

[Phatscotty]

I guess people feel "robbed" almost you know like tax money had to bail them out, then they funded the tea party to regain some power in congress. the middle and lower class want the upper class to finally pay for lunch instead of the other way around. idk

Actually, the Tea Party wants everyone to pay for their own lunches, not make the rich pay for the poor.

depends on who you think the Tea Party represents

I vote for economic principles and fiscal responsibility,

[Aradhus]

I guess people feel "robbed" almost you know like tax money had to bail them out, then they funded the tea party to regain some power in congress. the middle and lower class want the upper class to finally pay for lunch instead of the other way around. idk

Actually, the Tea Party wants everyone to pay for their own lunches, not make the rich pay for the poor.

depends on who you think the Tea Party represents

I vote for economic principles and fiscal responsibility,

In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.

[Night Strike]

In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.

How on earth are those dissonant? Oh yeah, the government's not allowed to cut spending.

[Phatscotty]

In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.

How on earth are those dissonant? Oh yeah, the government's not allowed to cut spending.

no, they just cannot understand such a thing.

The one I love is "How can they vote against raising the debt ceiling?"

"Hit the NAY button"

or, if you are too lazy to push the nay button, take a quick looky at New Jersey. Oh, it is possible....oh....it isssss

[Baron Von PWN]

In other words, lower taxes, and cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, work your magic.

How on earth are those dissonant? Oh yeah, the government's not allowed to cut spending.

Because cutting taxes makes cutting the deficit more difficult. Its like saying you want to stop the boat from sinking but don't want to pump any water out.

In effect tax cuts are counter productive to cutting a deficit.

[jimboston]

I was speaking of an even more progressive rate. I know that what we have now is considered progressive, but I want to take it a step farther. In reality, it would never work because of the bureaucracy behind it all, but in theory it makes sense, at least to me.

% income(in relation to total private income of the U.S.) = % of total tax revenue

This would allow congress to set an amount of money to be raised, rather than increasing/decreasing taxes and hoping for some kind of substantial change. In theory it could work well; however, I realize some of the pitfalls could be immense.

It would never work because it's a dumb idea.

It would also drive the rich out of the country... who would flee and take their money and their expertise with them. Who do you think "drives" the economy? Who takes risks to create new industries and new jobs?

We would be a 3rd World country overnight.

[jimboston]

Here's what a person living in New York City (let's say she is a stock broker) and making over $200,000 per year pays in personal income taxes (based on tax rates).

- Income = $200,000
- US federal - Your tax is $41,754 + 33% of the amount over $171,550 ($9,389) = $51,143
- New York state personal income tax - Your tax is $13,303 plus 7.85% of the excess over $200,000 = $13,303
- New York city personal income tax - Your tax is $3,071 plus 3.648% of the excess of $90,000 ($4,013) = $7,084
- Social security tax - 6.2% on the first $106,800 of taxable earnings = $6,622
- Medicare tax - 1.45% on an employee's wages = $2,900

- Total tax = $81,052

That's just the total taxes from income... that does not factor in all the other taxes that person would pay.

Gas Tax
Fee's
Sales Tax
Property Tax
etc.
etc.
etc.