The Rich and Taxes: A Debate

[Pedronicus]

it's been ages since i saw jimbo post. where the f*ck you been jim?

[jimboston]

A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

A couple that bought too much house, and that feels they can spend money on "luxuries", while failing to think about anything beyond the immediate-term, are just a couple of morons. They're making more than enough money to get by, yet they insist on living beyond their means. They get no sympathy from me, and I'm supposed to be one of the bleeding-hearts, here.

That was one of four or five arguments made... you picked the weakest one.

My counter-argument is...

Why the f*ck should I pay taxes up the ying-yang... while the jerk in public housing pays none and gets free housing and free food?

I went to school and worked hard to get where I am.

He (my example from public housing) skipped out of high school to smoke crack. He now uses all his discretionary cash to buy smokes, booze, and occasionally illicit drugs. He works under the table (I don't know or care where... maybe at a bar as a bartender, maybe doing landscaping, maybe in retail.) He earns $20K-$30K a year in cash under the table... pays no taxes and gets free food and free housing. He could earn more if he wanted to work... but why both? If he did that the gov't may find out and start making him pay some towards rent... so he earns just enough to stay under the radar.

Meanwhile I pay for him.

Don't tell me this doesn't happen... I see it all the time.

[jimboston]

it's been ages since i saw jimbo post. where the f*ck you been jim?

I quit.

... but like crack cocaine, this fucking hellhole has sucked me back in.

However... in the past I used to try to use logic and reason in this place. I now intend to be mainly belligerent... only throwing in the occasional good argument.

I am hoping if I say things like, f*ck, die, and go suck a dick often enough the powers that be will ban me.

Since I have no self-control that is obviously my best course of action.

[jimboston]

A bank may not want to lend a lot of extra money out during a generational conversion (they are considered high risk)

Why is that? Is it because, historically, they've been horrible moves for those businesses?

No... because historically they have been taxed so fucking high, that the new owners have no funds to re-invest back into the company.

[Pedronicus]

it's been ages since i saw jimbo post. where the f*ck you been jim?

I quit.

... but like crack cocaine, this fucking hellhole has sucked me back in.

However... in the past I used to try to use logic and reason in this place. I now intend to be mainly belligerent... only throwing in the occasional good argument.

I am hoping if I say things like, f*ck, die, and go suck a dick often enough the powers that be will ban me.

Since I have no self-control that is obviously my best course of action.

Very sensible logic mate. I just called the tournament director a massive cock. You need to direct you venom at idiots that run away to to other mods and demand their pound of flesh. Tell that banana wielding moron that his mum was the village bike and you'll be halfway there.

[Timminz]

A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

A couple that bought too much house, and that feels they can spend money on "luxuries", while failing to think about anything beyond the immediate-term, are just a couple of morons. They're making more than enough money to get by, yet they insist on living beyond their means. They get no sympathy from me, and I'm supposed to be one of the bleeding-hearts, here.

That was one of four or five arguments made... you picked the weakest one.

My counter-argument is...

Why the f*ck should I pay taxes up the ying-yang... while the jerk in public housing pays none and gets free housing and free food?

I went to school and worked hard to get where I am.

He (my example from public housing) skipped out of high school to smoke crack. He now uses all his discretionary cash to buy smokes, booze, and occasionally illicit drugs. He works under the table (I don't know or care where... maybe at a bar as a bartender, maybe doing landscaping, maybe in retail.) He earns $20K-$30K a year in cash under the table... pays no taxes and gets free food and free housing. He could earn more if he wanted to work... but why both? If he did that the gov't may find out and start making him pay some towards rent... so he earns just enough to stay under the radar.

Meanwhile I pay for him.

Don't tell me this doesn't happen... I see it all the time.

Yeah. That jerk in public housing sure is getting a sweet deal. I'd give anything to be like him.

[Phatscotty]

A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

A couple that bought too much house, and that feels they can spend money on "luxuries", while failing to think about anything beyond the immediate-term, are just a couple of morons. They're making more than enough money to get by, yet they insist on living beyond their means. They get no sympathy from me, and I'm supposed to be one of the bleeding-hearts, here.

you are absolutely correct. Could I prod further into your accuracy and ask you how such people were able to get those loans in the first place? or have these kind of people always been able to get loans that easy? what's your take

[rockfist]

A bank may not want to lend a lot of extra money out during a generational conversion (they are considered high risk)

Why is that? Is it because, historically, they've been horrible moves for those businesses?

No... because historically they have been taxed so fucking high, that the new owners have no funds to re-invest back into the company.

Its a bit of both...and its also that when you have multiple new owners its hard to get them to agree. Sometimes 2nd generations or third generations do really well in business, but there is more risk in the first two years after the transition than at any other time.

I can give a long winded explanation about generational transfer of small business but it is actually a topic that takes hours to discuss in a well rounded fashion. I have participated in public panel discussions on the topic for my job so I have some knowledge on the topic.

I suspect that some of the biggest supporters of high estate taxes are big businesses, because it forces the small and medium sized ones to sell out...and if you HAVE to sell, you never get the best deal.

[Phatscotty]

A bank may not want to lend a lot of extra money out during a generational conversion (they are considered high risk)

Why is that? Is it because, historically, they've been horrible moves for those businesses?

No... because historically they have been taxed so fucking high, that the new owners have no funds to re-invest back into the company.

Its a bit of both...and its also that when you have multiple new owners its hard to get them to agree. Sometimes 2nd generations or third generations do really well in business, but there is more risk in the first two years after the transition than at any other time.

I can give a long winded explanation about generational transfer of small business but it is actually a topic that takes hours to discuss in a well rounded fashion. I have participated in public panel discussions on the topic for my job so I have some knowledge on the topic.

sandals to shoes back to sandals is the word

[Timminz]

A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

A couple that bought too much house, and that feels they can spend money on "luxuries", while failing to think about anything beyond the immediate-term, are just a couple of morons. They're making more than enough money to get by, yet they insist on living beyond their means. They get no sympathy from me, and I'm supposed to be one of the bleeding-hearts, here.

you are absolutely correct. Could I prod further into your accuracy and ask you how such people were able to get those loans in the first place? or have these kind of people always been able to get loans that easy? what's your take

The way I (in my layman's view) see it, there was a severe lack of useful oversight on the financial institutions, who saw a handful of ways to abuse the regulations that actually were there, with the end result being them bilking the whole system out of billions, upon billions of dollars.

I can give a long winded explanation about generational transfer of small business but it is actually a topic that takes hours to discuss in a well rounded fashion. I have participated in public panel discussions on the topic for my job so I have some knowledge on the topic.

I'd be interested to hear it (perhaps in a more appropriate thread). I'm currently working for a small, family-owned, non-producing company, where the patriarch is reaching the age where we're all worried he's going to leave it in the hands of his jack-ass son. If that were to happen any time soon, I suspect 75% of the employees would leave. Which, I guess would just be an example of what you've said. Which brings me to the question of, if the son (for the good of the company) should not end up running the place, why should he be entitled to it in the event of his father's death?

[rockfist]

I will try to post a thread on that topic within the next week - we are doing a long distance move on Friday so I don't know how much time I will have.

I am going to work for the company my father runs. I have spent 13 years in the industry working for other companies...let me ask you this - has the jackass son ever worked elsewhere?

2nd question has he worked there...not been employed, but worked? You can be a good worker, but not a good leader because you ruffle too many feathers, which is something I learned, working for others.

When I was first out of college I would get Far Exceeds ratings in just about every category but teamwork and communication because I did not see the point in working around or with people who I thought were stupid, but I got a ton of shit done and made a lot of money for the company. It took years to realize I could have a larger impact by working within the system to tweak it rather than pounding through it.

If he is a good worker, but just a jerk, there is a chance he will come to that realization over time, but if he is in a leadership role he will create a lot of problems along the way. Luckily I was not in a leadership position while I was learning this, which irked me at the time, but is something I am grateful for now.

[Timminz]

He's just spent his life, so far, suckling at the teat of his father's success. Don't misunderstand, he's far more apt at the business than either of his brothers. He's just a spoiled f*ck-up, as far as he lets anyone else in the company know.

But this is only my impression of a single case, and not really the point of this thread, so I will leave it be, now.

Besides, I'm phasing myself out of the company (barring a 100%+ pay raise), over the next 2 years.

[Baron Von PWN]

JIMBOSTON ANSWER:
1 - Wealth does not equate to income. The two words a NOT synonymous. Wealth is a possession or a "state of being". Income is a measure of what one EARNS from work, and/or what one "takes in" from other sources... depending how it is being used. The tax code has different rates based on the type of income.
2 - I would define wealth based on a person's or family's ability to lead a "carefree" life. A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

I have not and do not suggest that "wealth" in this manner should be the basis of the tax code. The whole term is misused by socialists on the left to work-up their base.

Fine maybe they are not "wealthy" they still earn more than 98% of Americans. There are plenty of people who work just as many hours and face the same problems related to work/a busy life and manage to make ends meet on much less money. If the family you described making 250k+ is having difficulty paying their bills then I would suggest they are generating too many bills and need to reconsider their expenses.


P.S the way you responded made it difficult (in a format sense) to reply.

JIMBOSTON ANSWER:in response to I don't know how the American tax system works,

I think your comment bolded by me is the only response I need. Your presumption is incorrect. I don't understand how you can be involved in a thread about US Taxes when you don't know how our tax code works.

My understanding was this thread was about taxes in general (is it right/justified to tax high income earners more) not necessarily the American Tax system and its intricacies.

JIMBOSTON ANSWER:
Idiot... did you even read what I wrote? Half of the expenses are related to the fact that both parents are working. Please read before commenting.

Excellent rebuttal there Jim . Why is it somehow more expensive for two people who earn a combined income of 250k to work, than two people who earn 50k to work? If it is so difficult/expensive for the couple earning 250k to even make it to work, how the hell does a couple earning 50k(the American median) do it?

Seeing as people earning much less (98%) somehow afford to work and live. I don't think it is the cost of working that is the problem here but expenses of the couple.

JIMBOSTON ANSWER:
1 - How would it put a heavier burden on lower income people if the rate was 15%?
(It may put a heavier burden on people who are below the current threshold and pay no tax... I honestly don't give a flying f*ck.)
2 - How would it impact State funds?
(Federal taxes go to federal coffers... perhaps some pet pork-barrel projects would have to be cut, but so be it.)
3 - Why would any adjusted system have to provide the same level of funds as the current system? Why can we not force our gov't to cut waste and get rid of programs that are redundant and provide minimal benefit to society?
4 - your last point makes no sense.

1. This one is pretty simple Jim, anyone currently paying less than 15% (these are the truly poor), is now paying 15%. Let's break it down. What would a flat tax do? it would cause the Tax rates on the lowest income earners to increase, while reducing the tax rates on the highest income earners. This represents a shifting of state burden onto to the poorest members of society(those least able to pay). Though you apparently don't care about taking poor people's money so the point here may be lost on you. Secondly the State would have to tax at a higher rate than 15% in order to compensate for the loss of income caused by scraping progressive taxation.

2. I am using the general term of "state" meaning Government. Not specifically State(regional) level governments.

3. well for one drastically cutting state revenues means you are drastically increasing the deficit. Rapid heavy cuts to government spending tend to have severe negative consequences its usually a better idea to that type of thing gradually. Government maintains the system which allows for the creation of wealth. Starving it is a bad idea.

4. Ok. Currently the bottom 60% of Americans pay 15% of the Taxes (these people live on 50k or less). The top 40% of Americans pay the other 75%. A flat tax would change the portion of State revenue paid by each group, increasing the portion paid by low income earners, decreasing the portion paid by high income earners.

To me this seems backwards, you would be adding extra burdens to people who already struggle to survive, while at the same time removing services which help them to survive. You would also be removing burdens from people who are already thriving and are most able to shoulder them.

[Iliad]

You no nothing about potential energy Illiad. If you did you would not make your statements. You have the potential to leverage yourself up - once, you have the potential to raise taxes to levels that generate high revenue - once. Its you who are naive if you think these things can be repeated over and over again. Our society and economy were much healthier before the wars because we had much more potential energy and did not have to drain large portions of the economy into the military industrial complex. Producing weapons does not yield any potential future growth - the weapons are a strictly consumption good.

Concede. Just concede. What you said earlier was so stupid and wrong. Just reread his post, and maybe you'll learn somethin...

Potential energy? What are you babbling about? What's that measured in? M for Maybe's?

I got it! Use wikipedia, and read about the United States in the early 1900s, and up to ww1.

Well firstly, you specifically said relative to the world. And that is incredibly wrong and it's nice to see you ignoring that. So instead of making up bullshit about potential energy to excuse yourself from the torture of independent thinking and knowledge of history, accept that statement was absolutely wrong.

[jimboston]

it's been ages since i saw jimbo post. where the f*ck you been jim?

I quit.

... but like crack cocaine, this fucking hellhole has sucked me back in.

However... in the past I used to try to use logic and reason in this place. I now intend to be mainly belligerent... only throwing in the occasional good argument.

I am hoping if I say things like, f*ck, die, and go suck a dick often enough the powers that be will ban me.

Since I have no self-control that is obviously my best course of action.

Very sensible logic mate. I just called the tournament director a massive cock. You need to direct you venom at idiots that run away to to other mods and demand their pound of flesh. Tell that banana wielding moron that his mum was the village bike and you'll be halfway there.

Perhaps your advice will get me banned more quickly.

I prefer to direct my venom at idiots.... not randomly, and not at otherwise nice people who happen to hold bananas.

I don't even direct my venom at Libs who aren't idiots. Case in point... I think your political views are quite different than mine, but you use either humor or logic to make your points. Not ignorance.

Thanks for that.

[jimboston]

Fine maybe they are not "wealthy" they still earn more than 98% of Americans. There are plenty of people who work just as many hours and face the same problems related to work/a busy life and manage to make ends meet on much less money. If the family you described making 250k+ is having difficulty paying their bills then I would suggest they are generating too many bills and need to reconsider their expenses.

... and they will pay more under a Flat Tax.

Why should a person who earns $250K pay a higher percentage than a person earning $225K? The line where the percentage increases is always going to be arbitrary. The net result here is that after a taxes, a person earning $251K will take home less than a person earning $249K?
(Assuming $250 is where the percentage increases.)

How is that fair?

P.S the way you responded made it difficult (in a format sense) to reply.

I was being lazy. Of course, I am not here to make your life easy... so GFY.

I don't know how the American tax system works.

'nuff said

My understanding was this thread was about taxes in general (is it right/justified to tax high income earners more)...

I think people who earn more should pay more. That would be accomplished by a Flat Tax.
(i.e. flat percentage).

Why should they pay a higher percentage on a higher income? That is a compound insult.

Idiot... did you even read what I wrote? Half of the expenses are related to the fact that both parents are working. Please read before commenting.

Excellent rebuttal there Jim . Why is it somehow more expensive for two people who earn a combined income of 250k to work, than two people who earn 50k to work? If it is so difficult/expensive for the couple earning 250k to even make it to work, how the hell does a couple earning 50k(the American median) do it?

Again you failed to read what I wrote. Next time I won't bother replying again... idiot!

I was not comparing the costs of a two-income $250K household to a two-income $50K household. I was comparing the costs of a two-income $250K household to a one-income $250K household. If you read what I wrote you would have understood that.

Seeing as people earning much less (98%) somehow afford to work and live. I don't think it is the cost of working that is the problem here but expenses of the couple.

This 98% number is bogus. It includes non-tax-payers... people who earn so little that pay no income tax... and/or actually net a positive from the gov't in the form of housing, food stamps, social security, welfare, etc.

I think a better % would factor out those who pay nothing or net a positive from the gov't. They are NOT part of the tax paying public. If you factor that into the equation a $250K household is probably now around 65%... not 98%.

well for one drastically cutting state revenues means you are drastically increasing the deficit. Rapid heavy cuts to government spending tend to have severe negative consequences its usually a better idea to that type of thing gradually. Government maintains the system which allows for the creation of wealth. Starving it is a bad idea.

You completely ignore the fact that cuts in tax rates can often increase state revenues by increasing wealth creation. I don't think my proposals... being so drastic... would have a net total increase in gov't revenues... but it would not be as drastic as you pretend.

You also completely ignore the idea of actually cutting state spending. It is possible to cut state spending to a point where there is no deficit.

The State maintains the system yes... but it does not create the system. I do not suggest we cut infrastructure... just waste and wealth redistribution.

To me this seems backwards, you would be adding extra burdens to people who already struggle to survive, while at the same time removing services which help them to survive. You would also be removing burdens from people who are already thriving and are most able to shoulder them.

When did it become my job to work so that other people can live?

You know... honestly I am all for helping people who need it. However in my job and in my life I have seen the waste and fraud in gov't and in gov't subsidies. I can give personal real-life examples that I have seen first-hand. I have given these in the past here in CC. Yes I know most public housing is not a walk-in-the-park. That said... I have seen the abuse... and the lack of interest in the administration's part to crack down on the abuse. It is sickening.

I believe in tough-love. When the gov't keeps giving and giving and giving... people will keep taking and taking and taking. Years ago there was a stigma associated with receiving welfare. You had to wait in line... everyone knew... this stigma made you work hard to get off it as soon as possible. Now... you get a debit card in the mail that is automatically filled by the gov't every month. No line waiting, no stigma.

There was a stigma associated with abusing public help... if someone "beat" the system his/her neighbors would look down on that person. Now if a person finds a way to "beat" the system, people slap his back and congratulate him. There are websites that give ideas and tricks on how to get public assistance and set yourself up to get more... with all the tips and tricks to the "beat" the system spelling out in steps.

It's nutty.

It needs to end.

Tough Love... crack down... limit funding... etc.

[Timminz]

The net result here is that after a taxes, a person earning $251K will take home less than a person earning $249K?
(Assuming $250 is where the percentage increases.)

Well, not really. With progressive tax-rates (at least in the system I know), you only pay the higher percentage on the portion of your income above the cut-off point. For example (I'm just making up numbers, but the specifics aren't the point), you would pay 15% on the first 30k you earn, and then 20% on anything between 31k-55k, and then 30% on 56k-100k, etc.

Then again, if you'd like to call me an idiot, as you have with the Baron, because the system in your part of the world is different that what I've laid out above, then by all means, scream your little head off. I promise to read every word, and get really, super-duper upset about it.

[spurgistan]

The net result here is that after a taxes, a person earning $251K will take home less than a person earning $249K?
(Assuming $250 is where the percentage increases.)

Well, not really. With progressive tax-rates (at least in the system I know), you only pay the higher percentage on the portion of your income above the cut-off point. For example (I'm just making up numbers, but the specifics aren't the point), you would pay 15% on the first 30k you earn, and then 20% on anything between 31k-55k, and then 30% on 56k-100k, etc.

Then again, if you'd like to call me an idiot, as you have with the Baron, because the system in your part of the world is different that what I've laid out above, then by all means, scream your little head off. I promise to read every word, and get really, super-duper upset about it.

Yeah, we actually have a progressive income tax in Massachusetts. It's not people getting tax cuts, it's tax brackets, incomes between x and y. Something that gets left out of the discussion is that upper-class people benefit inordinately from middle-class tax cuts, at least in net savings.

[Night Strike]

The net result here is that after a taxes, a person earning $251K will take home less than a person earning $249K?
(Assuming $250 is where the percentage increases.)

Well, not really. With progressive tax-rates (at least in the system I know), you only pay the higher percentage on the portion of your income above the cut-off point. For example (I'm just making up numbers, but the specifics aren't the point), you would pay 15% on the first 30k you earn, and then 20% on anything between 31k-55k, and then 30% on 56k-100k, etc.

You're correct, that's how it works in the US. But raising the tax rates on only the highest income bracket is inherently class warfare, and makes it prohibitive to strive for that amount of income.

[jimboston]

The net result here is that after a taxes, a person earning $251K will take home less than a person earning $249K?
(Assuming $250 is where the percentage increases.)

Well, not really. With progressive tax-rates (at least in the system I know), you only pay the higher percentage on the portion of your income above the cut-off point. For example (I'm just making up numbers, but the specifics aren't the point), you would pay 15% on the first 30k you earn, and then 20% on anything between 31k-55k, and then 30% on 56k-100k, etc.

Then again, if you'd like to call me an idiot, as you have with the Baron, because the system in your part of the world is different that what I've laid out above, then by all means, scream your little head off. I promise to read every word, and get really, super-duper upset about it.

Fine... I'm an idiot and don't know how to do math.

That still does not change my position.

Does the person who earns $100K use less gov't services than the person who earns $125K?
Why am I disincentivized to earn more than $100K?

[thegreekdog]

I think people are ignoring the most important issue.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want to pay more taxes; they don't need a tax break. Great! Good for them. Seriously. I happen to agree with them too. They don't really need a tax break. They make more in 5 minutes than I do in 5 years.

Guess who does need a tax break? The people not making $500K every time they take a breath. Seriously... who cares about $125K v. $150K? We need to talk about $150K vs. $50 million. Let's start with that and then start quibbling about the $125K v. $150K stuff.

[jimboston]

The net result here is that after a taxes, a person earning $251K will take home less than a person earning $249K?
(Assuming $250 is where the percentage increases.)

Well, not really. With progressive tax-rates (at least in the system I know), you only pay the higher percentage on the portion of your income above the cut-off point. For example (I'm just making up numbers, but the specifics aren't the point), you would pay 15% on the first 30k you earn, and then 20% on anything between 31k-55k, and then 30% on 56k-100k, etc.

Then again, if you'd like to call me an idiot, as you have with the Baron, because the system in your part of the world is different that what I've laid out above, then by all means, scream your little head off. I promise to read every word, and get really, super-duper upset about it.

Yeah, we actually have a progressive income tax in Massachusetts. It's not people getting tax cuts, it's tax brackets, incomes between x and y. Something that gets left out of the discussion is that upper-class people benefit inordinately from middle-class tax cuts, at least in net savings.

Yes... it's so unfair to "let" the "rich" get some much more benefit from a general tax break. I mean... it would of course be much more "fair" to offset the tax break for "lower income" people... by increasing the rates on the "rich".

GFY and give me a break at the same time. PEOPLE... IT IS NOT THE GOVT'S MONEY TO "GIVE" TO THE "LOWER INCOME PEOPLE". A tax break should apply to all.

I am sure you have all seen this....

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.’ Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I got’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[jimboston]

I think people are ignoring the most important issue.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet want to pay more taxes; they don't need a tax break. Great! Good for them. Seriously. I happen to agree with them too. They don't really need a tax break. They make more in 5 minutes than I do in 5 years.

Guess who does need a tax break? The people not making $500K every time they take a breath. Seriously... who cares about $125K v. $150K? We need to talk about $150K vs. $50 million. Let's start with that and then start quibbling about the $125K v. $150K stuff.

No... wrong. This is still an arbitrary decision about who is "rich".

Yes someone earning $50million looks rich to me. I won't pretend otherwise.

... I also know I look "rich" to someone earning $20K /year and feeding a family.

The point is... WHY IS IT GOVT'S JOB TO DECIDE WHO IS RICH AND WHO ISN'T?

There was NO FEDERAL INCOME tax till the mid 1800's. When they (the Gov't) started it... it was 3%... and shortly later there were two brackets... 3% and 5%. I believe this went away shortly after the Civil War. I know in the late 1800's we needed a Constitutional Amendment to allow a new Federal Income Tax to be enacted.

In 1913 the highest bracket was 7%.

Fast forward 100 years, and we are paying between 1/3rd and 1/2th of our income in taxes to a combination of federal, state, and local gov'ts.

During that time we have had low-end rates as low as zero... and high-end rates in the high 70's. The fuckin' gov't can't just make up it's mind... set a fuckin' code... and stick with it. They have to play around with it year-in and year-out... adjusting it to the political whims of the moment. It's stupid.

If the country could run without these tax rates in the 30% range for 200 years... why can't we now?

The country would be much better off if we simply set a flat-rate and left it alone.

It's the govt's job to provide a "safe and stable" environment for businesses to prosper.

Varying tax rates every couple years in not "stable".

It is NOT the govt's job to redistribute wealth. That is not in the Constitution anywhere.

[thegreekdog]

You missed my point jb.

Democrats (e.g. Senator Sanders) are arguing "hey, even rich people want to pay more taxes" and then they point to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as examples of rich people. I'm saying, those aren't the only examples of what the government calls "rich." People making $250K are examples of what the government calls "rich." And those people do not want to pay more taxes.

Let's take your bar example - Patrons 8, 9, and 10 are all paying the same amount to the bar tender, except that 10 doesn't care because he makes so much money it doesn't matter to him. 9 makes good money, but he's a little concerned. And 8, well 8 barely makes more money than 7, so obviously it sucks for him.

[Phatscotty]

A family that has two breadwinners working 50+ hours a week... who can afford their bills and some luxuries, but has very little savings or retirement is not "wealthy". The family described by me previously could still be living paycheck-to-paycheck... and could be in a situation where they both MUST work in order to pay the mortgage.

A couple that bought too much house, and that feels they can spend money on "luxuries", while failing to think about anything beyond the immediate-term, are just a couple of morons. They're making more than enough money to get by, yet they insist on living beyond their means. They get no sympathy from me, and I'm supposed to be one of the bleeding-hearts, here.

you are absolutely correct. Could I prod further into your accuracy and ask you how such people were able to get those loans in the first place? or have these kind of people always been able to get loans that easy? what's your take

The way I (in my layman's view) see it, there was a severe lack of useful oversight on the financial institutions, who saw a handful of ways to abuse the regulations that actually were there, with the end result being them bilking the whole system out of billions, upon billions of dollars.

surely they are a large part. I'm still with you so far, and I won't bring out the nobody put a gun to the home buyer's head (oops).

However, the point I want to make here is, the financial institution did it because they had the assurance (insurance?) from the gov't that if it all went bad they would get bailed out in the end. So far, Only Lehman and Sterns (smallest fish) were allowed to fail.

It's the same case I make against gov't handouts in any other given issue. Wall Street CEO's get no kudos here. I just prey on their slimy money trails.