It is both simple and complex: Taxes and the very wealthy

[Spirit]

I've gotta say:  It's pretty unfair that I have to respond to emails from my boss, while also being expected to respond to comments on this site in a timely manner.  Someone should give me money for my misfortune.  

[nate]

I will trade you.  I am listening to a government lawyer drone on for the better part of two hours about regulations and how CMS is struggling to implement the regulations on healthcare.gov.

 

This is their tactic.  When there is about five minutes left in the call, and everyone is completely asleep, they will tell us that they can't figure it out and we have two days to do it ourselves or we will be out of compliance.

[Adam]

We should tax you at 35% 

[Spirit]

I will trade you.  I am listening to a government lawyer drone on for the better part of two hours about regulations and how CMS is struggling to implement the regulations on healthcare.gov.

 

This is their tactic.  When there is about five minutes left in the call, and everyone is completely asleep, they will tell us that they can't figure it out and we have two days to do it ourselves or we will be out of compliance.

 

 

Seems like a good use of taxpayer money.  We should tax the rich more so the country can do more of this stuff.

[Angelsjunky]

Easy to say when you aren't the one paying for it.

 

I'm not? I pay taxes.

 

It's a problem of resources, AJ. Society doesn't have the no st to pay for all the drug programs on top of all of the other programs taking priority.

And where do you draw the line? What about the person eating himself to death? Do we pay for him to have medical intervention for that? Do we pay for food counseling? A gym membership? A personal trainer?

 

I hear you. There is no easy answer. But I'd rather the government focus its resources on improving the quality of life of its citizens, of ALL of its citizens. I don't know the best way to do it, but the trend over the last 40+ years is worrisome, to say the least.

[nate]

I hear you. There is no easy answer. But I'd rather the government focus its resources on improving the quality of life of its citizens, of ALL of its citizens. I don't know the best way to do it, but the trend over the last 40+ years is worrisome, to say the least.

 

No you don't.  Otherwise you wouldn't be championing the middle class and upper class paying for the lower class.  That lowers the quality of life for those two groups.

[Adam]

No you don't.  Otherwise you wouldn't be championing the middle class and upper class paying for the lower class.  That lowers the quality of life for those two groups.

 

You must not have liked The Thin Red Line

[Angelsjunky]

No you don't.  Otherwise you wouldn't be championing the middle class and upper class paying for the lower class.  That lowers the quality of life for those two groups.

 

LOL at lowering the quality of life for the upper class. How horrible it must be to downsize from four houses to three.

 

But I'm not championing the middle and upper class paying for the lower class. I am saying, though, that 1) we should all pay taxes, and 2) the wealthier you are, the higher your tax rate should be, and 3) those taxes should go towards "bringing up" the floor with better health care and education, infrastructure, jobs, etc.

 

There's simplicity for you.

[Angelsjunky]

You must not have liked The Thin Red Line

 

"Pretentious" often really means "I don't understand it," which probably explains your dislike of this movie.

[nate]

You must not have liked The Thin Red Line

 

It is in my top 5.

[Schildog]

because someone is holding a gun to their head forcing them to buy cable?

 

did you not see my qualifying statement? not every cable owner want's espn. but they have to pay for it because it comes in every cable package. you feel me? 

[mtangelsfan]

So cable tv should be a right?

[Adam]

"Pretentious" often really means "I don't understand it," which probably explains your dislike of this movie.

 

This was actually a well-executed direct insult. Well done. 

[Spirit]

This was actually a well-executed direct insult. Well done. 

 

You say, "direct insult."  I say, "personal attack!!!"

 

 

But, I'll let it go.

[Adam]

You say, "direct insult."  I say, "personal attack!!!"

 

 

But, I'll let it go.

 

Guess you don't like "humor"

[nate]

You have to know your audience...

 

[Schildog]

So cable tv should be a right?

 

exactly mt. 

[Tank]

Tank, I personally think the more money you make, the higher your tax rate should be. Why? Because our system is completely out of whack and incomes are way out of balance. To me there's something wrong when you have a major league baseball player making $40MM a year and an inner city public school teacher making $40K a year - that baseball player is making as much as 1000 teachers. The good old American way. Now given the rarity of the baseball player's skill-set, he should be making more - even much more. But it shouldn't be that out of balance (1000 times!), in my opinion. So yes, I think some of that wealth should be re-distributed. The irony is that teacher is paying jacked up prices at the ballpark to pay for the baseball player's salary. Another way to address the same problem would be to put regulations around pricing, which would reduce the cost of living for the teacher - and have the result of lowering higher incomes that are supported through high prices.

 

The point being, we live in a system where the very wealthy by and large make money off the very poor. It isn't simply a matter of you can make as much money as hard as you are willing to work. That money has to come from somewhere, and over the last 40ish years, money has been redistributed from the lower 90ish% to the top 10ish%. That, to me, is a problem - and the only presidential candidate that is openly talking about it is Bernie Sanders.

 

if you don't create any incentives for the poor to move out of their condition, then it's completely unreasonable to ask people who have worked hard to pay for them.

 

and i disagree completely with the idea that the more you make, the more you should be taxed. we have always valued hard work, innovation, success, etc. in the country. it's an opportunity open to everyone. but to increase the taxes on those who succeed crosses a big moral line, especially if it's to pay for those unwilling to finish their education, or find a job shoveling crap, or work at a gas station, or whatever. the way our system is set up, it is not incumbent upon the successful to be required to take care of the unsuccessful.

 

there's a difference between charity for those truly in need, and handouts for those unwilling to pick up a shovel. i fully support being charitable.

[Tank]

But again, where does that money come from? It isn't just magically created - that's a capitalist fallacy. Or rather, not all of it is magically created.

 

Again, the fact of the matter is that the top income earners (of whatever percent) keep on getting wealthier, while the middle and lower classes at best stagnate, at worse get poor - as the cost of living keeps increasing. Part of that cost of living increase is directly related to the increase in income for the wealthy.

 

i don't go to very many baseball games. in fact, i haven't been to angel stadium since 2011. why? it's a hundred dollar night for me and my daughter, minimum. that's not affordable for me very often.

 

it's completely backwards to my thinking that the best way to establish credit is by carrying some kind of debt. maybe the financial guys here can shed more light on this, but i've heard that paying off your credit cards each month isn't a smart thing to do in order to increase your credit rating. if that's true, then we're doing it all backwards. and just look at the massive amounts of money owed to credit card companies. as a society, we're completely turned around on all of this, and the system needs a massive overhaul. i don't know the correlation between credit card debt and economic status, but i'd bet the farm there's a connection somewhere.

 

people have to learn to live within their means. that includes the poor.

[Tank]

You say, "direct insult."  I say, "personal attack!!!"

 

 

But, I'll let it go.

 

TOO MANY MICROAGGRESSIONS HERE!!!!!!!!

[Tank]

So cable tv should be a right?

 

in police academy 2, when steve guttenberg was arresting someone, he told them "you have the right to cable tv. you have the right to sing the blues."

 

so yes.

[Adam]

nice recall tanker

[mtangelsfan]

Too funny tank.  Seriously though, shildog makes a big deal about teachers being forced to pay athlete's salaries through their cable tv fees.

 

Nobody forced them to get cable tv.

[nate]

Nobody forgets the Gute.  Good pull, Tank!

[ABC]

Tank, I personally think the more money you make, the higher your tax rate should be. Why? Because our system is completely out of whack and incomes are way out of balance. To me there's something wrong when you have a major league baseball player making $40MM a year and an inner city public school teacher making $40K a year - that baseball player is making as much as 1000 teachers. The good old American way. Now given the rarity of the baseball player's skill-set, he should be making more - even much more. But it shouldn't be that out of balance (1000 times!), in my opinion. So yes, I think some of that wealth should be re-distributed. The irony is that teacher is paying jacked up prices at the ballpark to pay for the baseball player's salary. Another way to address the same problem would be to put regulations around pricing, which would reduce the cost of living for the teacher - and have the result of lowering higher incomes that are supported through high prices.

 

The point being, we live in a system where the very wealthy by and large make money off the very poor. It isn't simply a matter of you can make as much money as hard as you are willing to work. That money has to come from somewhere, and over the last 40ish years, money has been redistributed from the lower 90ish% to the top 10ish%. That, to me, is a problem - and the only presidential candidate that is openly talking about it is Bernie Sanders.

 

mp170.6, I do have a very limited grasp of economics, no doubt. And I was merely showing that there's a correlation between the lessening of taxes to the wealthy and the stagnation of the minimum wage. I wasn't saying one causes the other. But plenty of people who understand economics much better than I do, support the minimum wage, so just because you say almost all otherwise liberal PHDs hate it doesn't make it so. That's a baseless assertion.

 

wopphil, so what do you do with the drug addict who can't hold down a job and now isn't eligible for welfare - they just have to deal with it, right? What sort of support should society offer? Evidently none, because you don't want your hard-earned cash going to people less fortunate/able/together than you.

 

Now welfare is a band-aid solution. I think we can both agree that we need to focus on addressing the deeper causes, which have to do with education, culture, and upbringing. But the simple fact is that for whatever reason, many people struggle - and it isn't only because they are lazy or drug addicts. And if they are drug addicts, why? It is complex and not easily solved - and the fact of the matter is, heroin addiction is on the rise. It is a major problem.

 

So how do we help these people? What's your solution? Or do you we just say, "You got yourself into this situation, you get yourself out." There's a time and place for tough love, but there's also a time and place to look at ways that we can support and help each other, and especially for the more fortunate to help the less fortunate. Won't the American nation be stronger for it?

 

MLB players make more because they are worth more to their employers. It is not simply because of rarity.