$250k = Rich. $172k = "Modest"

[....lybob]

Yeah, you sure got that one right. BTW, do the welfare cases repay their government handouts within two years at a profit?

If they get unlimited near zero interest money from the Fed, and if the Fed is continually willing to buy all their assets at 2-10x market value I'm sure they would.

[GG]

If they get unlimited near zero interest money from the Fed, and if the Fed is continually willing to buy all their assets at 2-10x market value I'm sure they would.

 

Compared to food stamps, housing & medical care for a third generation?

[DC Tom]

If they get unlimited near zero interest money from the Fed, and if the Fed is continually willing to buy all their assets at 2-10x market value I'm sure they would.

 

Y'know, for a moron, you've got REALLY good grammar and punctuation.

[Doc]

Not because they can't distinguish between "I want..." and "I need..." Because they can't distinguish that while the state's paying them welfare.

 

Had that discussion numerous times with my wife's niece (who is on welfare): "But I need a smart phone!" "No, you need to feed your kids. You want a smart phone." "But I need to be able to get on Facebook!"

It's a warped sense of entitlement. And the entitlement society breeds more sense of entitlement.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Nevermind people like JSP... His priorities are supposed to be everyone elses. Obviously society has changed and misguided people put the importance on the big screen and not the furniture... It is really no big deal... So what, it is what they choose. Were they complaining about not have a table or what not? Then I can see his point about scaling down... Things that were viewed as luxuries at one time are really not... Even at the expense of other items.

 

Just people wanting to pass judgement on others... I don't understand why he said "resentment"... I would view it with pity. Does JSP really want that TV? Is it bigger than his? Then I can see the resentment.

 

The resentment comes from that fact that people who WORK pay taxes to give to people who don't. These people who don't are supposed to use those resources for basic living necessities, like, you know, food, clothing, rent, maybe even a bed to sleep in. Instead, they forgo the food, clothing for the kids and furniture and use their welfare checks to buy a large flatscreen TV while their kids (one of which is a student in my wife's class) go to bed hungry, don't get a breakfast and have one set of clothing.

 

So you tell me, why exactly should I give a damn about the "parents" in that house?

[jjamie12]

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In what way does a person's income determine how much more or less they benefit they get from "the infrastructure?"

It's not what they will get from the infrastructure. It's what they've already received from the infrastructure. It's an important distinction to make, and it's also important to note that the infrastructure that I'm speaking of refers also to things like security, education, general health, etc. as well as the more generally thought of 'infrastructure' of the gold-paved roads that only the people making more than $250K get to drive on.

 

Edit: Why does every taxation discussion around here devolve into the whole First Guy: "I just saw a guy on welfare whip out his cell phone. HIS CELL PHONE! I AM ENRAGED!" Other guy: "Why do you care what he spent his piddly amount of money on? I know what you should and shouldn't care about, not you! I'M ENRAGED BY YOUR LACK OF COMPASSION!" debate? Isn't that pretty worthless? You know: "my personal anecdote is better than yours" never actually leads to anything substantial, it just clouds an actual debate about whether there should actually be a progressive tax or a flat tax (which is what started this whole welfare nonsense -- in addition to nonsense replies of golden paved roads as strawmen get punched in the face, knocked on the ground and burned alive)

Edited January 14, 2011 by jjamie12

[DC Tom]

It's not what they will get from the infrastructure. It's what they've already received from the infrastructure. It's an important distinction to make, and it's also important to note that the infrastructure that I'm speaking of refers also to things like security, education, general health, etc. as well as the more generally thought of 'infrastructure' of the gold-paved roads that only the people making more than $250K get to drive on.

 

You need to learn the distinction between "exclusive use" and "non-exclusive use".

 

For example: everyone benefits from security and public health equally, regardless of input.

[jjamie12]

You need to learn the distinction between "exclusive use" and "non-exclusive use".

 

For example: everyone benefits from security and public health equally, regardless of input.

Totally agree Tom (and I understand the distinction). However, I disagree with your second line, in that not everyone benefits equally with respect to those things. I don't think it's a huge stretch (at all) to say that, for example: An Investment Banker making $500K / year has benefitted from that security more than, say, a janitor in my office building. No? I mean, it's almost a 'by definition' kind of thing: The more I have to lose, the greater the benefit is. Also- there are probably always going to be janitor jobs in my office building whether or not the US is running around trying to keep Asia stable, whereas alot of those I-banking jobs aren't there without that extra stability.

Edited January 14, 2011 by jjamie12

[Gene Frenkle]

You need to learn the distinction between "exclusive use" and "non-exclusive use".

 

For example: everyone benefits from security and public health equally, regardless of input.

I think the best argument is that the rich are benefiting from a system that rewards specific sets of skills. They are paying back into a system from which they benefit the most.

[jjamie12]

I think the best argument is that the rich are benefiting from a system that rewards specific sets of skills. They are paying back into a system from which they benefit the most.

I agree here with Gene (first time for everything). This is, I think, the best way to justify Progressive Taxation.

[GG]

Totally agree Tom (and I understand the distinction). However, I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that, for example: An Investment Banker making $500K / year has benefitted from that security more than, say, a janitor in my office building. No?

 

Are you saying that an investmnet banker's life or health is more valuable than a janitor's?

[IDBillzFan]

Y'know, for a moron, you've got REALLY good grammar and punctuation.

Actually, if you look at his sentence, he failed to hyphenate the modifier "near," and left a comma off the end to complete the extended "if, then" hypothetical, as in "If they get unlimited near-zero interest money from the Fed, and if the Fed is continually willing to buy all their assets at 2-10x market value, [then] I'm sure they would."

 

On the other hand, now that we accept words like irregardless, I'm sure things like hyphenated modifiers and commas in hypotheticals are unnecessary as long as most people get his point.

[jjamie12]

Are you saying that an investmnet banker's life or health is more valuable than a janitor's?

GG- I respect you quite alot as a poster on PPP. I've learned a whole lot about economics from your postings here, and I'd just like to point out that I know that you're smarter than this.

[GG]

I agree here with Gene (first time for everything). This is, I think, the best way to justify Progressive Taxation.

 

Progressive taxation ignores the very real concept of mobility of capital and low cost of tax avoidance by the wealthy.

 

 

(note to the simpleton sounding board: tax avoidance is not the same as tax evasion)

[jjamie12]

Progressive taxation ignores the very real concept of mobility of capital and low cost of tax avoidance by the wealthy.

 

Agreed. Pros and Cons to any system you construct. It is really a larger discussion about the role of government and what level funding is necessary for the government to fulfill that role. I think you and I both agree that the problem is not on the 'revenue' side of the house in Washington.

Edited January 14, 2011 by jjamie12

[GG]

GG- I respect you quite alot as a poster on PPP. I've learned a whole lot about economics from your postings here, and I'd just like to point out that I know that you're smarter than this.

 

But that's the whole point - you need to quantify that statemnet. How does a banker benefit more? Have you examined the loss to the janitor if the banker ends up losing?

 

A good analogy is the effect of the financial crisis. People were out for bankers' blood and many were fired, only to land on their feet a few months later. Meanwhile the secretaries, janitors & other support staff are still out of jobs. Who lost more?

[jjamie12]

But that's the whole point - you need to quantify that statemnet. How does a banker benefit more? Have you examined the loss to the janitor if the banker ends up losing?

 

A good analogy is the effect of the financial crisis. People were out for bankers' blood and many were fired, only to land on their feet a few months later. Meanwhile the secretaries, janitors & other support staff are still out of jobs. Who lost more?

 

Let's keep in mind that I'm only trying to answer the question posed by Chef a few pages ago: Namely, Why should you pay more taxes on a percentage basis if you make more than $250K?

 

That being said, I'm not quite sure that this is the analogy that you want to be makinge here. Clearly, the secretaries, janitors & other support staff lost more. Which is why (the thinking goes) that those I-Banking guys making tons of dough SHOULD have been paying more (as a percentage) in taxes to help those people who lost their jobs get back on their feet, right?

 

There is a system in place that rewards people who can be I-Bankers through remuneration on a much grander scale than those who are only able to perform menial tasks. Is it so much to ask of the I-Banker to kick back into that system at a slightly higher rate than the janitor who wasn't (or isn't or can't be) capable of benefitting from the system in the same way?

 

That's the justification for it, no?

[GG]

Let's keep in mind that I'm only trying to answer the question posed by Chef a few pages ago: Namely, Why should you pay more taxes on a percentage basis if you make more than $250K?

 

That being said, I'm not quite sure that this is the analogy that you want to be makinge here. Clearly, the secretaries, janitors & other support staff lost more. Which is why (the thinking goes) that those I-Banking guys making tons of dough SHOULD have been paying more (as a percentage) in taxes to help those people who lost their jobs get back on their feet, right?

 

There is a system in place that rewards people who can be I-Bankers through remuneration on a much grander scale than those who are only able to perform menial tasks. Is it so much to ask of the I-Banker to kick back into that system at a slightly higher rate than the janitor who wasn't (or isn't or can't be) capable of benefitting from the system in the same way?

 

That's the justification for it, no?

 

You're framing the argument as if they're making the same monetary contribution. But in effect the banker pays more because his income is higher.

 

Let's attack it in reverse. Is it fair for the banker to pay 5 times the amount of taxes if he makes 2 times the salary of the janitor? That's the practical effect of progressive taxation.

 

Remember the goal is to maximize the dollars that need to go into the system, not brag about the high tax rates.

Edited January 14, 2011 by GG

[OCinBuffalo]

yup that's me, a "low end doctor", my value determined by really high end, smart folks like you . your post is so misguided, ungrounded, inflammatory, and uninformed that it deserves no further reply.

Nope. You forgot: you told us your % of Medicare/Medicaid patients you see. You also forgot what I do. As such, you forgot how easy it is for me to take that % and calculate pretty darn close to what you make a year, provided you aren't being lazy. And, you told us that Obamacare means more patients for you, which it does.

 

Based on that, I can easily claim: you are in fact a "low-end reimbursement" doc, and that yes, Obamacare would in fact mean you get more, low-end money for the type of patients you see.

 

These are the facts as you have described them. Feel free to change your tune.

 

The fact is: you won't be making $250k, or even $172k a year, ever. The specialist clinic guys I just got off the phone with? Those guys make $500k a year. So, what is inaccurate about saying: you are fine with hosing my specialist clients, because it doesn't effect you personally, nor will it ever effect you personally?

Answer: nothing.

 

(What birddog says next:) "Yeah, so what you bastard, it's not all about $$$!"

 

(My reply will be funny, and devastating)

Edited January 14, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

Nope. You forgot: you told us your % of Medicare/Medicaid patients you see. You also forgot what I do. As such, you forgot how easy it is for me to take that % and calculate pretty darn close to what you make a year, provided you aren't being lazy. And, you told us that Obamacare means more patients for you, which it does.

 

Based on that, I can easily claim: you are in fact a "low-end reimbursement" doc, and that yes, Obamacare would in fact mean you get more, low-end money for the type of patients you see.

 

These are the facts as you have described them. Feel free to change your tune.

 

The fact is: you won't be making $250k, or even $172k a year, ever. The specialist clinic guys I just got off the phone with? Those guys make $500k a year. So, what is inaccurate about saying: you are fine with hosing my specialist clients, because it doesn't effect you personally, nor will it ever effect you personally?

Answer: nothing.

 

(What birddog says next:) "Yeah, so what you bastard, it's not all about $$$!"

 

(My reply will be funny, and devastating)

i was going to rebut you but that lowers me to your level and makes a silly competition over earnings. so i'll just ask: if i made 150k a year would that make me less of a doctor to you? don't answer, i really don't care. do you think i was forced to go into a lower paying specialty? that i couldn't set up a concierge practice in an affluent area (i don't believe it would be fair or compassionate- whether you believe in altruism or not)? don't answer you'd be wrong.

Edited January 14, 2011 by birdog1960