Tax Man Cometh
-
They say that children are expensive in the first 18 years. The next 5 or 6 can cost a load too. Driving lessons, Car, Deposit on Flat so he can move in with dollybird for far more sex than you are getting...
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
... for far more sex than you are getting able to...
FTFY :sigh:
"The ones who care enough to do it right care too much to compromise." Matthew Faithfull
-
Sounds like communism to me. How about NO taxation beyond defence and social care costs (Medical care, road up-keep, policing etc). If we weren't paying for Foreign Aid, The EU, Feckless Breeding, Prisons, Elective medical services, Fighting America's Wars and The Arts we could reduce Income Tax to Zero.
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^]
-
Quote:
That's the basis of all progressive/redistributionary tax systems.
I know, and it's insane. That is NOT fair. You really believe that taxing people at different percentages is fair? I simply cannot understand that.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Do you think it's unfair that when you make a bad challenge, you get a yellow card and other people don't? Fairness is about treating people the same when they make the same choices and end up in the same position. Rich and poor are not like male and female, people move between categories and they do so through choices and actions. You can argue that you would prefer flat rate tax, but there is nothing intrinsically unfair about a system where you can end up paying a different amount based on how much you make. As Mike points out above, there isn't really a good argument for a flat percentage. You are using the same services, you should pay the same amount. Obviously that's insanely regressive and impractical, which is why advocates of the right try to push flat percentage. My main justification for progressive taxation is socialist: we need to pay for certain services, and it's better for society if they're mostly paid for by people who can easily afford it. But there is also an economic one: when you get rich, you've done so thanks to the services, protection and regulated labour provided to you by the state.
-
Do you think it's unfair that when you make a bad challenge, you get a yellow card and other people don't? Fairness is about treating people the same when they make the same choices and end up in the same position. Rich and poor are not like male and female, people move between categories and they do so through choices and actions. You can argue that you would prefer flat rate tax, but there is nothing intrinsically unfair about a system where you can end up paying a different amount based on how much you make. As Mike points out above, there isn't really a good argument for a flat percentage. You are using the same services, you should pay the same amount. Obviously that's insanely regressive and impractical, which is why advocates of the right try to push flat percentage. My main justification for progressive taxation is socialist: we need to pay for certain services, and it's better for society if they're mostly paid for by people who can easily afford it. But there is also an economic one: when you get rich, you've done so thanks to the services, protection and regulated labour provided to you by the state.
Quote:
Do you think it's unfair that when you make a bad challenge, you get a yellow card and other people don't?
No, but what does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
Fairness is about treating people the same
That part is true.
Quote:
but there is nothing intrinsically unfair about a system where you can end up paying a different amount based on how much you make.
No, that's the exact definition of unfair.
Quote:
You are using the same services, you should pay the same amount.
Well that doesn't hold at all with what you have said. So, a poor person should pay $100 for having road services and a rich person should also pay $100 for road services since they both drive the same amount. You said rich people should pay more than poor people, so what is it?
Quote:
it's better for society if they're mostly paid for by people who can easily afford it.
And with a flat tax rate, that would still hold true. So, this does not support your argument.
Quote:
when you get rich, you've done so thanks to the services, protection and regulated labour provided to you by the state.
Ah, finally we get to the answer. You are just as arrogant as Obama, thinking that you actually somehow helped in the success of rich people. Keep dreaming. Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical. So, if I rented your garage from you to run my business and we agreed upon $500 a month payment, but then I became extremely successful would you try to claim more of my money and now charge $5000 a month just because I did well?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Do you think it's unfair that when you make a bad challenge, you get a yellow card and other people don't?
No, but what does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
Fairness is about treating people the same
That part is true.
Quote:
but there is nothing intrinsically unfair about a system where you can end up paying a different amount based on how much you make.
No, that's the exact definition of unfair.
Quote:
You are using the same services, you should pay the same amount.
Well that doesn't hold at all with what you have said. So, a poor person should pay $100 for having road services and a rich person should also pay $100 for road services since they both drive the same amount. You said rich people should pay more than poor people, so what is it?
Quote:
it's better for society if they're mostly paid for by people who can easily afford it.
And with a flat tax rate, that would still hold true. So, this does not support your argument.
Quote:
when you get rich, you've done so thanks to the services, protection and regulated labour provided to you by the state.
Ah, finally we get to the answer. You are just as arrogant as Obama, thinking that you actually somehow helped in the success of rich people. Keep dreaming. Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical. So, if I rented your garage from you to run my business and we agreed upon $500 a month payment, but then I became extremely successful would you try to claim more of my money and now charge $5000 a month just because I did well?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
What it has to do with anything is that it's exactly analogous: you are playing by the same rules as everyone else, if your actions put you in a different position then that is not unfair.
Well that doesn't hold at all with what you have said. So, a poor person should pay $100 for having road services and a rich person should also pay $100 for road services since they both drive the same amount. You said rich people should pay more than poor people, so what is it?
My point is that when rightists try to use the 'it's only fair if we pay the same', they're actually being intellectually dishonest, because the actual conclusion of that argument is to pay the same absolute amount. And that's obviously absurd, so they don't try to push that; instead they conflate 'paying the same' with pushing for a flat percentage rate, because that still gives a lot more money to them and they think it's plausible sounding. A flat rate is actually nothing more than a point on the flat amount to extremely inclined progressive spectrum.
And with a flat tax rate, that would still hold true. So, this does not support your argument.
No it doesn't. If you take £2000 away from someone earning £10k, they're really going to notice that; they'll find it hard to find anywhere to live, to buy electricity and water, food and other basics. If you take £200k away from someone coining £1m/yr, it won't affect their ability to live comfortably.
Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical.
You just agreed that the state provides the environment for rich people to get rich! Furthermore, all money is state money; it only has value because it's backed by a state, and a state is fully within its rights to manage where its money goes in the best interests of its citizens.
So, if I rented your garage from you to run my business and we agreed upon $500 a month payment, but then I became extremely successful would you try to claim more of my money and now charge $5000 a month just because I did well?
That question, like so much rightist rhetoric, is duplicitous. If we'd agreed to a rate, then of course not. If we'd agreed to differential rents depending on how well we did, though, you should keep to that. And that's what we are implicitly agreeing to through the social contract when we live in a country with a progressive t
-
What it has to do with anything is that it's exactly analogous: you are playing by the same rules as everyone else, if your actions put you in a different position then that is not unfair.
Well that doesn't hold at all with what you have said. So, a poor person should pay $100 for having road services and a rich person should also pay $100 for road services since they both drive the same amount. You said rich people should pay more than poor people, so what is it?
My point is that when rightists try to use the 'it's only fair if we pay the same', they're actually being intellectually dishonest, because the actual conclusion of that argument is to pay the same absolute amount. And that's obviously absurd, so they don't try to push that; instead they conflate 'paying the same' with pushing for a flat percentage rate, because that still gives a lot more money to them and they think it's plausible sounding. A flat rate is actually nothing more than a point on the flat amount to extremely inclined progressive spectrum.
And with a flat tax rate, that would still hold true. So, this does not support your argument.
No it doesn't. If you take £2000 away from someone earning £10k, they're really going to notice that; they'll find it hard to find anywhere to live, to buy electricity and water, food and other basics. If you take £200k away from someone coining £1m/yr, it won't affect their ability to live comfortably.
Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical.
You just agreed that the state provides the environment for rich people to get rich! Furthermore, all money is state money; it only has value because it's backed by a state, and a state is fully within its rights to manage where its money goes in the best interests of its citizens.
So, if I rented your garage from you to run my business and we agreed upon $500 a month payment, but then I became extremely successful would you try to claim more of my money and now charge $5000 a month just because I did well?
That question, like so much rightist rhetoric, is duplicitous. If we'd agreed to a rate, then of course not. If we'd agreed to differential rents depending on how well we did, though, you should keep to that. And that's what we are implicitly agreeing to through the social contract when we live in a country with a progressive t
Quote:
if your actions put you in a different position then that is not unfair.
And in your analogy someone was being punished. So it is when you take more money from someone who has worked harder than someone else.
Quote:
because the actual conclusion of that argument is to pay the same absolute amount.
That's absurd. Everyone pays 10%, for example. Someone who makes $1000 pays $100 and someone who makes $1,000,000 pays $100,000. That is not the same absolute amount.
Quote:
No it doesn't. If you take £2000 away from someone earning £10k, they're really going to notice that; they'll find it hard to find anywhere to live, to buy electricity and water, food and other basics. If you take £200k away from someone coining £1m/yr, it won't affect their ability to live comfortably.
OK, so I have 10 cookies and you have 100. If I told you I am going to give 2 to someone and you have to give 50 to someone, you would say that's fair? Come on, stop it. That's insane.
Quote:
You just agreed that the state provides the environment for rich people to get rich!
No I didn't. Don't try to twist what I said.
Quote:
state is fully within its rights to manage where its money goes in the best interests of its citizens.
True, mostly. But that isn't what this discussion is about. Legal and fair are not always the same thing.
Quote:
And that's what we are implicitly agreeing to through the social contract when we live in a country with a progressive tax code.
Again you skirt the answer. It is not about what is legal, it is about what is fair.
Quote:
The core point is that the rules are the same for everybody.
How can you possibly say that with a straight face? If I make 10k you'll take 2k and if I make 10M you'll take 5M. How can you say the rules are the same. They are not the same. 1 does not equal 2.
Quote:
Unfair is if you get to pay a lower rate than me even if we're in the same position.
Yes, that is also unfair. But no one is in the exact same position. Everyone is in a unique position. So how can that be fair?
There are
-
Quote:
if your actions put you in a different position then that is not unfair.
And in your analogy someone was being punished. So it is when you take more money from someone who has worked harder than someone else.
Quote:
because the actual conclusion of that argument is to pay the same absolute amount.
That's absurd. Everyone pays 10%, for example. Someone who makes $1000 pays $100 and someone who makes $1,000,000 pays $100,000. That is not the same absolute amount.
Quote:
No it doesn't. If you take £2000 away from someone earning £10k, they're really going to notice that; they'll find it hard to find anywhere to live, to buy electricity and water, food and other basics. If you take £200k away from someone coining £1m/yr, it won't affect their ability to live comfortably.
OK, so I have 10 cookies and you have 100. If I told you I am going to give 2 to someone and you have to give 50 to someone, you would say that's fair? Come on, stop it. That's insane.
Quote:
You just agreed that the state provides the environment for rich people to get rich!
No I didn't. Don't try to twist what I said.
Quote:
state is fully within its rights to manage where its money goes in the best interests of its citizens.
True, mostly. But that isn't what this discussion is about. Legal and fair are not always the same thing.
Quote:
And that's what we are implicitly agreeing to through the social contract when we live in a country with a progressive tax code.
Again you skirt the answer. It is not about what is legal, it is about what is fair.
Quote:
The core point is that the rules are the same for everybody.
How can you possibly say that with a straight face? If I make 10k you'll take 2k and if I make 10M you'll take 5M. How can you say the rules are the same. They are not the same. 1 does not equal 2.
Quote:
Unfair is if you get to pay a lower rate than me even if we're in the same position.
Yes, that is also unfair. But no one is in the exact same position. Everyone is in a unique position. So how can that be fair?
There are
OK, so I have 10 cookies and you have 100. If I told you I am going to give 2 to someone and you have to give 50 to someone, you would say that's fair?
Why is it fair that I have to give 20, not 2? When you answer that you can see how the argument applies to any number greater than 2.
If I make 10k you'll take 2k and if I make 10M you'll take 5M. How can you say the rules are the same.
Sigh. You can't actually be this thick. The rules are the same because if I also make 10m, the tax would be 5m. Fairness applies between people, not situations.
So it is when you take more money from someone who has worked harder than someone else.
Oh haha that old canard ... income doesn't scale with 'working hard' and it's a cheap tactic to claim that it does.
-
OK, so I have 10 cookies and you have 100. If I told you I am going to give 2 to someone and you have to give 50 to someone, you would say that's fair?
Why is it fair that I have to give 20, not 2? When you answer that you can see how the argument applies to any number greater than 2.
If I make 10k you'll take 2k and if I make 10M you'll take 5M. How can you say the rules are the same.
Sigh. You can't actually be this thick. The rules are the same because if I also make 10m, the tax would be 5m. Fairness applies between people, not situations.
So it is when you take more money from someone who has worked harder than someone else.
Oh haha that old canard ... income doesn't scale with 'working hard' and it's a cheap tactic to claim that it does.
Quote:
Why is it fair that I have to give 20, not 2?
Because the percents are the same. There is no other way to be treated equally.
Quote:
You can't actually be this thick.
Coming from the person who says they are treating the rich equally as they are treating the poor.
Quote:
Fairness applies between people, not situations.
Now you have changed your story. Earlier you said it was fair because of the situation.
Quote:
income doesn't scale with 'working hard' and it's a cheap tactic to claim that it does.
Who's thick? Working hard does not equate to sweating as you are implying. So, you did not answer. You said "Unfair is if you get to pay a lower rate than me even if we're in the same position." But there is no such thing as same position. So, now what?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Why is it fair that I have to give 20, not 2?
Because the percents are the same. There is no other way to be treated equally.
Quote:
You can't actually be this thick.
Coming from the person who says they are treating the rich equally as they are treating the poor.
Quote:
Fairness applies between people, not situations.
Now you have changed your story. Earlier you said it was fair because of the situation.
Quote:
income doesn't scale with 'working hard' and it's a cheap tactic to claim that it does.
Who's thick? Working hard does not equate to sweating as you are implying. So, you did not answer. You said "Unfair is if you get to pay a lower rate than me even if we're in the same position." But there is no such thing as same position. So, now what?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Because the percents are the same. There is no other way to be treated equally.
... except that in your garage analogy two posts ago, you were talking about absolute numbers! Seems it's you that can't keep your argument straight.
Now you have changed your story. Earlier you said it was fair because of the situation.
No I didn't, I said "fairness means that everyone plays by the same rules, and if they earn the same amount they would pay the same". If you really think that high income (if we're talking about income/cashflow related taxes) means working hard then you're so out of touch with reality it's not worth continuing. And if we move into the realm of wealth, instead of income, it's even more untrue.
-
Because the percents are the same. There is no other way to be treated equally.
... except that in your garage analogy two posts ago, you were talking about absolute numbers! Seems it's you that can't keep your argument straight.
Now you have changed your story. Earlier you said it was fair because of the situation.
No I didn't, I said "fairness means that everyone plays by the same rules, and if they earn the same amount they would pay the same". If you really think that high income (if we're talking about income/cashflow related taxes) means working hard then you're so out of touch with reality it's not worth continuing. And if we move into the realm of wealth, instead of income, it's even more untrue.
Quote:
except that in your garage analogy two posts ago, you were talking about absolute numbers! Seems it's you that can't keep your argument straight.
Serious? Are you just trolling now? That was to show how ridiculous your way of thinking is.
Quote:
If you really think that high income (if we're talking about income/cashflow related taxes) means working hard then you're so out of touch with reality it's not worth continuing. And if we move into the realm of wealth, instead of income, it's even more untrue.
I already addressed this. Apparently you missed it. Working hard is merely a metaphorical figure of speech. You know what it means so stop getting stuck on the silly. But, you still haven't answered the question I have asked twice. There is no such thing as the "same position." Two people both making 1M do not have the same exact circumstances.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Do you think it's unfair that when you make a bad challenge, you get a yellow card and other people don't?
No, but what does that have to do with anything?
Quote:
Fairness is about treating people the same
That part is true.
Quote:
but there is nothing intrinsically unfair about a system where you can end up paying a different amount based on how much you make.
No, that's the exact definition of unfair.
Quote:
You are using the same services, you should pay the same amount.
Well that doesn't hold at all with what you have said. So, a poor person should pay $100 for having road services and a rich person should also pay $100 for road services since they both drive the same amount. You said rich people should pay more than poor people, so what is it?
Quote:
it's better for society if they're mostly paid for by people who can easily afford it.
And with a flat tax rate, that would still hold true. So, this does not support your argument.
Quote:
when you get rich, you've done so thanks to the services, protection and regulated labour provided to you by the state.
Ah, finally we get to the answer. You are just as arrogant as Obama, thinking that you actually somehow helped in the success of rich people. Keep dreaming. Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical. So, if I rented your garage from you to run my business and we agreed upon $500 a month payment, but then I became extremely successful would you try to claim more of my money and now charge $5000 a month just because I did well?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Ah, finally we get to the answer. You are just as arrogant as Obama, thinking that you actually somehow helped in the success of rich people. Keep dreaming. Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical.
That of course ignores reality. Someone who is rich can pay someone to deal with the trivialities of every day living. And use that time to get richer. With less resources that isn't possible. That extends in any number of ways, such as being able to pay someone, or many someones to find ways in which one doesn't in fact pay the same amount as the poorer person. As an example they might structure a deal for a company such that the company pays less for gasoline for their fleet of automobiles and the rich person partakes of that as well. Or an alternative is found to structure their income such that they do not in fact pay their normal tax bill. Wealth allows one to explore those options. It also allows that when such explorations do not lead to savings that they have less impact as a percentage of total income. It allows for a better education, sometimes substantially and significantly better. It allows for more remediation efforts in all aspects of ones life when failures occur. For example providing tutors when grades fail or even donations to a university changing what would be an expulsion for someone with lesser means into a forgivable transgression. It allows one to start multiple new businesses with the chance that might one succeed versus only investing everything in one. It allows one the opportunity provide seed capital to the business ventures to others and thus partake of their success without working at all. Or when one's family member has a medical condition that requires expensive treatment including medicine and perhaps full time care. For someone that is rich this can be but a small percentage of their income while it might wipe out someone poorer. It isn't surprising when someone who is very rich gets richer. What is surprising is when they manage to lose it all. However even losing it "all" can mean different things for someone who is rich as they might in fact have structure things such that they still have resources despite the fact that they left many unpaid bills.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, if I rented your garage from you to run
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Ah, finally we get to the answer. You are just as arrogant as Obama, thinking that you actually somehow helped in the success of rich people. Keep dreaming. Yes, I would agree that without the services it would make economic growth more difficult but to claim some right on rich people's money is absurd and tyranical.
That of course ignores reality. Someone who is rich can pay someone to deal with the trivialities of every day living. And use that time to get richer. With less resources that isn't possible. That extends in any number of ways, such as being able to pay someone, or many someones to find ways in which one doesn't in fact pay the same amount as the poorer person. As an example they might structure a deal for a company such that the company pays less for gasoline for their fleet of automobiles and the rich person partakes of that as well. Or an alternative is found to structure their income such that they do not in fact pay their normal tax bill. Wealth allows one to explore those options. It also allows that when such explorations do not lead to savings that they have less impact as a percentage of total income. It allows for a better education, sometimes substantially and significantly better. It allows for more remediation efforts in all aspects of ones life when failures occur. For example providing tutors when grades fail or even donations to a university changing what would be an expulsion for someone with lesser means into a forgivable transgression. It allows one to start multiple new businesses with the chance that might one succeed versus only investing everything in one. It allows one the opportunity provide seed capital to the business ventures to others and thus partake of their success without working at all. Or when one's family member has a medical condition that requires expensive treatment including medicine and perhaps full time care. For someone that is rich this can be but a small percentage of their income while it might wipe out someone poorer. It isn't surprising when someone who is very rich gets richer. What is surprising is when they manage to lose it all. However even losing it "all" can mean different things for someone who is rich as they might in fact have structure things such that they still have resources despite the fact that they left many unpaid bills.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, if I rented your garage from you to run
Quote:
Someone who is rich can pay someone to deal with the trivialities of every day living.
So, why punish the rich? What did they do wrong?
Quote:
So you have never worked at a start up where the venture capitalists forced out the founder? Nor have you heard of anything like that happening?
What does that have to do with anything? The debate was not on what is legal or what actually happens it was on what is fair. Don't take this out of context.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Someone who is rich can pay someone to deal with the trivialities of every day living.
So, why punish the rich? What did they do wrong?
Quote:
So you have never worked at a start up where the venture capitalists forced out the founder? Nor have you heard of anything like that happening?
What does that have to do with anything? The debate was not on what is legal or what actually happens it was on what is fair. Don't take this out of context.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, why punish the rich? What did they do wrong?
Not sure I would. However claiming that their success is based on them personally and that the money itself does not help in that success in a significant way is incorrect.
ryanb31 wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?
Because they used their wealth to take the success of someone else away from them.
ryanb31 wrote:
The debate was not on what is legal or what actually happens it was on what is fair.
It was your analogy and it certainly seemed that you were specifically using it as an example of what was "fair". I provided some other real examples where wealth allowed someone to take the success away from others.
-
Umm, has the US ever defended Europe as a whole? I was under the opinion that Europe did a good job of starting wars....(WW I, WWI cont aka WWII, Vietnam, the Gulf...) :-D
glennPattonWork wrote:
has the US ever defended Europe as a whole?
Yes, the US defended free Europe during the cold war. The US's umbrella of protection prevented the Soviets from expanding into all of Europe, from 1945 on. EDIT: Was WWII not a defense of Europe as a whole? Were the Nazis not a threat to the whole continent?
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
glennPattonWork wrote:
has the US ever defended Europe as a whole?
Yes, the US defended free Europe during the cold war. The US's umbrella of protection prevented the Soviets from expanding into all of Europe, from 1945 on. EDIT: Was WWII not a defense of Europe as a whole? Were the Nazis not a threat to the whole continent?
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Hmmm, well the UK had a hand in the cold war. WWII was a direct result of WWI and the UK was the only bit not to have a German holiday party in it, Europe didn't think of it self as a whole until relativly recently (with the current situation there seems to be a weren't born here attitiude coming back (if you read the Daily Mail! :))).
-
ryanb31 wrote:
So, why punish the rich? What did they do wrong?
Not sure I would. However claiming that their success is based on them personally and that the money itself does not help in that success in a significant way is incorrect.
ryanb31 wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?
Because they used their wealth to take the success of someone else away from them.
ryanb31 wrote:
The debate was not on what is legal or what actually happens it was on what is fair.
It was your analogy and it certainly seemed that you were specifically using it as an example of what was "fair". I provided some other real examples where wealth allowed someone to take the success away from others.
Quote:
Not sure I would.
So, taking extra money away from the rich is not a punishment?
Quote:
However claiming that their success is based on them personally and that the money itself does not help in that success in a significant way is incorrect.
What do you mean? Of course their success is based on them personally but what do you mean by the money itself helped in that success?
Quote:
Because they used their wealth to take the success of someone else away from them.
What? That does not make any sense. How?
Quote:
It was your analogy and it certainly seemed that you were specifically using it as an example of what was "fair".
Which one? About lending out the garage? That was specifically to say what is not fair.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Not sure I would.
So, taking extra money away from the rich is not a punishment?
Quote:
However claiming that their success is based on them personally and that the money itself does not help in that success in a significant way is incorrect.
What do you mean? Of course their success is based on them personally but what do you mean by the money itself helped in that success?
Quote:
Because they used their wealth to take the success of someone else away from them.
What? That does not make any sense. How?
Quote:
It was your analogy and it certainly seemed that you were specifically using it as an example of what was "fair".
Which one? About lending out the garage? That was specifically to say what is not fair.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, taking extra money away from the rich is not a punishment?
Taking a sucker away from a child and see whether they think they are being "punished". However taxing someone who is rich more than someone who is poor is very, very unlikely to significantly impact the rich person's lifestyle nor their ability to make more money.
ryanb31 wrote:
but what do you mean by the money itself helped in that success?
If a rich person invests in 10 startups and 1 of those startups succeeds then the wealth of the invidual grows despite the failure of the other 9. The rich person can do that because of the money they have. If a poor person invests their time in 1 startup then they have the same failure rate (only 1 of 10 succeeds) but they can only invest their time. There is no way for them to 'invest' in 10 startups because they do not have the time. Thus the rich person succeeds solely because of the money. If they didn't have the money then they could not invest. And it wouldn't matter how smart they were.
ryanb31 wrote:
That does not make any sense. How?
Believe I already explained that - read it again - they forced the founders out and they did not pay the employees.
ryanb31 wrote:
Which one? About lending out the garage? That was specifically to say what is not fair.
Yes, just as it is not "fair" for force a founding member of a start up out. Nor is it "fair" to not pay employees by using legal tricks.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
So, taking extra money away from the rich is not a punishment?
Taking a sucker away from a child and see whether they think they are being "punished". However taxing someone who is rich more than someone who is poor is very, very unlikely to significantly impact the rich person's lifestyle nor their ability to make more money.
ryanb31 wrote:
but what do you mean by the money itself helped in that success?
If a rich person invests in 10 startups and 1 of those startups succeeds then the wealth of the invidual grows despite the failure of the other 9. The rich person can do that because of the money they have. If a poor person invests their time in 1 startup then they have the same failure rate (only 1 of 10 succeeds) but they can only invest their time. There is no way for them to 'invest' in 10 startups because they do not have the time. Thus the rich person succeeds solely because of the money. If they didn't have the money then they could not invest. And it wouldn't matter how smart they were.
ryanb31 wrote:
That does not make any sense. How?
Believe I already explained that - read it again - they forced the founders out and they did not pay the employees.
ryanb31 wrote:
Which one? About lending out the garage? That was specifically to say what is not fair.
Yes, just as it is not "fair" for force a founding member of a start up out. Nor is it "fair" to not pay employees by using legal tricks.
Quote:
Taking a sucker away from a child and see whether they think they are being "punished".
Of course they do. So, then you agree with me? This supports what I am saying, not what you are saying.
Quote:
However taxing someone who is rich more than someone who is poor is very, very unlikely to significantly impact the rich person's lifestyle
Not true. And who is qualified to make that judgement? They have more expenses so who is to say they will not be impacted?
Quote:
There is no way for them to 'invest' in 10 startups because they do not have the time.
Here's where your thinking is fundamentally wrong. You appear to believe (hopefully not literally) that rich people are born that way. You are missing the whole point. They didn't start out rich. They started out the same way as everyone else. Maybe you should read "The Millionaire Next Door." The majority of rich people are rich because they worked hard and saved their money. So, let's punish them because they did that? Because they were smart with their money they should be forced to give their money to someone else who isn't as smart? And you say that is fair? I get that you believe it is fair but I can't comprehend how you can believe it is fair.
Quote:
just as it is not "fair" for force a founding member of a start up out. Nor is it "fair" to not pay employees by using legal tricks.
Again, I agree, and this supports my statement, not yours.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Taking a sucker away from a child and see whether they think they are being "punished".
Of course they do. So, then you agree with me? This supports what I am saying, not what you are saying.
Quote:
However taxing someone who is rich more than someone who is poor is very, very unlikely to significantly impact the rich person's lifestyle
Not true. And who is qualified to make that judgement? They have more expenses so who is to say they will not be impacted?
Quote:
There is no way for them to 'invest' in 10 startups because they do not have the time.
Here's where your thinking is fundamentally wrong. You appear to believe (hopefully not literally) that rich people are born that way. You are missing the whole point. They didn't start out rich. They started out the same way as everyone else. Maybe you should read "The Millionaire Next Door." The majority of rich people are rich because they worked hard and saved their money. So, let's punish them because they did that? Because they were smart with their money they should be forced to give their money to someone else who isn't as smart? And you say that is fair? I get that you believe it is fair but I can't comprehend how you can believe it is fair.
Quote:
just as it is not "fair" for force a founding member of a start up out. Nor is it "fair" to not pay employees by using legal tricks.
Again, I agree, and this supports my statement, not yours.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, then you agree with me?
I agree that emotional reactions have nothing to do with reality.
ryanb31 wrote:
Not true.
It is true. I can only suppose that you are equating someone that makes $100,000 in a year to being "rich" where are I equating it to someone that makes 100 million in a year. If you tax the first at $10,000 a year and the second at 30 million the second will have FAR, FAR more lifestyle choices than the first. And since the second is much more likely to make a lot more money the second year (and third, fourth, etc) their lifestyle over time will be much less impacted.
ryanb31 wrote:
Here's where your thinking is fundamentally wrong. You appear to believe (hopefully not literally) that rich people are born that way.
Not sure what you mean by "born that way" but it is fact that in terms of numbers more people are in fact "born" rich versus those that earn it themselves. Even more so that is true when one takes into account when one grows their inherited wealth. That however is probably impacted by how you draw the line of being "rich".
ryanb31 wrote:
Maybe you should read "The Millionaire Next Door."
We have a term definition problem. I thought my first response would make it clear about the extent of the wealth that I was talking about. In terms of that book how many of the people that it is supposedly referring to are "... being able to pay someone, or many someones". Perhaps it would help if I rephrased that previous statement.... A rich person has the ability to hire one or more full time employees whose job is specifically to make the rich person's life in some way better. And often those employees jobs leads to advantages that allows the rich person the ability to make even more money (directly, indirectly or by savings incured.) A rich person might have different groups of employees such as investment advisors, tax advisors, lawyers and household staff. I am pretty sure that the "Millionaire Next Door" is not rich in the context of the above. However I am sure that the millonaire next door does in fact have the possibility of investing in a retirement account, an investment portfolio, some land speculation and even a small business. All of those can lead to more wealth. Someone making $20,0
-
ryanb31 wrote:
So, then you agree with me?
I agree that emotional reactions have nothing to do with reality.
ryanb31 wrote:
Not true.
It is true. I can only suppose that you are equating someone that makes $100,000 in a year to being "rich" where are I equating it to someone that makes 100 million in a year. If you tax the first at $10,000 a year and the second at 30 million the second will have FAR, FAR more lifestyle choices than the first. And since the second is much more likely to make a lot more money the second year (and third, fourth, etc) their lifestyle over time will be much less impacted.
ryanb31 wrote:
Here's where your thinking is fundamentally wrong. You appear to believe (hopefully not literally) that rich people are born that way.
Not sure what you mean by "born that way" but it is fact that in terms of numbers more people are in fact "born" rich versus those that earn it themselves. Even more so that is true when one takes into account when one grows their inherited wealth. That however is probably impacted by how you draw the line of being "rich".
ryanb31 wrote:
Maybe you should read "The Millionaire Next Door."
We have a term definition problem. I thought my first response would make it clear about the extent of the wealth that I was talking about. In terms of that book how many of the people that it is supposedly referring to are "... being able to pay someone, or many someones". Perhaps it would help if I rephrased that previous statement.... A rich person has the ability to hire one or more full time employees whose job is specifically to make the rich person's life in some way better. And often those employees jobs leads to advantages that allows the rich person the ability to make even more money (directly, indirectly or by savings incured.) A rich person might have different groups of employees such as investment advisors, tax advisors, lawyers and household staff. I am pretty sure that the "Millionaire Next Door" is not rich in the context of the above. However I am sure that the millonaire next door does in fact have the possibility of investing in a retirement account, an investment portfolio, some land speculation and even a small business. All of those can lead to more wealth. Someone making $20,0
You should read the book. It's a good book and based on your comments, it would really open your eyes.
Quote:
Because they were wealthy they were able to create a situation that was unfair to others.
Say, what? I work hard and smart and become rich. Now I hire someone to help me and I am being unfair to them? You appear to have poor man's syndrome. :)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
