Why can't the guy spend $500K? Sure there is only so much a person can buy. I can show you a room of furniture that costs over $180K. Cars at $200K. People with that kind of money are not buying the same kinds of products you and I are. You are making assumptions based on one side of the argument. The person with $500K can EASILY spend all of it, just like the person with $50K
We don't give a shit what the person theoretically could do. We only care about what the person typically does. And as I illustrated with my earlier link, and as you'd know if you even understood the most basic of economic theory, people with a lot of money spend way less as a percentage of their income than people with less money.
Why can't the guy spend $500K? Sure there is only so much a person can buy. I can show you a room of furniture that costs over $180K. Cars at $200K. People with that kind of money are not buying the same kinds of products you and I are. You are making assumptions based on one side of the argument. The person with $500K can EASILY spend all of it, just like the person with $50K
They CAN.
They DON'T.
You are wrong. Sorry. Just are.
Thanatos has already provided evidence that you are wrong.
Why can't the guy spend $500K? Sure there is only so much a person can buy. I can show you a room of furniture that costs over $180K. Cars at $200K. People with that kind of money are not buying the same kinds of products you and I are. You are making assumptions based on one side of the argument. The person with $500K can EASILY spend all of it, just like the person with $50K
They don't have to spend $500K a year.
This isn't Brewster's Fucking Millions or some alternate universe where money is made out of cheese and must be used before it rots.
If you have someone making $50K a year, it's a pretty damn sure bet they'll spend a large percentage of their income on necessities.
It's why they call them necessities.
Someone who makes $500K a year has the luxury of choosing to spend anything beyond a small percentage of their income on necessities.
Edit: Or in other terms, tax rates should not be determined by assuming all rich people are either MC Hammer or addicted to Scarface-amounts of cocaine.
Why can't the guy spend $500K? Sure there is only so much a person can buy. I can show you a room of furniture that costs over $180K. Cars at $200K. People with that kind of money are not buying the same kinds of products you and I are. You are making assumptions based on one side of the argument. The person with $500K can EASILY spend all of it, just like the person with $50K
He could. Historically speaking, he doesn't. Which is why we don't use that system.
Why can't the guy spend $500K? Sure there is only so much a person can buy. I can show you a room of furniture that costs over $180K. Cars at $200K. People with that kind of money are not buying the same kinds of products you and I are. You are making assumptions based on one side of the argument. The person with $500K can EASILY spend all of it, just like the person with $50K
They CAN.
They DON'T.
You are wrong. Sorry. Just are.
I'm convinced! I'm on your side now: Rich People For Irresponsible Capital Management! Could you send me one of your newsletters?
P.S.: He's not wrong, you're apparently uninformed and have no idea how the wealthy actually treat their wealth. You've made that abundantly clear.
[ed] And now you've run away? Bravo sir, bra-vo. You dun trolled me gud.
Why can't the guy spend $500K? Sure there is only so much a person can buy. I can show you a room of furniture that costs over $180K. Cars at $200K. People with that kind of money are not buying the same kinds of products you and I are. You are making assumptions based on one side of the argument. The person with $500K can EASILY spend all of it, just like the person with $50K
We don't give a shit what the person theoretically could do. We only care about what the person typically does. And as I illustrated with my earlier link, and as you'd know if you even understood the most basic of economic theory, people with a lot of money spend way less as a percentage of their income than people with less money.
And still contribute a majority of sales tax.
First off, I don't know that that's trues. Second off, even if it is true, it's only true because of the way our sales tax system currently works. What you're proposing is a universal consumption tax that would disproportionately target the poor.
Thanatos on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Why can't the guy spend $500K? Sure there is only so much a person can buy. I can show you a room of furniture that costs over $180K. Cars at $200K. People with that kind of money are not buying the same kinds of products you and I are. You are making assumptions based on one side of the argument. The person with $500K can EASILY spend all of it, just like the person with $50K
They CAN.
They DON'T.
You are wrong. Sorry. Just are.
I'm convinced! I'm on your side now: Rich People For Irresponsible Capital Management! Could you send me one of your newsletters?
P.S.: He's not wrong, you're apparently uninformed and have no idea how the wealthy actually treat their wealth. You've made that abundantly clear.
[ed] And now you've run away? Bravo sir, bra-vo. You dun trolled me gud.
No, not run away, but...yeah...was fun! And, in all seriousness, some good points by many of you.
Take the CEO of ups. I'm sure that he, as a person, doesn't consume that much more of "normal" services than a much poorer person. However he makes his money off the fact that he has good quaility, safe roads to transport across, health, educated people to drive his trucks and a government that protect his entire operation from being attacked
in what way is he not using a hugely disproportionate amount of resources compared to a poor person
UPS does not get free access to the roads. They probably pay millions upon millions of gasoline taxes, tolls, registration fees for their vehicles (which cost more for commercial vehicles than private ones), property taxes that go towards schools and the like, plus significant taxes on their profits, as well as a host of local, state and government taxes. And let's not forget the income taxes paid by their employees.
Your claim that UPS, and therefore its CEO, are using a disproportionate share of government resources doesn't really hold up.
Yes, they get the benefit of the law and order agencies that protect us all from roving bands of Huns. But, I don't see any evidence that they get more out of that based on what they pay into the system than anyone else.
So, they pay a proportion of taxes that reflects their proportional usage of the system
some people were arguing that the rich pay far more, but get no more benefit/use no more of the system than a poor person, which is what that post was meant to show is stupid
Why can't the guy spend $500K? Sure there is only so much a person can buy. I can show you a room of furniture that costs over $180K. Cars at $200K. People with that kind of money are not buying the same kinds of products you and I are. You are making assumptions based on one side of the argument. The person with $500K can EASILY spend all of it, just like the person with $50K
They CAN.
They DON'T.
You are wrong. Sorry. Just are.
SHOW YOUR MATH! PROVE IT WITH NUMBERS!!!!!
*cough* from the article posted on the previous page:
If you notice if you had 3.3 middle income familes (which would have the same household income as the 1 upper class family) will spend roughly ~113k a year while the 1 upper income family only spends 69k a year. Jesus, Futurist, how hard is this to understand.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Why can't the guy spend $500K? Sure there is only so much a person can buy. I can show you a room of furniture that costs over $180K. Cars at $200K. People with that kind of money are not buying the same kinds of products you and I are. You are making assumptions based on one side of the argument. The person with $500K can EASILY spend all of it, just like the person with $50K
They CAN.
They DON'T.
You are wrong. Sorry. Just are.
I'm convinced! I'm on your side now: Rich People For Irresponsible Capital Management! Could you send me one of your newsletters?
P.S.: He's not wrong, you're apparently uninformed and have no idea how the wealthy actually treat their wealth. You've made that abundantly clear.
[ed] And now you've run away? Bravo sir, bra-vo. You dun trolled me gud.
No, not run away, but...yeah...was fun! And, in all seriousness, some good points by many of you.
I... I'll be honest here. I'm not sure what those two very prettily colored graphs are showing me. The article kinda references the charts, so I think I'm missing something...
iTunesIsEvil on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Take the CEO of ups. I'm sure that he, as a person, doesn't consume that much more of "normal" services than a much poorer person. However he makes his money off the fact that he has good quaility, safe roads to transport across, health, educated people to drive his trucks and a government that protect his entire operation from being attacked
in what way is he not using a hugely disproportionate amount of resources compared to a poor person
UPS does not get free access to the roads. They probably pay millions upon millions of gasoline taxes, tolls, registration fees for their vehicles (which cost more for commercial vehicles than private ones), property taxes that go towards schools and the like, plus significant taxes on their profits, as well as a host of local, state and government taxes. And let's not forget the income taxes paid by their employees.
Your claim that UPS, and therefore its CEO, are using a disproportionate share of government resources doesn't really hold up.
Yes, they get the benefit of the law and order agencies that protect us all from roving bands of Huns. But, I don't see any evidence that they get more out of that based on what they pay into the system than anyone else.
Can they write some of these operational expenses off? Rhetorical question BTW.
I... I'll be honest here. I'm not sure what those two very prettily colored graphs are showing me. The article kinda references the charts, so I think I'm missing something...
It looks like it used to take a long time for people to adopt new utilities, and now it doesn't. Notice the way the lines of the graphs tilt.
I... I'll be honest here. I'm not sure what those two very prettily colored graphs are showing me. The article kinda references the charts, so I think I'm missing something...
Not a typical graph, but not complicated ocne you figure it out. Ignore the slopes of all the line graphs, the upper bounc point is all that matters. thats how much is spent in each category by each income group (black, blue, pink). and the last category is thinks like savings, etc. which is the point of posting it.
So, they pay a proportion of taxes that reflects their proportional usage of the system
some people were arguing that the rich pay far more, but get no more benefit/use no more of the system than a poor person, which is what that post was meant to show is stupid
Comparing a corporation like UPS to a rich individual doesn't work. The rich guy doesn't have 10,000 vehicles on the roads. His personal usage of governmental resources is not ten times as high as a poor person who only pays 1/10th the taxes. If anything, the poor person uses more governmental resources than the rich guy.
So, if we're talking about individuals, the rich don't get more for their tax dollars than the poor. They get substantially less.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
So, they pay a proportion of taxes that reflects their proportional usage of the system
some people were arguing that the rich pay far more, but get no more benefit/use no more of the system than a poor person, which is what that post was meant to show is stupid
Comparing a corporation like UPS to a rich individual doesn't work. The rich guy doesn't have 10,000 vehicles on the roads. His personal usage of governmental resources is not ten times as high as a poor person who only pays 1/10th the taxes. If anything, the poor person uses more governmental resources than the rich guy.
So, if we're talking about individuals, the rich don't get more for their tax dollars than the poor. They get substantially less.
Only if you have a vary narrow and myopic view of what constitutes utility and usage.
What jewcar said.
These people are probably making more money because they are a large part of an expensive business that does use government resources. If the government didn't provide these things through taxes the businesses would have to pay more to maintain roads etc and the people at the top would be making less because the company has less profit.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
What jewcar said.
These people are probably making more money because they are a large part of an expensive business that does use government resources. If the government didn't provide these things through taxes the businesses would have to pay more to maintain roads etc and the people at the top would be making less because the company has less profit.
It's even simpler than that; without the liability of the corporation being isolated to equity, a lot of risk would not be undertaken. But should we not tax the positive outcomes of the underwriting of risk just because the underwriting enables more positive outcomes?
I'm not even against rich people being rich, I'm against middle class apologists for the rich who think they need to be defended because they're some Horatio Alger character in their own mind.
So, they pay a proportion of taxes that reflects their proportional usage of the system
some people were arguing that the rich pay far more, but get no more benefit/use no more of the system than a poor person, which is what that post was meant to show is stupid
Comparing a corporation like UPS to a rich individual doesn't work. The rich guy doesn't have 10,000 vehicles on the roads. His personal usage of governmental resources is not ten times as high as a poor person who only pays 1/10th the taxes. If anything, the poor person uses more governmental resources than the rich guy.
So, if we're talking about individuals, the rich don't get more for their tax dollars than the poor. They get substantially less.
Only if you have a vary narrow and myopic view of what constitutes utility and usage.
If by myopic and narrow, you mean measurable and quantifiable, rather than based on subjective standards, then sure.
Government is like any other service industry- money goes in, money comes out. If you're getting more out of it than you put into it, then you are ahead of the game and the current tax regime works for you.
What other objective standard would you propose using?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
So, they pay a proportion of taxes that reflects their proportional usage of the system
some people were arguing that the rich pay far more, but get no more benefit/use no more of the system than a poor person, which is what that post was meant to show is stupid
Comparing a corporation like UPS to a rich individual doesn't work. The rich guy doesn't have 10,000 vehicles on the roads. His personal usage of governmental resources is not ten times as high as a poor person who only pays 1/10th the taxes. If anything, the poor person uses more governmental resources than the rich guy.
So, if we're talking about individuals, the rich don't get more for their tax dollars than the poor. They get substantially less.
Only if you have a vary narrow and myopic view of what constitutes utility and usage.
If by myopic and narrow, you mean measurable and quantifiable, rather than based on subjective standards, then sure.
Government is like any other service industry- money goes in, money comes out. If you're getting more out of it than you put into it, then you are ahead of the game and the current tax regime works for you.
What other objective standard would you propose using?
Our standard doesn't have to be perfectly quantifiable. If we go back to the wacky UPS example, that guy still owns a portion (probably a large portion if he's wealthy based on stock value) of those trucks.
All of which still misses all of the other positive inputs the government has into Mr. Trucking Company's business.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
There's no way to perfectly measure benefit received from a government, but of the possible measurements we can assess and use, which could be more fair and accurate than wealth?
So, they pay a proportion of taxes that reflects their proportional usage of the system
some people were arguing that the rich pay far more, but get no more benefit/use no more of the system than a poor person, which is what that post was meant to show is stupid
Comparing a corporation like UPS to a rich individual doesn't work. The rich guy doesn't have 10,000 vehicles on the roads. His personal usage of governmental resources is not ten times as high as a poor person who only pays 1/10th the taxes. If anything, the poor person uses more governmental resources than the rich guy.
So, if we're talking about individuals, the rich don't get more for their tax dollars than the poor. They get substantially less.
Only if you have a vary narrow and myopic view of what constitutes utility and usage.
If by myopic and narrow, you mean measurable and quantifiable, rather than based on subjective standards, then sure.
Government is like any other service industry- money goes in, money comes out. If you're getting more out of it than you put into it, then you are ahead of the game and the current tax regime works for you.
What other objective standard would you propose using?
It really depends. Personally, I think the rich get a lot out of not being raped.
There's no way to perfectly measure benefit received from a government, but of the possible measurements we can assess and use, which could be more fair and accurate than wealth?
Using wealth as a measurement assumes that the government is responsible for the creation of wealth. That's an incredibly slanted view, in my opinion. At most, government sets up a system where people have the opportunity to create their own wealth.
Though, some people do get wealthy off of government- witness the shiny office buildings in Crystal City, next to the Pentagon.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Talking about the CEO of UPS would make more sense.
That was the comment. Since CEO of ups gets his money by using the system, his own personal usage is also tied to the use of his company. Otherwise, how would he pull a salary from it? This would also apply to everyone in the company, the more you make, the more resourses of the company you drain, the more of the system you use. I just used the CEO for the sake of simiplicty
it's not a perfect example by far, but it get the point across that no one makes money in a vacuum, and the people who think of income as pre-tax are in the wrong mindset
ronzo on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
There's no way to perfectly measure benefit received from a government, but of the possible measurements we can assess and use, which could be more fair and accurate than wealth?
Using wealth as a measurement assumes that the government is responsible for the creation of wealth. That's an incredibly slanted view, in my opinion. At most, government sets up a system where people have the opportunity to create their own wealth.
Though, some people do get wealthy off of government- witness the shiny office buildings in Crystal City, next to the Pentagon.
I agree with this; the government sets a framework that can allow wealth creation, it doesn't create wealth in and of itself for the most part (there are some obvious issues with monopoly, political capture, subsidies, etc etc). The problem is that the framework doesn't benefit everyone proportionally in terms of the wealth created, therefore those who have more wealth created from using the framework should pay more into the system that upholds the framework.
There's no way to perfectly measure benefit received from a government, but of the possible measurements we can assess and use, which could be more fair and accurate than wealth?
Using wealth as a measurement assumes that the government is responsible for the creation of wealth. That's an incredibly slanted view, in my opinion. At most, government sets up a system where people have the opportunity to create their own wealth.
Yes. Exactly. And what's the best way to fund that system? A usage fee. Conservatives should love usage fees, right? And who uses a system that is set up where people have the opportunity to create their own wealth the most? Why, the people who use the system the most.
There's no way to perfectly measure benefit received from a government, but of the possible measurements we can assess and use, which could be more fair and accurate than wealth?
Using wealth as a measurement assumes that the government is responsible for the creation of wealth. That's an incredibly slanted view, in my opinion. At most, government sets up a system where people have the opportunity to create their own wealth.
The difference is irrelevant to the point at hand. Wealth as normally defined in terms of current economic prosperity requires the government. Whether the government creates the wealth or the government creates and enforces an infrastructure that lets wealth be possible is a moot point. No government, no wealth. Let's just go with your assessment that the government enables wealth instead of creating it, we arrive at the same inevitable conclusion.
Government costs money. Who benefits most from the infrastructure that allows wealth to exist? Obviously those with the most wealth. It isn't a perfect measurement of "benefit received from the government," but it is the best measurement we have available to us.
Posts
And still contribute a majority of sales tax.
Where is your evidence?
They don't have to spend $500K a year.
This isn't Brewster's Fucking Millions or some alternate universe where money is made out of cheese and must be used before it rots.
If you have someone making $50K a year, it's a pretty damn sure bet they'll spend a large percentage of their income on necessities.
It's why they call them necessities.
Someone who makes $500K a year has the luxury of choosing to spend anything beyond a small percentage of their income on necessities.
Edit: Or in other terms, tax rates should not be determined by assuming all rich people are either MC Hammer or addicted to Scarface-amounts of cocaine.
He could. Historically speaking, he doesn't. Which is why we don't use that system.
Are you fucking serious?
P.S.: He's not wrong, you're apparently uninformed and have no idea how the wealthy actually treat their wealth. You've made that abundantly clear.
[ed] And now you've run away? Bravo sir, bra-vo. You dun trolled me gud.
wow. just. wow. I have a hard time believing this, but I am terrified of the stupid that lies in the earlier pages.
God only knows.
No, not run away, but...yeah...was fun! And, in all seriousness, some good points by many of you.
So, they pay a proportion of taxes that reflects their proportional usage of the system
some people were arguing that the rich pay far more, but get no more benefit/use no more of the system than a poor person, which is what that post was meant to show is stupid
*cough* from the article posted on the previous page:
If you notice if you had 3.3 middle income familes (which would have the same household income as the 1 upper class family) will spend roughly ~113k a year while the 1 upper income family only spends 69k a year. Jesus, Futurist, how hard is this to understand.
And he made the account just to post in this thread. nice.
Than, for love of god, use your mod powers
Can they write some of these operational expenses off? Rhetorical question BTW.
Shush, don't go bringing in those newfangled concepts here where emotion reigns supreme.
It looks like it used to take a long time for people to adopt new utilities, and now it doesn't. Notice the way the lines of the graphs tilt.
You sir, are welcome! Some of it started out serious but, after a while, well...there you go. No need to mod, as I am done.
Not a typical graph, but not complicated ocne you figure it out. Ignore the slopes of all the line graphs, the upper bounc point is all that matters. thats how much is spent in each category by each income group (black, blue, pink). and the last category is thinks like savings, etc. which is the point of posting it.
So, if we're talking about individuals, the rich don't get more for their tax dollars than the poor. They get substantially less.
Rigorous Scholarship
Only if you have a vary narrow and myopic view of what constitutes utility and usage.
These people are probably making more money because they are a large part of an expensive business that does use government resources. If the government didn't provide these things through taxes the businesses would have to pay more to maintain roads etc and the people at the top would be making less because the company has less profit.
It's even simpler than that; without the liability of the corporation being isolated to equity, a lot of risk would not be undertaken. But should we not tax the positive outcomes of the underwriting of risk just because the underwriting enables more positive outcomes?
I'm not even against rich people being rich, I'm against middle class apologists for the rich who think they need to be defended because they're some Horatio Alger character in their own mind.
Government is like any other service industry- money goes in, money comes out. If you're getting more out of it than you put into it, then you are ahead of the game and the current tax regime works for you.
What other objective standard would you propose using?
Rigorous Scholarship
See: This thread.
Our standard doesn't have to be perfectly quantifiable. If we go back to the wacky UPS example, that guy still owns a portion (probably a large portion if he's wealthy based on stock value) of those trucks.
All of which still misses all of the other positive inputs the government has into Mr. Trucking Company's business.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
What's the monetary value of "not rape?"
Though, some people do get wealthy off of government- witness the shiny office buildings in Crystal City, next to the Pentagon.
Rigorous Scholarship
That was the comment. Since CEO of ups gets his money by using the system, his own personal usage is also tied to the use of his company. Otherwise, how would he pull a salary from it? This would also apply to everyone in the company, the more you make, the more resourses of the company you drain, the more of the system you use. I just used the CEO for the sake of simiplicty
it's not a perfect example by far, but it get the point across that no one makes money in a vacuum, and the people who think of income as pre-tax are in the wrong mindset
I agree with this; the government sets a framework that can allow wealth creation, it doesn't create wealth in and of itself for the most part (there are some obvious issues with monopoly, political capture, subsidies, etc etc). The problem is that the framework doesn't benefit everyone proportionally in terms of the wealth created, therefore those who have more wealth created from using the framework should pay more into the system that upholds the framework.
The difference is irrelevant to the point at hand. Wealth as normally defined in terms of current economic prosperity requires the government. Whether the government creates the wealth or the government creates and enforces an infrastructure that lets wealth be possible is a moot point. No government, no wealth. Let's just go with your assessment that the government enables wealth instead of creating it, we arrive at the same inevitable conclusion.
Government costs money. Who benefits most from the infrastructure that allows wealth to exist? Obviously those with the most wealth. It isn't a perfect measurement of "benefit received from the government," but it is the best measurement we have available to us.