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.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Oh goddamnit
I swear to fucking god you had better not be trolling
Hey hey, that's a valid question and he didn't sound trolly.
Like Quid said, the wealthy don't actually consume that much, especially when you look at them as a whole. People making <$50k/yr do a lot more of the buying in this country than the people making $2mm/yr. Those people making 2mil are saving and investing a lot of that rather than spending it whereas the guy making a modest living has to spend a lot more, percentage wise, to live.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
You don't have to open an account with the same bank.
Also, you never explained how the fire department isn't more valuable to Thanatos's apartment manager rather than Thanatos himself.
They are equally important.
Only if you think 4k and 1 million are the same.
Added to above post:
They are equally important. If Thanatos lost all worldly possessions in the fire and the apartment manager lost an asset that can be replaced under his legally required insurance, who is worse off?
If he owns an apartment building, and I own $4,000 worth of stuff, who is worse off?
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
And none of it is coming close to the same percentage as a poorer person's consumption.
Poor people spend nearly all of their income. When rich people do the same we can talk about lowering taxes.
So what if they spend nearly all of their income. The amount that a super rich spends on these sorts of things a year can exceed the expenditure of several poorer families. How is that difficult to understand?
There's an easy way to settle this "Do rich people benefit more" discussion.
Take a rich person and a poor person. Give them the same amount of assets to start with, and then move them to Somalia.
Now, I'm willing to grant that the rich person may be more successful that the poor person in this new environment. But chances are, he's going to have to deal with a much larger change in life style than the poor person would. Because most of the things he brings to the table doesn't mean shit if there's no infrastructure to support it. If Bill Gates had been raised in Somalia, he would likely be penniless, alone, and dead by now.
So what if they spend nearly all of their income. The amount that a super rich spends on these sorts of things a year can exceed the expenditure of several poorer families. How is that difficult to understand?
Because if they don't then the money isn't getting back into the system.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
And none of it is coming close to the same percentage as a poorer person's consumption.
Poor people spend nearly all of their income. When rich people do the same we can talk about lowering taxes.
So what if they spend nearly all of their income. The amount that a super rich spends on these sorts of things a year can exceed the expenditure of several poorer families. How is that difficult to understand?
Of the following two things, which do you think is more helpful to the economy:
50 people buying groceries at the local market and buying some jeans at Kohls (keeping in mind these 50 people are going to be back in 2 weeks to buy more groceries)
1 dude buying a $200k car that he's going to keep for lets say 5 years.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
Still not as much compared to their wealth.
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
And none of it is coming close to the same percentage as a poorer person's consumption.
Poor people spend nearly all of their income. When rich people do the same we can talk about lowering taxes.
So what if they spend nearly all of their income. The amount that a super rich spends on these sorts of things a year can exceed the expenditure of several poorer families. How is that difficult to understand?
My god it's like talking to a kitchen table. As a group, the rich do not spend anywhere near as much as the poor.
So what if they spend nearly all of their income. The amount that a super rich spends on these sorts of things a year can exceed the expenditure of several poorer families. How is that difficult to understand?
If they actually spent the money, it would be going into the system and helping the economy. It's why rich people can get all sorts of tax exemptions when actually spending their money. However, given the fact that this almost never happens, rich people end up not paying a proportional amount of taxes without a graduated income tax bracket.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
A high sales tax is regressive in that it impacts the poor more than the wealthy. The poor pay a higher percentage of their income on the basics than the wealthy. Furthermore, it gives the wealthy a good way to avoid taxes on high-end items like yachts, jewelry and vacation homes- they just need to buy them in other countries.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
My kitchen table is fucking pissed with you right now. It's all "at least I give you somewhere to sit and put your plate while you eat, but this jerkoff? He's gonna give you a tumor!"
I'm taking my talking dinner-table on tour starting next month, make sure to buy your tickets early and save a few bucks.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
And none of it is coming close to the same percentage as a poorer person's consumption.
Poor people spend nearly all of their income. When rich people do the same we can talk about lowering taxes.
So what if they spend nearly all of their income. The amount that a super rich spends on these sorts of things a year can exceed the expenditure of several poorer families. How is that difficult to understand?
Of the following two things, which do you think is more helpful to the economy:
50 people buying groceries at the local market and buying some jeans at Kohls (keeping in mind these 50 people are going to be back in 2 weeks to buy more groceries)
1 dude buying a $200k car that he's going to keep for lets say 5 years.
So now we are assuming that the rich won't wear jeans or eat? The same rich people still buy groceries, probably more expensive ones and greater amounts. Same with clothes.
This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little.
Rich people don't actually consume that much compared to the amount of money they have after a certain point.
What? It is what they consume that matters. They are not buying 10 $20,000 Honda Civics, they are buying $200 Maseratis, exotic trips, jewelry, boutique clothing, private schools, etc.
Still not as much compared to their wealth.
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
A flat tax places a disproportionately larger burden on low-income families than high-income families. This really isn't a difficult mathematical concept here. We currently have a progressive tax system, but people aren't diving into lower paying jobs because that's somehow advantageous to them. In a progressive system people still benefit from their wealth.
So now we are assuming that the rich won't wear jeans or eat? The same rich people still buy groceries, probably more expensive ones and greater amounts. Same with clothes.
So now we are assuming that the rich won't wear jeans or eat? The same rich people still buy groceries, probably more expensive ones and greater amounts. Same with clothes.
If this were true flat taxes wouldn't take up a smaller percentage of their income.
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.
Kudos in single-handedly ending farm subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare.
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
Like a shake in a freezer.
Ten people with 50K incomes provide more sales tax to society than One person with 500K, unless the person with 500K is batshit insane.
Show your math.
Let's make the sales tax 10%. Ten people each spend all of the 50k. So that's 500k spent and 50k returned in taxes.
The one guy with 500k spends more, yes. But most of it is going to be put into savings or invested since there's only so much a person goes out to buy, but let's be extremely generous and say he spent 300k. That comes out to 30k.
The one rich person with the most money provided less taxes than the 10 people with 50k.
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
Like a shake in a freezer.
Ten people with 50K incomes provide more sales tax to society than One person with 500K, unless the person with 500K is batshit insane.
Show your math.
PROVE IT WITH NUMBERS!
Actually that's pretty easy. Less income = more likely to spend all your income on taxable goods. I'm kind of amazed you are having trouble wrapping your head around this point.
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
Like a shake in a freezer.
Ten people with 50K incomes provide more sales tax to society than One person with 500K, unless the person with 500K is batshit insane.
Show your math.
PROVE IT WITH NUMBERS!
Actually that's pretty easy. Less income = more likely to spend all your income on taxable goods. I'm kind of amazed you are having trouble wrapping your head around this point.
I think some people need to take Econ 1 or at least crack an economics text book before trying to argue taxation.
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
Like a shake in a freezer.
Ten people with 50K incomes provide more sales tax to society than One person with 500K, unless the person with 500K is batshit insane.
Show your math.
Let's make the sales tax 10%. Ten people each spend all of the 50k. So that's 500k spent and 50k returned in taxes.
The one guy with 500k spends more, yes. But most of it is going to be put into savings or invested since there's only so much a person goes out to buy, but let's be extremely generous and say he spent 300k. That comes out to 30k.
The one rich person with the most money provided less taxes than the 10 people with 50k.
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
Futurist on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
Like a shake in a freezer.
Ten people with 50K incomes provide more sales tax to society than One person with 500K, unless the person with 500K is batshit insane.
Show your math.
PROVE IT WITH NUMBERS!
Actually that's pretty easy. Less income = more likely to spend all your income on taxable goods. I'm kind of amazed you are having trouble wrapping your head around this point.
Potato, obviously you aren't thinking about this properly.
You see a poor person may have a burger for lunch, but a rich person has 200 burgers, because well fuck it.
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
Like a shake in a freezer.
Ten people with 50K incomes provide more sales tax to society than One person with 500K, unless the person with 500K is batshit insane.
Show your math.
PROVE IT WITH NUMBERS!
Actually that's pretty easy. Less income = more likely to spend all your income on taxable goods. I'm kind of amazed you are having trouble wrapping your head around this point.
Just because they are likely to spend all of their money on taxable goods does not mean that they contribute more taxes, overall.
Futurist on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
Like a shake in a freezer.
Ten people with 50K incomes provide more sales tax to society than One person with 500K, unless the person with 500K is batshit insane.
Show your math.
Let's make the sales tax 10%. Ten people each spend all of the 50k. So that's 500k spent and 50k returned in taxes.
The one guy with 500k spends more, yes. But most of it is going to be put into savings or invested since there's only so much a person goes out to buy, but let's be extremely generous and say he spent 300k. That comes out to 30k.
The one rich person with the most money provided less taxes than the 10 people with 50k.
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
because if he doesn't have the fiscal sense of a paste eating kindergartner, he's going to save/invest a shitload of it.
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
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.
Kudos in single-handedly ending farm subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare.
Or ignoring them.
So, end farm subsidies and corporate welfare. I'm as opposed to handouts to corporations as I am to individuals.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
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
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
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
Posts
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.
Rigorous Scholarship
Like Quid said, the wealthy don't actually consume that much, especially when you look at them as a whole. People making <$50k/yr do a lot more of the buying in this country than the people making $2mm/yr. Those people making 2mil are saving and investing a lot of that rather than spending it whereas the guy making a modest living has to spend a lot more, percentage wise, to live.
Still not as much compared to their wealth.
So what if they spend nearly all of their income. The amount that a super rich spends on these sorts of things a year can exceed the expenditure of several poorer families. How is that difficult to understand?
Not to mention that he would basically get a free remodel out of the deal.
Take a rich person and a poor person. Give them the same amount of assets to start with, and then move them to Somalia.
Now, I'm willing to grant that the rich person may be more successful that the poor person in this new environment. But chances are, he's going to have to deal with a much larger change in life style than the poor person would. Because most of the things he brings to the table doesn't mean shit if there's no infrastructure to support it. If Bill Gates had been raised in Somalia, he would likely be penniless, alone, and dead by now.
Because if they don't then the money isn't getting back into the system.
So what if they spend less compared to their own wealth? They spend much more compared to the wealth of others.
Since when did income and advantage have to be completely equal in society? It's not, it won't ever be. Get over it.
My god it's like talking to a kitchen table. As a group, the rich do not spend anywhere near as much as the poor.
If they actually spent the money, it would be going into the system and helping the economy. It's why rich people can get all sorts of tax exemptions when actually spending their money. However, given the fact that this almost never happens, rich people end up not paying a proportional amount of taxes without a graduated income tax bracket.
Rigorous Scholarship
Like a shake in a freezer.
Ten people with 50K incomes provide more sales tax to society than One person with 500K, unless the person with 500K is batshit insane.
So now we are assuming that the rich won't wear jeans or eat? The same rich people still buy groceries, probably more expensive ones and greater amounts. Same with clothes.
They don't.
Or a rock star.
If this were true flat taxes wouldn't take up a smaller percentage of their income.
Show your math.
Kudos in single-handedly ending farm subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare.
Or ignoring them.
Let's make the sales tax 10%. Ten people each spend all of the 50k. So that's 500k spent and 50k returned in taxes.
The one guy with 500k spends more, yes. But most of it is going to be put into savings or invested since there's only so much a person goes out to buy, but let's be extremely generous and say he spent 300k. That comes out to 30k.
The one rich person with the most money provided less taxes than the 10 people with 50k.
Also, Econ 101: fixed costs are going to drive up the necessary expenditures.
PROVE IT WITH NUMBERS!
Actually that's pretty easy. Less income = more likely to spend all your income on taxable goods. I'm kind of amazed you are having trouble wrapping your head around this point.
I think some people need to take Econ 1 or at least crack an economics text book before trying to argue taxation.
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
Potato, obviously you aren't thinking about this properly.
You see a poor person may have a burger for lunch, but a rich person has 200 burgers, because well fuck it.
Utilities costs do not increase with income (Cable, Water, Electricity, Gas, Garbage, Sewer)
Eating at a Ruth's Chris is only about 4X as expensive as eating at a Bistro.
Meat and Vegetables from Whole Foods do not cost 10X as much as they do at Trader Joe's.
Premium Gasoline is not 10X more per gallon than regular.
I mean, really.
Just because they are likely to spend all of their money on taxable goods does not mean that they contribute more taxes, overall.
because if he doesn't have the fiscal sense of a paste eating kindergartner, he's going to save/invest a shitload of it.
Christ Almighty.
They CAN.
They DON'T.
Rigorous Scholarship
You are wrong. Sorry. Just are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html?ref=opinion
We're arguing with a guy who was incapable of understanding that you can have more than one bank account by banking with more than one bank.
SHOW YOUR MATH! PROVE IT WITH NUMBERS!!!!!
You're a troll, aren't you.