What do you think of Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax?

I think we should restore and expand the death tax to include everyone. Tax 90%. Then get rid of income taxes. Just tax inheritance and gifts.

not getting on the "shakes fist at millennials" train because it's full already. i do agree w/ the trade school thing though. a lot of those jobs are completely fucking impossible to outsource. how's a guy in india going to fix your water heater? not bad for job security. my neighbor worked as a union plumber for 30+ years and was making at least $100K annually when he retired. it's a shame a lot of younger people are trained to look down on these things.

also, don't discount gaining some skills and venturing out to start your own business. with just a little sense and some attention to your customers you'll be at a big advantage. i serve on my condo's HOA board and we deal with small businesses / contractors all the time. it's stunning how so many of them are complete shit at just following up w/ people, even if there is business worth thousands on the line. jesus, do you not like money??

Trade schools are expensive though. And that puts some people off. I'd imagine there are people that don't have the aptitude to some of those jobs as well. I mean I'm not knocking that career path but I think it's a bit naïve to think it solves everything for everyone.

education in general is expensive, specifically if there is some arbiter of qualification out there that can make a buck off your learning. ( degree, certification, etc...). lots of skills can be learned cheaply online but you gotta pay for the proof. that's just the world we live in and looking to improve your station in life does not come without risks. it is by no means a cure-all.

what's the saying though? if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten?

I just dont see how that adds up. If it does? Sounds great but I don't see it happening.

Any schooling is expensive, but there are tons of ways to pay for it. If you can't afford it, join the military for 5 years and get it paid for and get experience in a trade that you want to do. There are government grants and if you are poor enough it will pay for almost all of it. If you have to take out loans do it. In the end I look at the $400 I pay each month as an investment. Without that $400 I would never be making the money I do now. Like I said it takes sacrifices and proper perspective, but anyone can make a good living if they try.

You talking about millennials?

It's interesting that all these candidates never address why education is so expensive. They all talk about free college, but why should college cost someone 100-200k (or higher)? If you look at some of the salaries/pensions university presidents make or tenured professors, it's impressive.

This statement transcends most demographics. Old, young, rich, poor, various political stripes - My experience has been that a shocking number of people prefer to believe they already know everything rather than entertain the possibility that they still have room to grow.

I considered giving an example using the importance of countervailing forces, but I didn't want the size of that post to become unwieldy. In short, if you introduce the concept of countervailing forces to someone as a means to counteract abuse of power by a typical villain of their ideology, they'll agree readily. If you discuss it further as a feature to keep the heroes of their ideology in check as well, you'll meet some resistance in the form of cognitive dissonance. If you discuss even further about those forces keeping neutral members in check or even members within the same group in check, eyes often start to glaze over because it's more than most people want to consider.

Granted, some people are open to those types of discussions and they just require time to properly digest topics like that - I'll raise my hand as part of that group, as I'm not one to instantly understand complex topics that I don't have the proper grounding in - but a lot of people just don't want to be confronted with that challenge either due to the level of thought required or due to having to face the inconsistencies in their own beliefs. Both of those are hard things to do, so I get it. I just wish it weren't so.

Perhaps you'd be interested in reading up on Baumol's cost disease? It doesn't seem to explain ALL of the rising relative prices in industries like education, licensed services, and construction, but it seems to be an important component.

The problem with that, is exactly what are you paying for? Are you attracting "big name" people for the prestige of the university or because you think they are needed to better the education of your students? I'd have no problem with private universities paying whatever they want, but public universities have an additional duty to provide cost effective education. We seem to have no problem attracting teachers for K-12 despite mediocre salaries albeit good benefits/pensions.

One of the issues with higher education in this country is that it may focus more on prestige and research then actually teaching students and providing them with the skills necessary to succeed in life. The name on the degree seems to matter more than what it stands for or represents. I'd bet that many students can get as good if not better an education at a junior college where the professors focus more on the subjects they teach than at many big name universities where the course is considered more an inconvenience to a prestigious tenured professor.

I listened to a good TED talk by a psychologist that made a relevant point. The brain is an incredibly lazy organ. We actually don't like to think as much as we would believe. It requires a good deal of activity and energy to actively think so we tend to go more on autopilot for many things. That may be why we have preconceived notions ,etc, and why there is so much resistance to overcoming them.

I think perhaps I gave the wrong impression. Baumol's cost disease isn't a good thing in any way. I've never heard anyone even attempt to describe it as such because you get nothing for it. It's simply a cost increase due to comparative costs (salaries) in other industries that have seen productivity increases.

I believe it. As a software developer that tends to get put on the more theoretical projects, I definitely understand that thinking requires energy and can be exhausting. I think that someone needs to get an amount of joy greater than the amount of fatigue to want to continually pursue it - whether that comes in the form of satiated curiosity, a sense of accomplishment, a sense of community, etc.

It's totally understandable, unfortunately it's just so critical to overcome.

Twitter tweet length attention span is perhaps more fitting for society today. :P

You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities. You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives. That's a put down, and it's arrogant and condescending. It's also arrogant and condescending to make generalizations about a broad group of people-about their work ethic, responsibility, motivation-without knowing anything about their individual circumstances. You have literally no idea what is going on in the lives of any low-wage worker at any point in their lives, but you feel justified in calling them lazy, entitled, and irresponsible all the same. All you do is put other people down. Get some goddamned perspective.

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

If I said this: You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities.

How is that a put down? There are lots of opportunities to get help and to use that help to get out of poverty if you learn how to take advantage of them and not just live off them? I am okay with helping anyone out if we actually teach them to better themselves and make it on their own. I don't want anyone living off the government and I want the government out of everyone's life as much as possible!

You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives.

Please show me a direct quote from this thread that I ever said that? If not again you are not just a liar you are a DAMN LIAR!

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

Someone making $400,000 paying in 25% of that wage to the government is pretty good if you ask me. Hell I can't imagine working a $400,000 job and having to pay $100,000 in to government to screw it up. Why is making $400,000 a bad thing. How much do you think they should have to pay in? That really isn't that much money.

Also if you make $15,000 a year you will pay very little of that in federal income tax, something like $280! You should really learn something about the tax code and that was just using a quick calculator on the Internet. If they did pay in $3,000 in a year they would get almost ALL of it back at the end of the year. Heck they will probably be able to take out EIC and get more then they actually ever paid in. A tax rate of 1.87% is pretty darn low.

Federal Income Tax Calculator 2019

Income: $15,000

Taxable income $2,800

Effective tax rate 1.87%

Estimated federal taxes $280

Federal taxes withheld $3,000

We estimate you will get back $2,720

https://www.nerdwallet.com/taxes/tax-calculator

So there is your answer. Someone making $15,000 a year pays very little in on Federal Taxes and can even get money back over what they paid in if they can qualify for certain things.

@Xabiss: "federal income tax"

You're ignoring a large chunk of the tax code.

I didn't miss anything. Now I went to https://apps.irs.gov/app/tax-withholding-estimator/ I took out $250 a month on taxes, with a wage of $15,000 a year, and did 1040EZ with standard deductions like most people would making that much. Here are the results:

You would pay a total of $238 and get back $2762. So where exactly did I miss any tax code?

Most likely, someone making 400k/year is not going to have 300k left after taxes. Most people making 200-500k are probably professionals and likely get paid a salary/wages. So they are in the current 35% federal income tax bracket - (well 35% on half their earnings and like 27% on the first half). So that's about 126k in federal taxes. That leaves them 274k. Now add on state taxes, local taxes, payroll taxes (SS/medicare, etc.) and property taxes. They're likely at close to 50% in taxes.

Now if someone makes 400k in investment income per year, they'd pay only around 20% which would be more in your estimation of 300k left after taxes.

@Xabiss: "So where exactly did I miss any tax code?"

The part where you restricted it to federal income tax.

That is pretty much what he is talking about so stop. Because if that is not the case then he really screwed up on the amount of taxes someone making 400,000 pays in.

@Xabiss: I mean, the thread is about a tax outside of the federal income tax. Restricting the discussion to a tax that isn't even on topic seems arbitrary at best.

Moving those goal posts though. Only tactic to use if you can't argue on basic merits.

I'm ok with your pop culture beliefs, but i'd like to pick your brain further on the wealth tax. Andrew Yang made an interesting retort to Warren, that a wealth tax has been tried unsuccessfully in other countries (e.g. Germany). Apparently, it's hard to implement for a variety of reasons including calculating what someone's wealth is.

Take Donald Drumpf, for instance. What is his actual value? Much is apparently imaginary, so how do you calculate taxes on that. Also, if someone is worth 300 million dollars, but 290 million of that is currently invested, how do you tax that? They could do well and make a big return on that wealth, but they could also do poorly and lose a big chunk if not all. If they get taxed at the 300 million value, but lose a big chunk of it due to poor performance, do you still tax them based on that? I think it's much better that if someone has money they invest it because that helps create jobs, stimulate economy, etc. It's in play, so to speak as opposed to someone that just sits on 300 million in the bank.

But in theory, I like the wealth tax because 2% is not that much to anyone with over 50 million in assets, and I optimistically believe that many of them would not have as much issue paying it if presented in a certain fashion. For instance, as an investment in the country that helped them earn that wealth in the first place. A duty per se.

Look man I didn't make the dumb argument the other guy did. If he is comparing more then just federal income tax then his numbers are way off on 400,000 because technically they are paying a hell of a lot more. I saw the numbers and made the assumption he was talking federal income tax and if he was he is WRONG if he wasn't guess what he is still WRONG.

Also the guy is a flat out liar saying I said stuff I did not say in this thread.

Please see my first post in this thread:

I don't know if it will pay for everything listed above, but both the concept and numbers listed in her proposal have good backing from some respected economists. An interesting point is that Sanders' proposal (which largely took Warren's proposal and increased the numbers) doesn't, but I'm guessing that's OK with him.

One hurdle it could potentially face is a court challenge based on the fact that it's taxing wealth rather than transactions. But we can accomplish the same goals via other means, so that's not a show stopper in and of itself.

There are existing wealth taxes in other countries as well, so some countries abandoning them isn't the smoking gun that a lot of opponents like to claim it is. However, I think focusing on the specifics of a wealth tax is missing the forest from the trees because, as I said earlier, there are a lot of ways (and combination of ways) to meet the same goals of a wealth tax even if a true wealth tax isn't implemented. But a wealth tax is an easy to understand campaign vehicle for it's ideals even if it will never see the light of day as legislation (and it won't - not in the political environment Warren will find herself in if she wins).

If you really do want to study the details of Warren's proposal even though it will never become reality, you're in luck. Warren's proposal is essentially taken directly from a team of recently famous economists who are partially famous for this proposal. You can read their proposal in full as well as peer reviews from other economists either supporting or rebutting their original paper.

I could have accepted Dustin Diamond as Batman if Tiffany Amber Thiessen played catwoman. Crystal Pepsi is a hard pass either way.

Well, I want people like you out of everyday people's lives as much as possible. We don't always get what we want.

If you can't understand why saying that people who work jobs that obviously have value to society don't deserve a living wage is insulting, then I don't know what to say. If you can't pay enough for a burger or some laundry detergent to support the person providing it to you, then you shouldn't have those things anyway.

And this phrase, right here, is proof positive of how ****ing arrogant you are:

"I am okay with helping anyone out if we actually teach them to better themselves and make it on their own."

Who says they need to better themselves anyway? You're saying they need to better themselves to be deserving of dignity, and I'm saying they deserve dignity inherently. That's why I keep saying you're putting them down.

I also wasn't talking about federal taxes, I was talking about a hypothetical flat 15% tax. Under that, someone making $400,000 a year has about $300,000 left after taxes, and someone making $15,000 a year has about $12,000. I wouldn't be able to feed myself on $12,000 a year, it would all go to rent, whereas the person making $400,000 has enough money left over to buy a house. How is that fair?

You do realize that minium wage hurts low skilled workers right? The irony is that the left says that minimum wage is supposed to help this group of people, but it doesn't.

Anyways, Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is dumb and it proves that she is economically illiterate.

https://reason.com/2019/10/24/democratic-wealth-tax-proposals-demonstrate-economic-ignorance/

Under most flat tax plans no one pays any tax if you make 30,000 or less. Then you only pay flat tax on any amount after 30,000 from most some of the plans I have looked at.

So if there was a flat tax of 15% and you made 35,000 then you only pay 15% of the 5,000.

I have even seen plans that say you don't pay up to 30,000 then 15% until you reach 250,000 then it is 25%.

So if you made 400,000 you would pay 15% of 220,000 and then 25% on the rest.

The part I like about flat tax there is no IRS or end of the year tax. You just pay your taxes and that is it no loop holes.

@Xabiss: "The part I like about flat tax there is no IRS or end of the year tax. You just pay your taxes and that is it no loop holes."

Setting aside whether or not that is desirable, what makes a two tiered progressive income tax structure special which enables that versus an N tier income tax structure?

Yeah, I think the current system is every bit as simple as a flat tax if we just get rid of all of the deductions.

You trim a crap ton for government fat with a flat tax plan. You get rid of all the ways rich people can get deductions. It really is a win/win in my book plus you never have to do taxes anymore.

@Xabiss: "You trim a crap ton for government fat with a flat tax plan. You get rid of all the ways rich people can get deductions. It really is a win/win in my book plus you never have to do taxes anymore. "

You told me what you thought the end results would be, not why they would come to be. Why would a two bracket income tax produce those results?

They don't create those products or services on their own.

GameSpot Forums Political Gamers

What do you think of Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax?

Enter search term

133 results

#101 PurpleMan5000

Member since 2011 • 9810 Posts

I think we should restore and expand the death tax to include everyone. Tax 90%. Then get rid of income taxes. Just tax inheritance and gifts.

Reply • 4 days ago

#102 comp_atkins

Member since 2005 • 35954 Posts

@Xabiss said:

@jeezers said:

@Xabiss: dont waste your time man, the guy obviously doesnt think he has the ability to put in the work (he proabably knows he would flunk trade school or not show up even if he took out the loans) he doesnt want to hear you tell him he has options, he wants to believe theres nothing he can do to better himself, that the only way he will ever make it, is if the government would just tax people with better jobs and give him some of it. Your never going to get through to these types, they dont want to hear it, even though your advice is solid. I say good riddance, let him live it his self pitty, maybe then he will realize the only person keeping himself in his position is himself, the way I see it, the more people that have his mind of thinking the better, less competition. I'm not rich, but I put in the work, I got my degree and I got through school working 2-3 jobs at a time, and the money I made was from cooking in restaurants/music venues/warehouse work/moving companies, just enough to cover my rent, food and bills and books, it was a bitch, I wasnt able to have fun, I diddnt party and get drunk at bars, i was working in bars more than drinking at them. I find it funny that people assume if your not stuggling you had it easy, you dont know what its like or never struggled. They are so caught up in thier own self pitty they dont realize the jobs they work and demand more for were stepping stones for many of the people they are envious of.

I always crack up at the fast food workers demanding 15/h, im sorry but i worked mcdonalds and the pay is on point for what the labor is, I worked those jobs at 15 years old, they are shitty jobs but accesible for anyone, even if you never worked a day in your life. The people that stay 5+ years in fast food blow my mind, eventually you gotta move on, if you dont want to go to tradeschool or something atleast start cooking in an actual restaurant or start bartending or something and even then you should be thinking of your next move. Those jobs are not meant to retire on, the mcdonalds I worked at as a teenager we legit had slow people working at, which is awesome I'm glad they give people with mental disabilities the oppurtunity and they worked as hard as anyone else sometimes harder.

Side note im actually pretty envious of some of my friends who did trade school over college, several of them make much more money than me and have much less debt, I have 2 friends who do electrician work and make 6 figures plus, and a dude whos been doing plumbing making 6 figures.

Hell I got the degree and I'm only at 45k lol but I'm always looking for the next move, have a few side hustles for play money, im not complaining

I love how people on this post say I am looking down at people in lower jobs as I come out and show how blue collar jobs can lead to big careers. Yep plumbing is another career if you do it right can lead to huge money. Those types of jobs are in huge demand because millennials today do not want to do those types of jobs. It is the entire reason I tell people to go to school and get the training needed to do them.

Also love how I am being attacked for showing how someone can go to school for two years and make a good living. It is like I am a bad guy for sharing the truth. Hell one even attacked me saying I can't do any of that because it requires me to get a license, certificate, or schooling. Like WTF sure you have to get those things. The last thing I want is some electrician in my house wiring everything up and not knowing what they are doing.

You are right everyone just wants to be given everything instead of having to earn it anymore and I just don't understand why. I will never understand why anyone wants to live off the government or have the government in control over so much. /shurg

Also it scares the shit out of me when any politician comes out and say we do not need billionaires. That goes all against what this country was founded on and it is sad times we are living in.

not getting on the "shakes fist at millennials" train because it's full already. i do agree w/ the trade school thing though. a lot of those jobs are completely fucking impossible to outsource. how's a guy in india going to fix your water heater? not bad for job security. my neighbor worked as a union plumber for 30+ years and was making at least $100K annually when he retired. it's a shame a lot of younger people are trained to look down on these things.

also, don't discount gaining some skills and venturing out to start your own business. with just a little sense and some attention to your customers you'll be at a big advantage. i serve on my condo's HOA board and we deal with small businesses / contractors all the time. it's stunning how so many of them are complete shit at just following up w/ people, even if there is business worth thousands on the line. jesus, do you not like money??

Reply • 4 days ago

#103 LJS9502_basic Online

Member since 2003 • 167607 Posts

@comp_atkins said:

not getting on the "shakes fist at millennials" train because it's full already. i do agree w/ the trade school thing though. a lot of those jobs are completely fucking impossible to outsource. how's a guy in india going to fix your water heater? not bad for job security. my neighbor worked as a union plumber for 30+ years and was making at least $100K annually when he retired. it's a shame a lot of younger people are trained to look down on these things.

also, don't discount gaining some skills and venturing out to start your own business. with just a little sense and some attention to your customers you'll be at a big advantage. i serve on my condo's HOA board and we deal with small businesses / contractors all the time. it's stunning how so many of them are complete shit at just following up w/ people, even if there is business worth thousands on the line. jesus, do you not like money??

Trade schools are expensive though. And that puts some people off. I'd imagine there are people that don't have the aptitude to some of those jobs as well. I mean I'm not knocking that career path but I think it's a bit naïve to think it solves everything for everyone.

Reply • 4 days ago

#104 comp_atkins

Member since 2005 • 35954 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

@comp_atkins said:

not getting on the "shakes fist at millennials" train because it's full already. i do agree w/ the trade school thing though. a lot of those jobs are completely fucking impossible to outsource. how's a guy in india going to fix your water heater? not bad for job security. my neighbor worked as a union plumber for 30+ years and was making at least $100K annually when he retired. it's a shame a lot of younger people are trained to look down on these things.

also, don't discount gaining some skills and venturing out to start your own business. with just a little sense and some attention to your customers you'll be at a big advantage. i serve on my condo's HOA board and we deal with small businesses / contractors all the time. it's stunning how so many of them are complete shit at just following up w/ people, even if there is business worth thousands on the line. jesus, do you not like money??

Trade schools are expensive though. And that puts some people off. I'd imagine there are people that don't have the aptitude to some of those jobs as well. I mean I'm not knocking that career path but I think it's a bit naïve to think it solves everything for everyone.

education in general is expensive, specifically if there is some arbiter of qualification out there that can make a buck off your learning. ( degree, certification, etc...). lots of skills can be learned cheaply online but you gotta pay for the proof. that's just the world we live in and looking to improve your station in life does not come without risks. it is by no means a cure-all.

what's the saying though? if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten?

Reply • 4 days ago

#105 R-Gamer Online

Member since 2019 • 858 Posts

I just dont see how that adds up. If it does? Sounds great but I don't see it happening.

Reply • 4 days ago

#106 Xabiss

Member since 2012 • 2955 Posts

@comp_atkins said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@comp_atkins said:

not getting on the "shakes fist at millennials" train because it's full already. i do agree w/ the trade school thing though. a lot of those jobs are completely fucking impossible to outsource. how's a guy in india going to fix your water heater? not bad for job security. my neighbor worked as a union plumber for 30+ years and was making at least $100K annually when he retired. it's a shame a lot of younger people are trained to look down on these things.

also, don't discount gaining some skills and venturing out to start your own business. with just a little sense and some attention to your customers you'll be at a big advantage. i serve on my condo's HOA board and we deal with small businesses / contractors all the time. it's stunning how so many of them are complete shit at just following up w/ people, even if there is business worth thousands on the line. jesus, do you not like money??

Trade schools are expensive though. And that puts some people off. I'd imagine there are people that don't have the aptitude to some of those jobs as well. I mean I'm not knocking that career path but I think it's a bit naïve to think it solves everything for everyone.

education in general is expensive, specifically if there is some arbiter of qualification out there that can make a buck off your learning. ( degree, certification, etc...). lots of skills can be learned cheaply online but you gotta pay for the proof. that's just the world we live in and looking to improve your station in life does not come without risks. it is by no means a cure-all.

what's the saying though? if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten?

Any schooling is expensive, but there are tons of ways to pay for it. If you can't afford it, join the military for 5 years and get it paid for and get experience in a trade that you want to do. There are government grants and if you are poor enough it will pay for almost all of it. If you have to take out loans do it. In the end I look at the $400 I pay each month as an investment. Without that $400 I would never be making the money I do now. Like I said it takes sacrifices and proper perspective, but anyone can make a good living if they try.

Reply • 3 days ago

#107 sonicare

Member since 2004 • 56938 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@horgen: we prefer to not read anything longer than a bumper sticker or think about anything that challenges our simplest preconceived notions.

You talking about millennials?

Reply • 3 days ago

#108 sonicare

Member since 2004 • 56938 Posts

@comp_atkins said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@comp_atkins said:

not getting on the "shakes fist at millennials" train because it's full already. i do agree w/ the trade school thing though. a lot of those jobs are completely fucking impossible to outsource. how's a guy in india going to fix your water heater? not bad for job security. my neighbor worked as a union plumber for 30+ years and was making at least $100K annually when he retired. it's a shame a lot of younger people are trained to look down on these things.

also, don't discount gaining some skills and venturing out to start your own business. with just a little sense and some attention to your customers you'll be at a big advantage. i serve on my condo's HOA board and we deal with small businesses / contractors all the time. it's stunning how so many of them are complete shit at just following up w/ people, even if there is business worth thousands on the line. jesus, do you not like money??

Trade schools are expensive though. And that puts some people off. I'd imagine there are people that don't have the aptitude to some of those jobs as well. I mean I'm not knocking that career path but I think it's a bit naïve to think it solves everything for everyone.

education in general is expensive, specifically if there is some arbiter of qualification out there that can make a buck off your learning. ( degree, certification, etc...). lots of skills can be learned cheaply online but you gotta pay for the proof. that's just the world we live in and looking to improve your station in life does not come without risks. it is by no means a cure-all.

what's the saying though? if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten?

It's interesting that all these candidates never address why education is so expensive. They all talk about free college, but why should college cost someone 100-200k (or higher)? If you look at some of the salaries/pensions university presidents make or tenured professors, it's impressive.

Reply • 3 days ago

#109 mattbbpl Online

Member since 2006 • 17567 Posts

@sonicare said:

@mattbbpl said:

@horgen: we prefer to not read anything longer than a bumper sticker or think about anything that challenges our simplest preconceived notions.

You talking about millennials?

This statement transcends most demographics. Old, young, rich, poor, various political stripes - My experience has been that a shocking number of people prefer to believe they already know everything rather than entertain the possibility that they still have room to grow.

I considered giving an example using the importance of countervailing forces, but I didn't want the size of that post to become unwieldy. In short, if you introduce the concept of countervailing forces to someone as a means to counteract abuse of power by a typical villain of their ideology, they'll agree readily. If you discuss it further as a feature to keep the heroes of their ideology in check as well, you'll meet some resistance in the form of cognitive dissonance. If you discuss even further about those forces keeping neutral members in check or even members within the same group in check, eyes often start to glaze over because it's more than most people want to consider.

Granted, some people are open to those types of discussions and they just require time to properly digest topics like that - I'll raise my hand as part of that group, as I'm not one to instantly understand complex topics that I don't have the proper grounding in - but a lot of people just don't want to be confronted with that challenge either due to the level of thought required or due to having to face the inconsistencies in their own beliefs. Both of those are hard things to do, so I get it. I just wish it weren't so.

Reply • 3 days ago

#110 mattbbpl Online

Member since 2006 • 17567 Posts

@sonicare said:

It's interesting that all these candidates never address why education is so expensive. They all talk about free college, but why should college cost someone 100-200k (or higher)? If you look at some of the salaries/pensions university presidents make or tenured professors, it's impressive.

Perhaps you'd be interested in reading up on Baumol's cost disease? It doesn't seem to explain ALL of the rising relative prices in industries like education, licensed services, and construction, but it seems to be an important component.

Reply • 3 days ago

#111 sonicare

Member since 2004 • 56938 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@sonicare said:

It's interesting that all these candidates never address why education is so expensive. They all talk about free college, but why should college cost someone 100-200k (or higher)? If you look at some of the salaries/pensions university presidents make or tenured professors, it's impressive.

Perhaps you'd be interested in reading up on Baumol's cost disease? It doesn't seem to explain ALL of the rising relative prices in industries like education, licensed services, and construction, but it seems to be an important component.

The problem with that, is exactly what are you paying for? Are you attracting "big name" people for the prestige of the university or because you think they are needed to better the education of your students? I'd have no problem with private universities paying whatever they want, but public universities have an additional duty to provide cost effective education. We seem to have no problem attracting teachers for K-12 despite mediocre salaries albeit good benefits/pensions.

One of the issues with higher education in this country is that it may focus more on prestige and research then actually teaching students and providing them with the skills necessary to succeed in life. The name on the degree seems to matter more than what it stands for or represents. I'd bet that many students can get as good if not better an education at a junior college where the professors focus more on the subjects they teach than at many big name universities where the course is considered more an inconvenience to a prestigious tenured professor.

Reply • 3 days ago

#112 sonicare

Member since 2004 • 56938 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@sonicare said:

@mattbbpl said:

@horgen: we prefer to not read anything longer than a bumper sticker or think about anything that challenges our simplest preconceived notions.

You talking about millennials?

This statement transcends most demographics. Old, young, rich, poor, various political stripes - My experience has been that a shocking number of people prefer to believe they already know everything rather than entertain the possibility that they still have room to grow.

I considered giving an example using the importance of countervailing forces, but I didn't want the size of that post to become unwieldy. In short, if you introduce the concept of countervailing forces to someone as a means to counteract abuse of power by a typical villain of their ideology, they'll agree readily. If you discuss it further as a feature to keep the heroes of their ideology in check as well, you'll meet some resistance in the form of cognitive dissonance. If you discuss even further about those forces keeping neutral members in check or even members within the same group in check, eyes often start to glaze over because it's more than most people want to consider.

Granted, some people are open to those types of discussions and they just require time to properly digest topics like that - I'll raise my hand as part of that group, as I'm not one to instantly understand complex topics that I don't have the proper grounding in - but a lot of people just don't want to be confronted with that challenge either due to the level of thought required or due to having to face the inconsistencies in their own beliefs. Both of those are hard things to do, so I get it. I just wish it weren't so.

I listened to a good TED talk by a psychologist that made a relevant point. The brain is an incredibly lazy organ. We actually don't like to think as much as we would believe. It requires a good deal of activity and energy to actively think so we tend to go more on autopilot for many things. That may be why we have preconceived notions ,etc, and why there is so much resistance to overcoming them.

Reply • 3 days ago

#113 mattbbpl Online

Member since 2006 • 17567 Posts

@sonicare said:

The problem with that, is exactly what are you paying for? Are you attracting "big name" people for the prestige of the university or because you think they are needed to better the education of your students?

I think perhaps I gave the wrong impression. Baumol's cost disease isn't a good thing in any way. I've never heard anyone even attempt to describe it as such because you get nothing for it. It's simply a cost increase due to comparative costs (salaries) in other industries that have seen productivity increases.

@sonicare said:

I listened to a good TED talk by a psychologist that made a relevant point. The brain is an incredibly lazy organ. We actually don't like to think as much as we would believe. It requires a good deal of activity and energy to actively think so we tend to go more on autopilot for many things. That may be why we have preconceived notions ,etc, and why there is so much resistance to overcoming them.

I believe it. As a software developer that tends to get put on the more theoretical projects, I definitely understand that thinking requires energy and can be exhausting. I think that someone needs to get an amount of joy greater than the amount of fatigue to want to continually pursue it - whether that comes in the form of satiated curiosity, a sense of accomplishment, a sense of community, etc.

It's totally understandable, unfortunately it's just so critical to overcome.

Reply • 3 days ago

#114 Horgen Moderator Online

Member since 2006 • 121414 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@horgen: we prefer to not read anything longer than a bumper sticker or think about anything that challenges our simplest preconceived notions.

Twitter tweet length attention span is perhaps more fitting for society today. :P

Reply • 3 days ago

#115 theone86

Member since 2003 • 22465 Posts

@Xabiss said:

@theone86 said:

@Xabiss said:

@theone86 said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Sh*t, just turn it into a block grant then. The GOP loves the idea for Medicaid and other programs.

Medicare block grants can be distributed on a needs or per capita basis, this would have to be distributed on a per capita basis. Plus if the idea is to combat inequality then distributing per capita could run counter to that. The wealthy already tend to group together, if they all moved to the same area they could essentially recoup their taxes. They wouldn't get it back directly, but they would ensure that their money is spent in their own area. I'm not saying this to say we shouldn't try to do it, but there would be problems we might have a hard time getting around.

@Xabiss said:

A tax credit a perfect example of why our tax system sucks. Someone that doesn't pay anything in taxes can get EIC and get money back. Yep, what a great system. Yeah I guess I would be pissed if someone wanted to get rid of my tax welfare also.

There are plenty of jobs that contribute to society and you can make a good living. Sorry if you can't find those jobs.

Yeah, dude, that extra couple hundred bucks a year is just totally destroying my work ethic. Balancing demanding jobs that don't pay enough, rent that's way too high for a place the landlord doesn't want to maintain, and school that costs too much and doesn't make any room for personal struggles is TOTALLY what someone who just sucks off the government does. Too bad I don't pay the same rate as a billionaire, that would make everything fair. Oh, by the way, let's do a quick math check. What's 85% of 400,000? It's 340,000. What's 85% of 15,000? It's 12,750. That's how much is left over from a top earner's salary and a low earner's salary after a flat 15%. The top earner still has enough left over to equal the low earner's salary before taxes 22 times over, the low earner has almost nothing left after rent, food, and bills. That's not fair, and it's exactly why a flat tax system isn't fair under any circumstance.

And there are plenty that contribute to society and don't pay a decent living. You do know you can't just pick any job you like and get it, right? There are qualifications, licensing, experience, etc.? We can't all make a living by speculation that adds no value to anything. It's so funny how people like you actually depend on physical products to make money, but you look down your noses at the people who actually make the goods that you use to make money. Oh, and the people who serve you food and sell you goods are so far beneath you, they don't even deserve the bad wages they're getting paid, but as soon as they refuse you service you throw a hissy fit like some child. Like I said, without people like me you'd be crying in the corner. I'll take that couple hundred bucks a year without any remorse, your bullshit guilt trips won't work on me.

Typical liberal response making crap up that I did not say. That part in bold, where in the hell did I EVER say I look down at anyone. Actually I showed how people can do blue collar jobs and make a great living doing them, but then you come back with that I look down at these people. ROFLMAO come on man!

Oh and one other thing. When I was younger I worked two jobs. I worked at a fried chicken restaurant and movie theater so why would I ever look down at people doing those jobs. I just want everyone to understand that you can be better if you put some effort and time into it. Also when I graduated trade school and got a job I also worked at a grocery store to make ends meet. Yes, I made some sacrifices to now make the living I now make. Again it was not that hard.

You said: You do know you can't just pick any job you like and get it, right? There are qualifications, licensing, experience, etc.?

WTF. Sure you can. You just have to go out and get it done. What are you even talking about. If you want to be a plumber you can go to any trade school and get that done. If you don't have the money you can get grants to help pay for it. You just have to sacrifice a little and work hard to get it done. Quit making excuses, if I can do it anyone can. Remember I came from a family where my mom only made $20K a year cleaning houses. My Mom instilled in us to be better and all my brothers went to college and we are making a good living now. So yes anyone can do it as long as you put some effort into it.

You've spent the entire thread putting down people who work low-wage jobs and saying that the only reason they don't earn enough is because lack of effort. That's bullshit, and it's arrogant and condescending. And it's arrogant and condescending to assume I haven't sacrificed just because I'm at a certain income level. You are completely out of touch with the experience of working people in this country. You may not think you're looking down at us, but when we're doing jobs that you depend on and you don't think we should earn a wage that allows us to put a roof over our head and food on the table then you're looking down at us.

And you didn't prove anything. LOL, I can just go to trade school, can I? Oh look, another thing I have to pay for! Good thing I don't sacrifice, put effort into anything, and always just make excuses for everything, otherwise I'd actually be pissed at seeing yet another institution drain all my hard earned money whilst lecturing me about work ethic.

I will gladly vote for politicians who will tax every last red cent you have because I think you deserve exactly what you keep telling other people they deserve-jack shit.

Show me one damn quote where I put anyone down in any low-wage job. You can't and you are a liar sir!

Yes anyone can go to school and be successful. Just have to get out their and do it. If I can do it anyone can and I hope they do. So quit finger pointing like you are and take some damn personal responsibility!

You last statement says it all. You are full of hate and expect handouts for doing nothing. Thanks for proving everything I say as being correct!

You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities. You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives. That's a put down, and it's arrogant and condescending. It's also arrogant and condescending to make generalizations about a broad group of people-about their work ethic, responsibility, motivation-without knowing anything about their individual circumstances. You have literally no idea what is going on in the lives of any low-wage worker at any point in their lives, but you feel justified in calling them lazy, entitled, and irresponsible all the same. All you do is put other people down. Get some goddamned perspective.

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

Reply • 2 days ago

#116 Xabiss

Member since 2012 • 2955 Posts

@theone86 said:

@Xabiss said:

@theone86 said:

@Xabiss said:

Typical liberal response making crap up that I did not say. That part in bold, where in the hell did I EVER say I look down at anyone. Actually I showed how people can do blue collar jobs and make a great living doing them, but then you come back with that I look down at these people. ROFLMAO come on man!

Oh and one other thing. When I was younger I worked two jobs. I worked at a fried chicken restaurant and movie theater so why would I ever look down at people doing those jobs. I just want everyone to understand that you can be better if you put some effort and time into it. Also when I graduated trade school and got a job I also worked at a grocery store to make ends meet. Yes, I made some sacrifices to now make the living I now make. Again it was not that hard.

You said: You do know you can't just pick any job you like and get it, right? There are qualifications, licensing, experience, etc.?

WTF. Sure you can. You just have to go out and get it done. What are you even talking about. If you want to be a plumber you can go to any trade school and get that done. If you don't have the money you can get grants to help pay for it. You just have to sacrifice a little and work hard to get it done. Quit making excuses, if I can do it anyone can. Remember I came from a family where my mom only made $20K a year cleaning houses. My Mom instilled in us to be better and all my brothers went to college and we are making a good living now. So yes anyone can do it as long as you put some effort into it.

You've spent the entire thread putting down people who work low-wage jobs and saying that the only reason they don't earn enough is because lack of effort. That's bullshit, and it's arrogant and condescending. And it's arrogant and condescending to assume I haven't sacrificed just because I'm at a certain income level. You are completely out of touch with the experience of working people in this country. You may not think you're looking down at us, but when we're doing jobs that you depend on and you don't think we should earn a wage that allows us to put a roof over our head and food on the table then you're looking down at us.

And you didn't prove anything. LOL, I can just go to trade school, can I? Oh look, another thing I have to pay for! Good thing I don't sacrifice, put effort into anything, and always just make excuses for everything, otherwise I'd actually be pissed at seeing yet another institution drain all my hard earned money whilst lecturing me about work ethic.

I will gladly vote for politicians who will tax every last red cent you have because I think you deserve exactly what you keep telling other people they deserve-jack shit.

Show me one damn quote where I put anyone down in any low-wage job. You can't and you are a liar sir!

Yes anyone can go to school and be successful. Just have to get out their and do it. If I can do it anyone can and I hope they do. So quit finger pointing like you are and take some damn personal responsibility!

You last statement says it all. You are full of hate and expect handouts for doing nothing. Thanks for proving everything I say as being correct!

You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities. You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives. That's a put down, and it's arrogant and condescending. It's also arrogant and condescending to make generalizations about a broad group of people-about their work ethic, responsibility, motivation-without knowing anything about their individual circumstances. You have literally no idea what is going on in the lives of any low-wage worker at any point in their lives, but you feel justified in calling them lazy, entitled, and irresponsible all the same. All you do is put other people down. Get some goddamned perspective.

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

If I said this: You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities.

How is that a put down? There are lots of opportunities to get help and to use that help to get out of poverty if you learn how to take advantage of them and not just live off them? I am okay with helping anyone out if we actually teach them to better themselves and make it on their own. I don't want anyone living off the government and I want the government out of everyone's life as much as possible!

You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives.

Please show me a direct quote from this thread that I ever said that? If not again you are not just a liar you are a DAMN LIAR!

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

Someone making $400,000 paying in 25% of that wage to the government is pretty good if you ask me. Hell I can't imagine working a $400,000 job and having to pay $100,000 in to government to screw it up. Why is making $400,000 a bad thing. How much do you think they should have to pay in? That really isn't that much money.

Also if you make $15,000 a year you will pay very little of that in federal income tax, something like $280! You should really learn something about the tax code and that was just using a quick calculator on the Internet. If they did pay in $3,000 in a year they would get almost ALL of it back at the end of the year. Heck they will probably be able to take out EIC and get more then they actually ever paid in. A tax rate of 1.87% is pretty darn low.

Federal Income Tax Calculator 2019

Income: $15,000

Taxable income $2,800

Effective tax rate 1.87%

Estimated federal taxes $280

Federal taxes withheld $3,000

We estimate you will get back $2,720

https://www.nerdwallet.com/taxes/tax-calculator

So there is your answer. Someone making $15,000 a year pays very little in on Federal Taxes and can even get money back over what they paid in if they can qualify for certain things.

Reply • 1 day ago

#117 mattbbpl Online

Member since 2006 • 17567 Posts

@Xabiss: "federal income tax"

You're ignoring a large chunk of the tax code.

Reply • 1 day ago

#118 Xabiss

Member since 2012 • 2955 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: "federal income tax"

You're ignoring a large chunk of the tax code.

I didn't miss anything. Now I went to https://apps.irs.gov/app/tax-withholding-estimator/ I took out $250 a month on taxes, with a wage of $15,000 a year, and did 1040EZ with standard deductions like most people would making that much. Here are the results:

No Caption Provided

You would pay a total of $238 and get back $2762. So where exactly did I miss any tax code?

Reply • 1 day ago

#119 sonicare

Member since 2004 • 56938 Posts

Most likely, someone making 400k/year is not going to have 300k left after taxes. Most people making 200-500k are probably professionals and likely get paid a salary/wages. So they are in the current 35% federal income tax bracket - (well 35% on half their earnings and like 27% on the first half). So that's about 126k in federal taxes. That leaves them 274k. Now add on state taxes, local taxes, payroll taxes (SS/medicare, etc.) and property taxes. They're likely at close to 50% in taxes.

Now if someone makes 400k in investment income per year, they'd pay only around 20% which would be more in your estimation of 300k left after taxes.

Reply • 1 day ago

#120 mattbbpl Online

Member since 2006 • 17567 Posts

@Xabiss: "So where exactly did I miss any tax code?"

The part where you restricted it to federal income tax.

Reply • 1 day ago

#121 Xabiss

Member since 2012 • 2955 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: "So where exactly did I miss any tax code?"

The part where you restricted it to federal income tax.

That is pretty much what he is talking about so stop. Because if that is not the case then he really screwed up on the amount of taxes someone making 400,000 pays in.

Reply • 1 day ago

#122 mattbbpl Online

Member since 2006 • 17567 Posts

@Xabiss: I mean, the thread is about a tax outside of the federal income tax. Restricting the discussion to a tax that isn't even on topic seems arbitrary at best.

Reply • 1 day ago

#123 HoolaHoopMan

Member since 2009 • 11018 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: I mean, the thread is about a tax outside of the federal income tax. Restricting the discussion to a tax that isn't even on topic seems arbitrary at best.

Moving those goal posts though. Only tactic to use if you can't argue on basic merits.

Reply • 1 day ago

#124 sonicare

Member since 2004 • 56938 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

I'd like to see Dustin Diamond play batman. I also would like them to bring back crystal Pepsi.

I'm ok with your pop culture beliefs, but i'd like to pick your brain further on the wealth tax. Andrew Yang made an interesting retort to Warren, that a wealth tax has been tried unsuccessfully in other countries (e.g. Germany). Apparently, it's hard to implement for a variety of reasons including calculating what someone's wealth is.

Take Donald Drumpf, for instance. What is his actual value? Much is apparently imaginary, so how do you calculate taxes on that. Also, if someone is worth 300 million dollars, but 290 million of that is currently invested, how do you tax that? They could do well and make a big return on that wealth, but they could also do poorly and lose a big chunk if not all. If they get taxed at the 300 million value, but lose a big chunk of it due to poor performance, do you still tax them based on that? I think it's much better that if someone has money they invest it because that helps create jobs, stimulate economy, etc. It's in play, so to speak as opposed to someone that just sits on 300 million in the bank.

But in theory, I like the wealth tax because 2% is not that much to anyone with over 50 million in assets, and I optimistically believe that many of them would not have as much issue paying it if presented in a certain fashion. For instance, as an investment in the country that helped them earn that wealth in the first place. A duty per se.

Reply • 1 day ago

#125 Xabiss

Member since 2012 • 2955 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: I mean, the thread is about a tax outside of the federal income tax. Restricting the discussion to a tax that isn't even on topic seems arbitrary at best.

Look man I didn't make the dumb argument the other guy did. If he is comparing more then just federal income tax then his numbers are way off on 400,000 because technically they are paying a hell of a lot more. I saw the numbers and made the assumption he was talking federal income tax and if he was he is WRONG if he wasn't guess what he is still WRONG.

Also the guy is a flat out liar saying I said stuff I did not say in this thread.

Reply • 1 day ago

#126 mattbbpl Online

Member since 2006 • 17567 Posts

@sonicare said:

@mattbbpl said:

I'd like to see Dustin Diamond play batman. I also would like them to bring back crystal Pepsi.

I'm ok with your pop culture beliefs, but i'd like to pick your brain further on the wealth tax. Andrew Yang made an interesting retort to Warren, that a wealth tax has been tried unsuccessfully in other countries (e.g. Germany). Apparently, it's hard to implement for a variety of reasons including calculating what someone's wealth is.

Take Donald Drumpf, for instance. What is his actual value? Much is apparently imaginary, so how do you calculate taxes on that. Also, if someone is worth 300 million dollars, but 290 million of that is currently invested, how do you tax that? They could do well and make a big return on that wealth, but they could also do poorly and lose a big chunk if not all. If they get taxed at the 300 million value, but lose a big chunk of it due to poor performance, do you still tax them based on that? I think it's much better that if someone has money they invest it because that helps create jobs, stimulate economy, etc. It's in play, so to speak as opposed to someone that just sits on 300 million in the bank.

But in theory, I like the wealth tax because 2% is not that much to anyone with over 50 million in assets, and I optimistically believe that many of them would not have as much issue paying it if presented in a certain fashion. For instance, as an investment in the country that helped them earn that wealth in the first place. A duty per se.

Please see my first post in this thread:

I don't know if it will pay for everything listed above, but both the concept and numbers listed in her proposal have good backing from some respected economists. An interesting point is that Sanders' proposal (which largely took Warren's proposal and increased the numbers) doesn't, but I'm guessing that's OK with him.

One hurdle it could potentially face is a court challenge based on the fact that it's taxing wealth rather than transactions. But we can accomplish the same goals via other means, so that's not a show stopper in and of itself.

There are existing wealth taxes in other countries as well, so some countries abandoning them isn't the smoking gun that a lot of opponents like to claim it is. However, I think focusing on the specifics of a wealth tax is missing the forest from the trees because, as I said earlier, there are a lot of ways (and combination of ways) to meet the same goals of a wealth tax even if a true wealth tax isn't implemented. But a wealth tax is an easy to understand campaign vehicle for it's ideals even if it will never see the light of day as legislation (and it won't - not in the political environment Warren will find herself in if she wins).

If you really do want to study the details of Warren's proposal even though it will never become reality, you're in luck. Warren's proposal is essentially taken directly from a team of recently famous economists who are partially famous for this proposal. You can read their proposal in full as well as peer reviews from other economists either supporting or rebutting their original paper.

I could have accepted Dustin Diamond as Batman if Tiffany Amber Thiessen played catwoman. Crystal Pepsi is a hard pass either way.

Reply • 1 day ago

#127 theone86

Member since 2003 • 22465 Posts

@Xabiss said:

@theone86 said:

@Xabiss said:

@theone86 said:

@Xabiss said:

Typical liberal response making crap up that I did not say. That part in bold, where in the hell did I EVER say I look down at anyone. Actually I showed how people can do blue collar jobs and make a great living doing them, but then you come back with that I look down at these people. ROFLMAO come on man!

Oh and one other thing. When I was younger I worked two jobs. I worked at a fried chicken restaurant and movie theater so why would I ever look down at people doing those jobs. I just want everyone to understand that you can be better if you put some effort and time into it. Also when I graduated trade school and got a job I also worked at a grocery store to make ends meet. Yes, I made some sacrifices to now make the living I now make. Again it was not that hard.

You said: You do know you can't just pick any job you like and get it, right? There are qualifications, licensing, experience, etc.?

WTF. Sure you can. You just have to go out and get it done. What are you even talking about. If you want to be a plumber you can go to any trade school and get that done. If you don't have the money you can get grants to help pay for it. You just have to sacrifice a little and work hard to get it done. Quit making excuses, if I can do it anyone can. Remember I came from a family where my mom only made $20K a year cleaning houses. My Mom instilled in us to be better and all my brothers went to college and we are making a good living now. So yes anyone can do it as long as you put some effort into it.

You've spent the entire thread putting down people who work low-wage jobs and saying that the only reason they don't earn enough is because lack of effort. That's bullshit, and it's arrogant and condescending. And it's arrogant and condescending to assume I haven't sacrificed just because I'm at a certain income level. You are completely out of touch with the experience of working people in this country. You may not think you're looking down at us, but when we're doing jobs that you depend on and you don't think we should earn a wage that allows us to put a roof over our head and food on the table then you're looking down at us.

And you didn't prove anything. LOL, I can just go to trade school, can I? Oh look, another thing I have to pay for! Good thing I don't sacrifice, put effort into anything, and always just make excuses for everything, otherwise I'd actually be pissed at seeing yet another institution drain all my hard earned money whilst lecturing me about work ethic.

I will gladly vote for politicians who will tax every last red cent you have because I think you deserve exactly what you keep telling other people they deserve-jack shit.

Show me one damn quote where I put anyone down in any low-wage job. You can't and you are a liar sir!

Yes anyone can go to school and be successful. Just have to get out their and do it. If I can do it anyone can and I hope they do. So quit finger pointing like you are and take some damn personal responsibility!

You last statement says it all. You are full of hate and expect handouts for doing nothing. Thanks for proving everything I say as being correct!

You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities. You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives. That's a put down, and it's arrogant and condescending. It's also arrogant and condescending to make generalizations about a broad group of people-about their work ethic, responsibility, motivation-without knowing anything about their individual circumstances. You have literally no idea what is going on in the lives of any low-wage worker at any point in their lives, but you feel justified in calling them lazy, entitled, and irresponsible all the same. All you do is put other people down. Get some goddamned perspective.

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

If I said this: You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities.

How is that a put down? There are lots of opportunities to get help and to use that help to get out of poverty if you learn how to take advantage of them and not just live off them? I am okay with helping anyone out if we actually teach them to better themselves and make it on their own. I don't want anyone living off the government and I want the government out of everyone's life as much as possible!

You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives.

Please show me a direct quote from this thread that I ever said that? If not again you are not just a liar you are a DAMN LIAR!

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

Someone making $400,000 paying in 25% of that wage to the government is pretty good if you ask me. Hell I can't imagine working a $400,000 job and having to pay $100,000 in to government to screw it up. Why is making $400,000 a bad thing. How much do you think they should have to pay in? That really isn't that much money.

Also if you make $15,000 a year you will pay very little of that in federal income tax, something like $280! You should really learn something about the tax code and that was just using a quick calculator on the Internet. If they did pay in $3,000 in a year they would get almost ALL of it back at the end of the year. Heck they will probably be able to take out EIC and get more then they actually ever paid in. A tax rate of 1.87% is pretty darn low.

Federal Income Tax Calculator 2019

Income: $15,000

Taxable income $2,800

Effective tax rate 1.87%

Estimated federal taxes $280

Federal taxes withheld $3,000

We estimate you will get back $2,720

https://www.nerdwallet.com/taxes/tax-calculator

So there is your answer. Someone making $15,000 a year pays very little in on Federal Taxes and can even get money back over what they paid in if they can qualify for certain things.

Well, I want people like you out of everyday people's lives as much as possible. We don't always get what we want.

If you can't understand why saying that people who work jobs that obviously have value to society don't deserve a living wage is insulting, then I don't know what to say. If you can't pay enough for a burger or some laundry detergent to support the person providing it to you, then you shouldn't have those things anyway.

And this phrase, right here, is proof positive of how ****ing arrogant you are:

"I am okay with helping anyone out if we actually teach them to better themselves and make it on their own."

Who says they need to better themselves anyway? You're saying they need to better themselves to be deserving of dignity, and I'm saying they deserve dignity inherently. That's why I keep saying you're putting them down.

I also wasn't talking about federal taxes, I was talking about a hypothetical flat 15% tax. Under that, someone making $400,000 a year has about $300,000 left after taxes, and someone making $15,000 a year has about $12,000. I wouldn't be able to feed myself on $12,000 a year, it would all go to rent, whereas the person making $400,000 has enough money left over to buy a house. How is that fair?

Reply • 1 day ago

#128 Mighty-Lu-Bu

Member since 2007 • 3036 Posts

@theone86 said:

@Xabiss said:

@theone86 said:

@Xabiss said:

@theone86 said:

You've spent the entire thread putting down people who work low-wage jobs and saying that the only reason they don't earn enough is because lack of effort. That's bullshit, and it's arrogant and condescending. And it's arrogant and condescending to assume I haven't sacrificed just because I'm at a certain income level. You are completely out of touch with the experience of working people in this country. You may not think you're looking down at us, but when we're doing jobs that you depend on and you don't think we should earn a wage that allows us to put a roof over our head and food on the table then you're looking down at us.

And you didn't prove anything. LOL, I can just go to trade school, can I? Oh look, another thing I have to pay for! Good thing I don't sacrifice, put effort into anything, and always just make excuses for everything, otherwise I'd actually be pissed at seeing yet another institution drain all my hard earned money whilst lecturing me about work ethic.

I will gladly vote for politicians who will tax every last red cent you have because I think you deserve exactly what you keep telling other people they deserve-jack shit.

Show me one damn quote where I put anyone down in any low-wage job. You can't and you are a liar sir!

Yes anyone can go to school and be successful. Just have to get out their and do it. If I can do it anyone can and I hope they do. So quit finger pointing like you are and take some damn personal responsibility!

You last statement says it all. You are full of hate and expect handouts for doing nothing. Thanks for proving everything I say as being correct!

You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities. You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives. That's a put down, and it's arrogant and condescending. It's also arrogant and condescending to make generalizations about a broad group of people-about their work ethic, responsibility, motivation-without knowing anything about their individual circumstances. You have literally no idea what is going on in the lives of any low-wage worker at any point in their lives, but you feel justified in calling them lazy, entitled, and irresponsible all the same. All you do is put other people down. Get some goddamned perspective.

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

If I said this: You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities.

How is that a put down? There are lots of opportunities to get help and to use that help to get out of poverty if you learn how to take advantage of them and not just live off them? I am okay with helping anyone out if we actually teach them to better themselves and make it on their own. I don't want anyone living off the government and I want the government out of everyone's life as much as possible!

You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives.

Please show me a direct quote from this thread that I ever said that? If not again you are not just a liar you are a DAMN LIAR!

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

Someone making $400,000 paying in 25% of that wage to the government is pretty good if you ask me. Hell I can't imagine working a $400,000 job and having to pay $100,000 in to government to screw it up. Why is making $400,000 a bad thing. How much do you think they should have to pay in? That really isn't that much money.

Also if you make $15,000 a year you will pay very little of that in federal income tax, something like $280! You should really learn something about the tax code and that was just using a quick calculator on the Internet. If they did pay in $3,000 in a year they would get almost ALL of it back at the end of the year. Heck they will probably be able to take out EIC and get more then they actually ever paid in. A tax rate of 1.87% is pretty darn low.

Federal Income Tax Calculator 2019

Income: $15,000

Taxable income $2,800

Effective tax rate 1.87%

Estimated federal taxes $280

Federal taxes withheld $3,000

We estimate you will get back $2,720

https://www.nerdwallet.com/taxes/tax-calculator

So there is your answer. Someone making $15,000 a year pays very little in on Federal Taxes and can even get money back over what they paid in if they can qualify for certain things.

Well, I want people like you out of everyday people's lives as much as possible. We don't always get what we want.

If you can't understand why saying that people who work jobs that obviously have value to society don't deserve a living wage is insulting, then I don't know what to say. If you can't pay enough for a burger or some laundry detergent to support the person providing it to you, then you shouldn't have those things anyway.

And this phrase, right here, is proof positive of how ****ing arrogant you are:

"I am okay with helping anyone out if we actually teach them to better themselves and make it on their own."

Who says they need to better themselves anyway? You're saying they need to better themselves to be deserving of dignity, and I'm saying they deserve dignity inherently. That's why I keep saying you're putting them down.

I also wasn't talking about federal taxes, I was talking about a hypothetical flat 15% tax. Under that, someone making $400,000 a year has about $300,000 left after taxes, and someone making $15,000 a year has about $12,000. I wouldn't be able to feed myself on $12,000 a year, it would all go to rent, whereas the person making $400,000 has enough money left over to buy a house. How is that fair?

You do realize that minium wage hurts low skilled workers right? The irony is that the left says that minimum wage is supposed to help this group of people, but it doesn't.

Anyways, Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is dumb and it proves that she is economically illiterate.

https://reason.com/2019/10/24/democratic-wealth-tax-proposals-demonstrate-economic-ignorance/

Reply • 1 day ago

#129 Xabiss

Member since 2012 • 2955 Posts

@theone86 said:

@Xabiss said:

@theone86 said:

@Xabiss said:

@theone86 said:

You've spent the entire thread putting down people who work low-wage jobs and saying that the only reason they don't earn enough is because lack of effort. That's bullshit, and it's arrogant and condescending. And it's arrogant and condescending to assume I haven't sacrificed just because I'm at a certain income level. You are completely out of touch with the experience of working people in this country. You may not think you're looking down at us, but when we're doing jobs that you depend on and you don't think we should earn a wage that allows us to put a roof over our head and food on the table then you're looking down at us.

And you didn't prove anything. LOL, I can just go to trade school, can I? Oh look, another thing I have to pay for! Good thing I don't sacrifice, put effort into anything, and always just make excuses for everything, otherwise I'd actually be pissed at seeing yet another institution drain all my hard earned money whilst lecturing me about work ethic.

I will gladly vote for politicians who will tax every last red cent you have because I think you deserve exactly what you keep telling other people they deserve-jack shit.

Show me one damn quote where I put anyone down in any low-wage job. You can't and you are a liar sir!

Yes anyone can go to school and be successful. Just have to get out their and do it. If I can do it anyone can and I hope they do. So quit finger pointing like you are and take some damn personal responsibility!

You last statement says it all. You are full of hate and expect handouts for doing nothing. Thanks for proving everything I say as being correct!

You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities. You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives. That's a put down, and it's arrogant and condescending. It's also arrogant and condescending to make generalizations about a broad group of people-about their work ethic, responsibility, motivation-without knowing anything about their individual circumstances. You have literally no idea what is going on in the lives of any low-wage worker at any point in their lives, but you feel justified in calling them lazy, entitled, and irresponsible all the same. All you do is put other people down. Get some goddamned perspective.

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

If I said this: You flat-out said that people who are poor simply aren't taking advantage of opportunities.

How is that a put down? There are lots of opportunities to get help and to use that help to get out of poverty if you learn how to take advantage of them and not just live off them? I am okay with helping anyone out if we actually teach them to better themselves and make it on their own. I don't want anyone living off the government and I want the government out of everyone's life as much as possible!

You also said that low-wage workers don't deserve a higher wage, and if they can't make rent and buy food with that wage then they need to stop being lazy and actually make something of their lives.

Please show me a direct quote from this thread that I ever said that? If not again you are not just a liar you are a DAMN LIAR!

And, by the way, I'm still waiting to hear why it's fair that someone who makes $400,000 a year can have $300,000 left after taxes, but someone who makes $15,000 a year can have only $12,000.

Someone making $400,000 paying in 25% of that wage to the government is pretty good if you ask me. Hell I can't imagine working a $400,000 job and having to pay $100,000 in to government to screw it up. Why is making $400,000 a bad thing. How much do you think they should have to pay in? That really isn't that much money.

Also if you make $15,000 a year you will pay very little of that in federal income tax, something like $280! You should really learn something about the tax code and that was just using a quick calculator on the Internet. If they did pay in $3,000 in a year they would get almost ALL of it back at the end of the year. Heck they will probably be able to take out EIC and get more then they actually ever paid in. A tax rate of 1.87% is pretty darn low.

Federal Income Tax Calculator 2019

Income: $15,000

Taxable income $2,800

Effective tax rate 1.87%

Estimated federal taxes $280

Federal taxes withheld $3,000

We estimate you will get back $2,720

https://www.nerdwallet.com/taxes/tax-calculator

So there is your answer. Someone making $15,000 a year pays very little in on Federal Taxes and can even get money back over what they paid in if they can qualify for certain things.

Well, I want people like you out of everyday people's lives as much as possible. We don't always get what we want.

If you can't understand why saying that people who work jobs that obviously have value to society don't deserve a living wage is insulting, then I don't know what to say. If you can't pay enough for a burger or some laundry detergent to support the person providing it to you, then you shouldn't have those things anyway.

And this phrase, right here, is proof positive of how ****ing arrogant you are:

"I am okay with helping anyone out if we actually teach them to better themselves and make it on their own."

Who says they need to better themselves anyway? You're saying they need to better themselves to be deserving of dignity, and I'm saying they deserve dignity inherently. That's why I keep saying you're putting them down.

I also wasn't talking about federal taxes, I was talking about a hypothetical flat 15% tax. Under that, someone making $400,000 a year has about $300,000 left after taxes, and someone making $15,000 a year has about $12,000. I wouldn't be able to feed myself on $12,000 a year, it would all go to rent, whereas the person making $400,000 has enough money left over to buy a house. How is that fair?

Under most flat tax plans no one pays any tax if you make 30,000 or less. Then you only pay flat tax on any amount after 30,000 from most some of the plans I have looked at.

So if there was a flat tax of 15% and you made 35,000 then you only pay 15% of the 5,000.

I have even seen plans that say you don't pay up to 30,000 then 15% until you reach 250,000 then it is 25%.

So if you made 400,000 you would pay 15% of 220,000 and then 25% on the rest.

The part I like about flat tax there is no IRS or end of the year tax. You just pay your taxes and that is it no loop holes.

Reply • 22 hours ago

#130 mattbbpl Online

Member since 2006 • 17567 Posts

@Xabiss: "The part I like about flat tax there is no IRS or end of the year tax. You just pay your taxes and that is it no loop holes."

Setting aside whether or not that is desirable, what makes a two tiered progressive income tax structure special which enables that versus an N tier income tax structure?

Reply • 22 hours ago

#131 PurpleMan5000

Member since 2011 • 9810 Posts

Yeah, I think the current system is every bit as simple as a flat tax if we just get rid of all of the deductions.

Reply • 6 hours ago

#132 Xabiss

Member since 2012 • 2955 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: "The part I like about flat tax there is no IRS or end of the year tax. You just pay your taxes and that is it no loop holes."

Setting aside whether or not that is desirable, what makes a two tiered progressive income tax structure special which enables that versus an N tier income tax structure?

You trim a crap ton for government fat with a flat tax plan. You get rid of all the ways rich people can get deductions. It really is a win/win in my book plus you never have to do taxes anymore.

Reply • 2 hours ago

#133 mattbbpl Online

Member since 2006 • 17567 Posts

@Xabiss: "You trim a crap ton for government fat with a flat tax plan. You get rid of all the ways rich people can get deductions. It really is a win/win in my book plus you never have to do taxes anymore. "

You told me what you thought the end results would be, not why they would come to be. Why would a two bracket income tax produce those results?

Reply • 1 hour ago

#135 LJS9502_basic Online

Member since 2003 • 167607 Posts

@Addict187 said:

I see most of you talk out your ass on this tax the rich shit. First Jeff Bezos dose not have 110 billion or what ever his shares in Amozon are worth. And for that matter most of the super wealthy aren't sitting on piles if cash. So how the hell do you tax them when the welth is on papper and not in their back account. Yes at some point they will sell thier shares, It is At this point tax is taken. I Never understood the laying clam to others money because you feel that have to much. I'm well off but not wealthy by any means but don't feel any resentment to those who are. It is you the consumer that got them whethy buy using ther products or services.

@Addict187: Christ, what the hell did you just post?

Was wondering that myself...…...

Our politicians need to stop making promises they can’t keep or don’t even understand.

It drives me nuts when I read about politicians talking about a 70% (or even 90%) tax rate, telling us that raising the marginal federal tax rate would pay for everything they want to do, from "Medicare for All" to walls to green new deals.

It doesn’t work that way.

The rich don’t pay taxes.

Not like you do.

The marginal tax rate

The marginal tax rate is how most people (and companies) pay taxes.

This is where you add up your income, subtract some deductions, and figure out how much you owe—12% is the lowest bracket and 37% is the highest (for income of $500k +).

Increasing the marginal tax rate to 70% would impact businesses most heavily. To maintain their profits, companies would either push the higher tax rate on to their customers in the form of higher costs, lay off workers, or hold back wage increases.

In fact, this is why the recent tax break that Congress passed and the president signed was such a boon for companies: it reduced their effective tax rate while also increasing their profits. This led to record stock buybacks—though, oddly, not significant increases in wages.

But rich people, if they’re doing it right, don’t earn “income” in the same way that the rest of us do.

Wait, what?

That’s right. Most rich people put their money to work. They earn income based on the performance of their investments.

Capital gains

When an investment pays out in some way, it's called a capital gain—not income.

Aren’t capital gains taxed?

Yes, but at a far lower rate (ranging from 0% to 20%) based on how much you make.

Estate tax

The other way the rich pay taxes is through the estate tax.

The estate tax is also known as the “death tax,” as it’s levied on what an individual passes on after their death. The marginal estate tax rate is currently set at 40%, but the effective tax rate is 16.5% (and that only applies to estates worth more than $11 million).

If you want the rich to pay more (“their fair share”), you need to tax their wealth directly, restructure capital gains, or come up with an entirely new tax system.

The Buffet Rule

One idea that’s been receiving attention since its 2011 introduction is the “Buffett Rule.” Named after American investor Warren Buffett, the rule would basically double the capital gains tax to 30% for millionaires.

The Buffett Rule contends that under a fair tax system, all Americans would pay the same percentage of their income in taxes. But it says the tax system is not fair because it puts a greater proportional tax burden on wages than it does on investment income. The middle class shoulder this burden because their income primarily consists of wages subjected to income, payroll, and other federal taxes. In contrast, upper-class income consists primarily of investment-income taxed at preferential capital gains rates.

The Buffett Rule blames tax-code bias for an unfair tax system that forces many middle-class workers to pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes than the wealthy do. The rule seeks to remedy the bias by requiring millionaires to pay at least 30% of their post-charitable contribution income in taxes.

Why not start today?

Raising taxes on the wealthy is easier said than done. Our tax system has been rigged by special interests over decades. Any change, to any part, can spark a cascade of unintended consequences to home ownership, entrepreneurship, corporate investment, farming subsidies—even renewable vehicle sales.

The next time a candidate for office starts talking about taxing the rich and high marginal tax rates, ask them for specifics, what it would do, and how to hold them accountable. Only then can we have liberty and justice for all, regardless of tax bracket.

—Bart Myers

@Addict187: Did you copy and paste to reply to people or did the quote function not work properly?

Copypasta spamming.

I can't find the quote function on my mobile device, So the quote function did not work properly?

the guy that wrote what I pasted name (credit) is at the bottom

If you use the show desktop version on your mobile browser you are able to do proper quotes. Just a FYI.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-15-minimum-wage-was-supposed-to-hurt-new-york-city-restaurants-but-both-revenue-and-employment-are-up-2019-10-28

Derp.

Derp for posting an opinion piece.

Derp for posting an opinion piece when you posted an opinion piece to begin with.

Also:

https://splinternews.com/new-study-finds-15-federal-minimum-wage-wont-hurt-amer-1836061098

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/business/economy/seattle-minimum-wage-study.html

First off, that is hugely deceptive. Most flat tax proposals only exempt about the first $14,000 for individuals, $28,000 for families. If you make $15,000 a year, you're still paying as much tax as someone making $400,000. The $30,000 number either comes from the family rate (and focusing only on families is deceptive) or from provisions allowing more income to be put into savings accounts tax-free (a handout to Wall Street, what a surprise!)

Second, there is no way you're going to fund the government based on that amount of money. You would lose trillions of dollars in government revenues. As I said before, defense spending alone is over seven hundred billion, and you're never going to get politicians to cut that. Our government has already cut social needs programs, our national infrastructure is in disarray because we haven't invested in it, federal investment in higher education is lacking, healthcare expenditures are going to go up. Any money that individuals actually saved would be swallowed up by greater spending on necessities and dealing with reduced government spending on things like infrastructure. Which, again, is great for billionaires because they can just spend their way around these things with private helicopters, private jets, private resorts, multiple houses, gold-tier insurance, etc. For someone who gets a small reduction in their tax bill (or worse, pays more), not so much.

I don't care if it's simple, it's a shit idea.

Except that the wealthy ARE sitting on historically large sums of money.

https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/06/investing/wealthy-investors-cash/index.html

And this is exactly what was supposed to NOT happen with tax cuts. They were supposed to spur investment in technology and wages and yet no investment. This is on top of the fact that wages today have about the same value as they did in 1978, whereas corporate pay since 1978 has risen faster than profit, workers wages, and stock prices (so corporate officers are being paid more than they're "creating" in value). Corporate officers now make 287 times the wages of their AVERAGE worker. Simply put, if trickle down economics worked in practice like it did in theory, then we wouldn't be in this situation. The wealthy are hoarding cash rather than giving their workers cost of living increases or raises tied to productivity, and they're not investing it in the economy either in the stock market or direct investments. That is not sustainable in any way, shape, or form.

I believe the bolded is entirely their point. Conservatives don't actually care about governing for the wellbeing of society, their whole mantra is to shrink government or if they can't shrink it, make it ineffective so they can point to it and say "look! Government is awful!"

Anything that they try to do needs to be looked at through this lens, then it all starts making sense (as awful as it is).