Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by William1970 View Post
Tax Payer A: Single makes $24,000 a year has an effective tax rate of 12% (ballpark rate just as example)
Tax Payer B: Single makes $950,000 a year has an effective tax rate of 30%. (ballpark rate)
Both tax payers use infrastructure and services provided by the government ie roads, bridges, libraries, police, fire department etc at an equal amount.
An equal amount, meaning to say Tax Payer B does not use the roads and bridges any more than Tax Payer A.
Tax Payer B does not call the police and fire department any more than Tax Payer A.
So why is it fair that Tax Payer B pay more taxes for the same government infrastructure and services as Tax Payer A?
I had a room mate when I was in my early 20's. Our agreement was each paid 50% of the bills. She went out and partied all the time while I worked and went to college. After I graduated and got a good job she said "since you make better money than me you should pay more than half on the bills". Of course I said no.
Can you elaborate? To a casual observer, the fact that media are owned and controlled by "the rich" might suggest that the viewpoints of "the rich" get a lot of prime-time airplay while the viewpoints of others get a lot less. If you are onto something here though, do let the rest of us know what that is.
I just have a sense that taxes do cause more financial pain to the rich than liberals give them credit for.
I think we can generally agree that the rich do, indeed, enjoy the expected diminishing returns from consumption - marginal propensity to consume declines as income rises - but I think there is a competing marginal propensity to invest.
So if you consider consumption + investment to be "spending", marginal propensity to spend does not decline as income rises.
At lower incomes, marginal propensity to consume overwhelms marginal propensity to invest.
At higher incomes, marginal propensity to invest overtakes marginal propensity to consume.
To homo economicus, every dollar has a job to perform. (This concept drawn from Dave Ramsey.)
Perhaps traditional utility theory shortchanges the utility afforded by investment.
It isn't fair. It's just the person making $24k can't pull their weight so the thinking is someone has to pick it up for them. It's the same thing as the family having to pitch in to take care of granny.
"Pull their weight" suggests it is a personal weakness or failing. A pile of research on income, education, and employment has a lot of something to say about that. Taking your point strictly, economically, sure, it means one person is chipping in more than another, but it also suggests the former has benefited more from the system than the latter.
I just have a sense that taxes do cause more financial pain to the rich than liberals give them credit for.
Ah, those sneaking suspicions! When you can keep 70 cents of every dollar you can manage to make and are already rich enough to be able to seed whatever sorts of income-generating operations you would care to, believe me, that 30% in taxes simply doesn't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
I think we can generally agree that the rich do, indeed, enjoy the expected diminishing returns from consumption - marginal propensity to consume declines as income rises - but I think there is a competing marginal propensity to invest.
You actually refer to a mathematically implied marginal propestiy to do something else with the money since the actual consumption thing has already been taken about to its outer limits. Many people turn to charity at -- or even long before -- that point. It's suprirsing to some how quickly the realization comes that one did not actually do anything to deserve all this wealth. But as we have happened to become stewards of it, let's try to pay it back by putting it to some good use.
None of this even begins to imply that taxes cause "pain" to the wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
To homo economicus, every dollar has a job to perform. (This concept drawn from Dave Ramsey.)
Like a lost dog, it might be best just to send this idea back to its rightful owner.
I pay 30%+ of my earnings in taxes. I have some savings, and no debt. My taxes hurt me a lot.
What kind of rich people are we talking about? Whose taxes don't feel painful to them, maybe there are some who are selfless or uber-rich.
I am trying to secure the future of my child, and have some comfort in my retirement. And have a decent life while I do it. I have had many 80 hour work weeks. It will be a long time before I have secured the future of my children and my parents, who depend on me. Till then, any taxes prevent me from reaching those goals.
Oh, believe me, they hurt, they always have.
All being said, I am happier paying taxes to live in the US than I did in India. I feel this is great country and has a lot of positive things going for it.
I pay 30%+ of my earnings in taxes. I have some savings, and no debt. My taxes hurt me a lot.
What kind of rich people are we talking about? Whose taxes don't feel painful to them, maybe there are some who are selfless or uber-rich.
I am trying to secure the future of my child, and have some comfort in my retirement. And have a decent life while I do it. I have had many 80 hour work weeks. It will be a long time before I have secured the future of my children and my parents, who depend on me. Till then, any taxes prevent me from reaching those goals.
Oh, believe me, they hurt, they always have.
All being said, I am happier paying taxes to live in the US than I did in India. I feel this is great country and has a lot of positive things going for it.
I had a room mate when I was in my early 20's. Our agreement was each paid 50% of the bills. She went out and partied all the time while I worked and went to college. After I graduated and got a good job she said "since you make better money than me you should pay more than half on the bills". Of course I said no.
This is the type of thinking we have today.
No. I think a better comparison would be if you decided to get a better apartment with that room mate.Lets just say you wanted and could afford a better place, but still wanted a room mate to help keep the place clean or for whatever the reason. She would then pay the same amount she was paying at the first place. But because of your higher income you would pay the remaining, higher share of the rent.
BTW, can anyone name a time in our, or any other country's, history when we didnt use some form of a progressive tax code. Im just wondering if someone can point to any example where a country uses a flat tax but is still has the #1 military and all the other things America is known to be the best for. From what I can tell, this flat tax talk is nothing but theory. When has the flat tax theory ever been proven?
No. My effective tax rate includes Fed+CA+SS+Medicare.
Did you count the employer share of payroll taxes? Otherwise, you are simply not high enough income yet to notice that taxes don't affect you. Maybe one day.
No. My effective tax rate includes Fed+CA+SS+Medicare.
Well SS/med aren't progressive taxation
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
