a3quit4s | 4,097 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 3 minutes ago, obnoxious said: It doesn't matter where the money came from, considering it's not from a crime. Pizza shop? Taxes paid Previous inheritance? Taxes paid Lottery? Taxes paid Doesn't matter where the money came from. It's theirs. If there are plenty of ways to donate there's no reason to make laws forcing everyone to do it. Yeah that’s totally working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 6 minutes ago, KokiriChild said: When people hear "tax the rich," they think we mean "take that small business owner who makes 200k-2m a year's hard work away and give it to the poor." What we're really talking about are the 0.01%. Create the laws and see this statement getting mangled by politicians. Why the 0.01% (which once were the 1%) want laws to enforce it to themselves when they could just donate that money? Doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a3quit4s | 4,097 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 Whelp another one to add to the ignore list - have fun everyone! 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, a3quit4s said: Yeah that’s totally working "Working" is subjective. It depends on parameters of what it means "to work". We can say that 'not getting money that was already taxed' is fair. It is "working" if we consider that people already paid their "debt to society" when they paid their taxes. It is "not working" if we think that distributing half this money would people make every poor less poor, forever. I was once for this kind of stuff, it works well in our imagination and good intentions, but does not in reality. Economy is a very unstable mechanism and messing with it will cause problems that will demand more laws to correct it, which will cause more problems... and so on. But ok, don't trust what I say. Let's see that in practice and it's outcome (ignoring all the times it was tried and went wrong). Edited October 20, 2021 by obnoxious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 5 minutes ago, a3quit4s said: Whelp another one to add to the ignore list - have fun everyone! We are having a civilized discussion here. I guess.... "we’ve become so divided we can’t get out of our own way to help each other anymore." Disgusting really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange | 1,700 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 On the topic of people not wanting to work - a friend of mine was let go from her second job, and she needed the income (despite having a degree and a roommate, one job wasn’t enough) so she looked for a second job to replace the one she lost. Her Excel sheet is at…. 150 applications? Less than 10 callbacks. People will say it’s her, but I’m telling you genuinely it’s not and she’s more than qualified for what she’s applying for. She works hard and has no red flags. The worker shortage is artificial. On the topic of minimum wage… $15 in southern Alabama was barely enough to get by. The elites have polluted the public’s perception of the situation. People who are making more than that and living comfortably (I now fit in that category) suddenly have opinions on what people making less than them to begin with should be happy with. The phenomenon of cost of living going up while wages haven’t kept up shouldn’t be a topic of partisan contention. That’s all I’m going to say on that. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodysGameRoom | 2,008 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 53 minutes ago, a3quit4s said: Whelp another one to add to the ignore list - have fun everyone! I forgot about this. I wonder who's ignored me! @Gloves I demand to know! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khromak | 768 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 @obnoxious I'm getting the impression from your responses on this topic that you're really jaded about trying to tax rich people. Maybe you're right that it's too difficult to tax these people because of their influence in law writing and/or their access to high skilled accountants. That still doesn't make it any more right morally. At the end of the day, taxation in the US looks like a bell curve; at the low end you pay very little in taxes, which progressively goes up until you get to a certain point at which you start (effectively) paying less taxes. I think that, morally, that's wrong. As you make more and more money, through any means, you should be paying more and more taxes (as a percentage). Sure, you can insist all day that it will stifle innovation and nobody will ever bother to put any effort in because they are turned off by how much their new income will be taxed, but I don't buy that BS. Just like the argument that cheeseburgers will triple in cost if they have to pay a living wage, I think it's disingenuous argument made by rich people to continue to stay rich and earn record profits. Another point: that's the bed we made. That's how capitalism works, a corporation is required by its investors to try to squeeze out every dime of profit they can. They can't just decide to do the right thing and pay more taxes than they legally have to, it's suicide. But I don't think it has to be that way. We live in a society and have control over our culture and our laws. Unfortunately with all the money in politics, it ain't gonna happen, but it's not impossible. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 (edited) On 10/20/2021 at 12:37 PM, Khromak said: I'm getting the impression from your responses on this topic that you're really jaded about trying to tax rich people. Maybe you're right that it's too difficult to tax these people because of their influence in law writing and/or their access to high skilled accountants. That still doesn't make it any more right morally. Not jaded, I think we have enough practical examples on why it doesn't work as intended. Good intentions do not imply good outcomes. Is every law moral? No. Is it possible to make immoral laws based on moral intentions? Yes, absolutely. I have a personal rule: I don't agree to laws made under a government I "like" that a government I "don't like" would abuse. Today we have a "tax the rich" law, tomorrow we'll have a "tax everyone who has a car and college education". It's a very dangerous slippery slope giving such powers to politicians. On 10/20/2021 at 12:37 PM, Khromak said: Sure, you can insist all day that it will stifle innovation and nobody will ever bother to put any effort in because they are turned off by how much their new income will be taxed, but I don't buy that BS. I don't mean to be rude and I'm totally not being rude but wether you buy that or not is totally irrelevant. I really like this quote: "Ideology is the adequacy of the thing to the thought. Philosophy is the adequacy of the thought to the thing." Reality is what it is, we must accept it, risking making very bad decisions by ignoring it. We do have examples in the past when governments messed with the reward mechanism of the free market and it always ended up bad to the lower and middle classes, and I'm talking about socialist Russia stuff here. If reality clashes with my solution to something, I must reconsider my solution, putting aside good intentions. Personally, I think that "tax the rich" has nothing to do with inequality, for the elites who advocate for it. It solves nothing. Sum up every fortune in the US. Now split it equally among every citizen. Everyone gets a little and that money will be spent and never seen again. That money is better serving society making services/goods cheaper (by raising efficiency). Here's a simple example: let's say that distributing Jeff Bezo's wealth will force Amazon's delivery chain to end. What will that do to the cost of shipping by different companies? This is a complex subject, everything I'm writing doesn't even touch the tip of the problem. All I'm sure is that governments should find a way to raise money besides stealing from people, no matter where they money came from. Edited November 8, 2021 by obnoxious 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloves | 11,776 Administrator · Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 45 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said: I forgot about this. I wonder who's ignored me! @Gloves I demand to know! Me! HAH! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khromak | 768 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 20 minutes ago, obnoxious said: All I'm sure is that governments should find a way to raise money besides stealing from people Lol except "Stealing from the people" is the only way governments make money. That's like...the definition of taxes? How can a government make money except by taking it from people or companies (which are effectively just groups of people)? I think we agree on more than it seems on the surface, I don't mean to say that you're wrong about a lot of these things. 21 minutes ago, obnoxious said: Everyone gets a little and that money will be spent and never seen again That's kinda like...not how economies work? Money doesn't disappear into the aether once it's spent. 22 minutes ago, obnoxious said: and I'm talking about socialist Russia stuff here. Yeah I mean that's the problem. I'm not talking about government seizing the means of production or anything...I'm referring to ACTUAL progressive taxes, instead of the retarded bell curve taxes we have because rich people avoid paying taxes, so once you reach a certain point your taxes go down because "you're not earning anything." The fact of the matter is that rich people are still buying things so they are obviously getting money from somewhere, but are paying nothing in tax because of the way the code is written. If Donald Trump has paid $0 in taxes because "he made $0" then he shouldn't be able to afford a sandwich at Subway. If he made money to cover all of his expenses and also buy a yacht, then he shouldn't be allowed to use the excuse that he "made $0 last year." I'm fully aware that this is a complex topic with difficult and maybe impossible solutions, but at the end of the day, the rich shouldn't (morally, not legally) be paying 0-10% effective tax on their income just because it's complicated and we can't find people smart enough to write tax laws to target their income. And all this "but he wouldn't bother to innovate if he was being taxed on all that new income" crap reminds me of the failed "trickle down" Raeganomics, which is to say pissing on the poor without even the courtesy of calling it rain. Companies are driven to increase profits, they will still improve their processes, supply chains, reduce costs, and innovate new products and ways of doing business, even if they're taxed. Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to justify why they deserve another $400m tax-free. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 3 minutes ago, Khromak said: Lol except "Stealing from the people" is the only way governments make money. That's like...the definition of taxes? How can a government make money except by taking it from people or companies (which are effectively just groups of people)? Do you think there's a limit that separates "money to keep wheels turning" from "we want more money because we can take it from you"? For me, there is and this is what I meant. Sorry for not specifying this. But then, we'd enter another realms of discussion like "how much is enough" or "when it's fair or not". Discussion-wise, taking money from people who already paid their taxes because they have a lot of it is just like kids making new rules when they are losing a game. 7 minutes ago, Khromak said: That's kinda like...not how economies work? Money doesn't disappear into the aether once it's spent. That's a way it may work but not a good one. Consider the context of my statement: getting rich people's money and distributing it. It will be a one-off thing that will totally distort the production chain because the industry will see things (food, electronics, everything actually) flying off the shelves and will produce more of it. Next month most people spent their share and all that extra production will gather spider webs and a lot of money was put in producing stuff without buyers. This is the most simplistic and short way to explain one of the possible consequences. I never said that money disappears, although it's possible and also can be created from practically nothing (with consequences, both cases). 15 minutes ago, Khromak said: Yeah I mean that's the problem. I'm not talking about government seizing the means of production or anything... Me neither, I was talking about freezing prices or just messing with it and how it causes hunger and kills poor people. Price is a consequence not a cause, it's like feeling too young/old and changing your age. Like the bell curve thing, it takes statistics knowledge, a precise definition of what's plotted in it and very good arguments to turn it into some law. You want that right line to be higher or to turn it into a linear increasing graph, I understand it. But maybe things aren't that simple and we may end up scratching our heads with another bell curve, trying to figure out what the hell happened. Look, I knows this subject makes people uncomfortable and makes them fight/dislike each other. Long story short, all I'm saying is: it was tried before, did not work. If we're going to risk messing up the economy and starving some people to death, let's do it with new ideas. And I'm taking this topic as a chance to practice my written english Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,492 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 (edited) 23 minutes ago, obnoxious said: Long story short, all I'm saying is: it was tried before, did not work Actually, the United States tried it before, and it did work. I assume you're not familiar with the history of taxes in the US, which is why you keep bringing up extreme examples like Russia. During World War II, we had a top marginal tax rate of 90+%. 90+%! And that lasted through the mid 60s. AKA, the era that conservatives want us to go back to. We had infrastructure, a strong middle class, and the rich were still rich. They didn't pay 90% of their income. It was tiered, so they were actually paying quite a bit less. And they could pay even less if they invested back into their own company to improve their workers' livelihoods and improve the overall economy. They had to prove they were doing it, not the weird honor system that trickle down economics tries. And it worked. It worked beautifully. It worked under both Republican and Democrat run governments. Those tax rates were lowered slowly through the 60s and 70s, but then dropped bigtime in the 80s during the Reagan era to a historical low of 28%. That decimated the middle class and propelled US deficits to historic proportions. Clinton brought it back up to about 39%. He managed to balance our budget and get a surplus. That's about all anyone wants to bring it up to. 39% or so, so we can pay for some things like roads and health services. No one is saying we should be like Soviet Russia. Edited October 20, 2021 by Tulpa 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 3 minutes ago, Tulpa said: Actually, the United States tried it before, and it did work. I assume you're not familiar with the history of taxes in the US, which is why you keep bringing up extreme examples like Russia. During World War II, we had a top marginal tax rate of 90+%. 90+%! And that lasted through the mid 60s. AKA, the era that conservatives want us to go back to. We had infrastructure, a strong middle class, and the rich were still rich. They didn't pay 90% of their income. It was tiered, so they were actually paying a bit less. And they could pay less if they invested back into their own company to improve their workers' livelihoods and improve the overall economy. And it worked. Those tax rates were lowered slowly through the 60s and 70s, but then decimated in the 80s during the Reagan era to a historical low of 28%. Clinton brought it back up to about 39%. That's about all anyone wants to bring it up to. 39% or so, so we can pay for some things like roads and health services. No one is saying we should be like Soviet Russia. Socialist Russia is an extreme example but the specific example I used was not extreme, because it's being used, right now, in Argentina. They are freezing prices just like Brazil did in the 80s and totally ruined the economy. No, I'm not familiar with all US taxes history. I also don't know the economical context from your example, except that World Wars mess up every possible aspect of economy. Well then, let's wait for the laws taxing rich people to start collecting money and see where it takes the US economy. Guess they know what they are doing. Thanks for the nice talk and being respectful. We don't have to hate each other because we disagree on stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brickman | 3,983 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 Good old taxes. Nothing like the talk of high taxes to get Americans* (North & South) more riled up then taking their guns away Taxing people that make more money does work and you only need to look at European and other Western nations to see that. It absolutely blows my mind that people actually advocate to not pay someone a living minimum wage. Why should a dude flipping pizzas or serving tables not earn a living wage? You could wipe out your tipping system overnight by paying someone properly. They also then feel like a member of society and can actually buy things and contribute. Taxing the rich also will help fund initiatives like free healthcare. My wife earns in one of the top brackets in Australia and when she initially saw her tax she complained (she’s originally from South America) but I explained that those taxes actually go towards helping out the people who don’t have it so well off. She then got her tax statement which breaks down exactly where every dollar went and understood. Im not going to say that every rich person pays their fair share but the majority do because they believe it is the right thing to do. No offence meant but I couldn’t live in the US. One unlucky day and the system throws you to the ground like dirt. *not including Canada because they seem to have their head screwed on. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,492 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, obnoxious said: Socialist Russia is an extreme example but the specific example I used was not extreme, because it's being used, right now, in Argentina. They are freezing prices just like Brazil did in the 80s and totally ruined the economy No one here is saying we should be them, either. Just go back to how the US was when things weren't so sideways. I'm not even advocating for 90%. Just something more reasonable. We tried the trickle down thing. It ... failed. 7 minutes ago, obnoxious said: I also don't know the economical context from your example, except that World Wars mess up every possible aspect of economy. World War II from an industrial standpoint was fantastic for us. We built huge amounts of ships, munitions, and vehicles, and places like Russia and the UK sent tons of money our way. In fact, we sent some of that money back to Europe to rebuild them (Marshall Plan.) Part of it was we didn't see any of the war on our homesoil, with only a couple of exceptions. 5 minutes ago, Shmup said: No offence meant but I couldn’t live in the US. One unlucky day and the system throws you to the ground like dirt. I get it. We are noticeably lacking in some areas. Edited October 20, 2021 by Tulpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 12 minutes ago, Shmup said: It absolutely blows my mind that people actually advocate to not pay someone a living minimum wage. Why should a dude flipping pizzas or serving tables not earn a living wage? You could wipe out your tipping system overnight by paying someone properly. They also then feel like a member of society and can actually buy things and contribute. That's an old discussion in South America. So here's a question: how much is enough? Wouldn't it be easy to just set it to 3k dollars or something? How about 5k? Well, let's make it 10k. Any ideas on why it doesn't work? Oh we also still have tipping, it's usually 10%. Guess why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brickman | 3,983 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 43 minutes ago, obnoxious said: That's an old discussion in South America. So here's a question: how much is enough? Wouldn't it be easy to just set it to 3k dollars or something? How about 5k? Well, let's make it 10k. Any ideas on why it doesn't work? Oh we also still have tipping, it's usually 10%. Guess why? How much is enough for what? Not sure I’m following your thoughts. If you mean how much tax is enough then you set it on per dollar earned and work your way up the more you earn within brackets. E.g someone earns $0-$18000 no tax, $18 001-$45k you pay X percent. $45 001-$80 000 you pay a higher X percent etc etc. until you get to say $200 000 and anything over that is the highest tax rate, maybe 45%. Anyone earning over $200k is doing very well in my book and should help society provide services to help those less fortunate. If you’re talking about minimum wage, well, that’s the job for the treasurer to work out. Our minimum wage for an adult is $19.84. Whether you’re working as a waiter or flipping burgers, you must be paid that amount. We’re functioning fine and people are still buying food and going to restaurants. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 3 minutes ago, Shmup said: How much is enough for what? Sorry for not specifying. How much minimum wage is enough to make it a living minimum wage? 4 minutes ago, Shmup said: If you’re talking about minimum wage, well, that’s the job for the treasurer to work out. Our minimum wage for an adult is $19.84. Whether you’re working as a waiter or flipping burgers, you must be paid that amount. We’re functioning fine and people are still buying food and going to restaurants. Ok, let's consider the treasurer set it to $19.84. Why not $22 or $60 or whatever? What are the impacts and consequences of going higher than $19.84? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Shmup said: E.g someone earns $0-$18000 no tax, $18 001-$45k you pay X percent. $45 001-$80 000 you pay a higher X percent etc etc. until you get to say $200 000 and anything over that is the highest tax rate, maybe 45%. Anyone earning over $200k is doing very well in my book and should help society provide services to help those less fortunate Yeah, that's how it works here in Brazil up to R$ 1.903,98: 0% From R$ 1.903,99 to R$ 2.826,65: 7,5% From 3: De R$ 2.826,66 to R$ 3.751,05: 15% From 4: De R$ 3.751,06 to R$ 4.664,68: 22,5% From 5: R$ 4.664,68 and above: 27,5% Good luck implementing that and promising quality health care and such... The idea is great, tho. Edited October 20, 2021 by obnoxious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brickman | 3,983 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 2 minutes ago, obnoxious said: Sorry for not specifying. How much minimum wage is enough to make it a living minimum wage? Ok, let's consider the treasurer set it to $19.84. Why not $22 or $60 or whatever? What are the impacts and consequences of going higher than $19.84? Because they’re set based on a wide range of economic factors that the government has information on not just one metric. Things like inflation, what tax people are currently paying, what tax could be paid, how much businesses are paying in tax to help contribute towards a minimum wage etc. Once the minimum wage is set it increases with inflation plus maybe a little bit of political sway to get some votes (but mainly inflation). A minimum wage is paid by businesses. It will mean that businesses are paying their fair share to employees to operate in that country. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brickman | 3,983 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 3 minutes ago, obnoxious said: Yeah, that's how it works here in Brazil up to R$ 1.903,98: 0% From R$ 1.903,99 to R$ 2.826,65: 7,5% From 3: De R$ 2.826,66 to R$ 3.751,05: 15% From 4: De R$ 3.751,06 to R$ 4.664,68: 22,5% From 5: R$ 4.664,68 and above: 27,5% Good luck implementing that and promising quality health care and such... The idea is great, tho. It is already implemented in my country and Europe and we have great health care. Not sure why it wouldn’t work in the US who are swimming in money? Don’t know enough about Brazil but if they’re similar to Colombia, probably not. But that’s due to corruption in government and not the actual tax system unfortunately. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khromak | 768 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 1 minute ago, obnoxious said: Yeah, that's how it works here in Brazil up to R$ 1.903,98: 0% From R$ 1.903,99 to R$ 2.826,65: 7,5% From 3: De R$ 2.826,66 to R$ 3.751,05: 15% From 4: De R$ 3.751,06 to R$ 4.664,68: 22,5% From 5: R$ 4.664,68 and above: 27,5% That's how it works in the US as well, at least in theory. But what happens is that rich people make money from different things (not salary) like capital gains, and super-rich people just take loans out on their assets. Technically we have a progressive system like this, but the effective tax rates end up really small on the high end because the rich wrote the tax laws. As far as minimum wage, I'm not sure what is fair because I'm not an accountant or finance professional, but they've done plenty of research on this and it isn't $7.25/hour, which is the current federal minimum wage. If you earn that and work 40 hours a week, 4 weeks a month (rounding), you're making $1,160/month, before taxes. You can't possibly afford to live on that in almost any geography in the US. God forbid you have kids with that wage. Oh and good luck finding ANY minimum wage job where you're given 40 hours a week every week. As to all the other pearl clutching from people making $16/hr in the US complaining about how the lowly minimum wage workers are going to be making almost as much as them...rising tides raise all ships. There's no chance that companies will get away with paying $0.50 over minimum wage for skilled labor, all their employees will be headhunted by their competitors and they will fail. Also, you shouldn't kick other people down so that you can feel good about your salary. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obnoxious | 107 Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Shmup said: Don’t know enough about Brazil but if they’re similar to Colombia, probably not. But that’s due to corruption in government and not the actual tax system unfortunately. Maybe that's why I'm skeptic about it. Edited October 20, 2021 by obnoxious 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar! | 1,811 Posted October 20, 2021 Author Share Posted October 20, 2021 @Khromak really good point about skilled workers. I've always believed that college is not for everyone, and in fact people in skilled trades can make extremely good money. Average salary for a plumber is over $22 an hour here in the USA, and they certainly deserve it! As far as I can tell, skilled workers are in high demand at the moment, which brings me back to the question of why people are not seeking jobs? Perhaps one reason is they are learning a trade, which I hope is the case The focus on higher education has led to high schools emphasizing reading and mathematics testing, both for the schools and for students, which has lessened the importance of, or removed altogether, classes helpful to the trades, like woodshop, said Anirban Basu, chief economist for ABC. Construction's career crisis: How did we get here? Experts weigh in on the factors that made construction a profession for "someone else's kid," and the long road ahead to fix it. https://www.constructiondive.com/news/constructions-career-crisis-jobs-shortage-skilled-trades-work/608331/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now