Hillary knows what "real work" is

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 20, 2008, 12:24 pm

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... clint.html

Real 'Work'? Clinton Swipes at Chelsea's Profession
Email
Share February 19, 2008 4:48 PM

ABC News' Jennifer Parker and Eloise Harper Report: Sen. Hillary Clinton took a swipe at her daughter's profession today at an economic roundtable discussion at a restaurant in Parma, Ohio, suggesting wealthy investment bankers and hedge fund managers on Wall Street aren't doing real 'work.'

The former first lady's daughter, Chelsea Clinton, works for New York-based hedge fund Avenue Capital Group. She previously worked in New York for McKinsey & Company, her first job after graduating with her master's degree from Oxford University.

"We also have to reward work more," Clinton told a small group of Ohio residents today. "and by that, I mean, I have people in New York working on Wall Street as investment managers, as hedge fund executives. Under the tax code, they can pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes on $50 million dollars, than a teacher, or a nurse, or a truck driver in Parma pays on $50,000. That's very discouraging to people."

You just feel like, 'wait a minute. I'm working as hard as I can.' All those people you see in your law office. They're working as hard as they can and they feel like they're just getting further and further behind," Clinton said.

It's not the first time Clinton has taken a swipe against her daughter's profession. Campaigning in Wisconsin yesterday, Clinton railed against hedge funds as Chelsea sat off to the side.

"I saw a sign over here - someone has a t-shirt on, tax hedge fund dealers," Clinton said Monday, "well in this economy we are going to have a fair tax system again. A Wall Street investment manager, a hedge fund dealer, should not pay a lower percentage of taxes on his 50 million dollars worth of income.”

In 2006, Chelsea scolded her mother for telling an audience that young people "think work is a four-letter word." Clinton said daughter Chelsea called her to complain, arguing she does work hard and her friends work hard. Clinton later said she apologized to her daughter.

The line about investment fund and hedge fund managers has been introduced into Clinton's talking points as she campaigns across the economically struggling state of Ohio. Clinton is focusing her campaign on the delegate-rich states of Ohio and Texas voting March 4.

Excellent exmaple of how politicians like the Clintons say whatever they think the people in front of them at the time, want to hear.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 20, 2008, 12:39 pm

and what she does IS real work? lollers.

I don't understand that angle... "The guy who makes 50 million shouldn't pay less % in taxes," but who does that help? It doesn't mean the people who make 50k are going to pay LESS, just that the 50 million guy is going to pay MORE. This isn't going to energize voters with half a brain, it will however mobilize those with money to fight against it!

This is like reverse pandering... It looks more and more like she's trying to lose.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 20, 2008, 12:54 pm

25% of $50,000 = $12,500

15% of $200,000 = $30,000

5% of $50,000,000 = $2.5mil

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 20, 2008, 1:06 pm

Everyone's final pay should be affected by the exact same tax %. I don't care if you make $20.00 or 20 million. Taxes is one of the places that the rich and working poor can share the burden equally.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 20, 2008, 1:07 pm

Makes sense to me.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 20, 2008, 1:10 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Everyone's final pay should be affected by the exact same tax %. I don't care if you make $20.00 or 20 million. Taxes is one of the places that the rich and working poor can share the burden of equally.

Amen.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 20, 2008, 5:17 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Everyone's final pay should be affected by the exact same tax %. I don't care if you make $20.00 or 20 million. Taxes is one of the places that the rich and working poor can share the burden equally.

I disagree. There are monetary thresholds. A 20% tax to someone who earns 30k has a vastly different impact on them than someone who earns 1+ mil. The former earns a paycheck, pays bills, and hopefully doesn't run into debt. They may not even own their residency. The latter earns a paycheck, pays bills, earns money from having money, and owns their place of residency (possibly multiple at that payscale). You can't possibly believe that taxing $6,000 from somone earning $30,000 has even remotely the same impact as someone who is taxed $600,000 for earning $3,000,000.

Now I am a little annoyed that I am not going to be eligible for the "stimulus" money given away this april. But we have had good returns on our investments and made money because we have money. I may be taxed more, but I get more money solely because I have some. It's completely residual. None of the following "needed" to be purchased this past year: 6k for some new windows, 2k for a new back door, 2k in my two year olds college fund, 3k for a new stove & refrigerator, and other various knick knacks. And hell, I'll be getting money back for the home improvements I put in. You go two towns over and noone is able to improve anything because they don't have residual income. They earn to pay bills and, hopefully, not get into debt.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 20, 2008, 5:49 pm

I don't get your argument Chid. If we are all taxed the same percentage, that is the fairest way. If you earn more, you pay more. You disagreed with that then in your explanation it seems like you actually agreed with it.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 20, 2008, 5:57 pm

Not to mention that the rich get taxed on a whole lot more than income. Where as most people making 30k only gets taxed on their income. And where most lower income people look forward to a nice tax return at the beginning of the year, most rich people get to look forward to paying more taxes.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 20, 2008, 6:01 pm

I really don't think the answer is more taxes. Not wasting what we give them would be a good start... Getting good prices on things, opening bidding, encouraging small business involvement... public works programs...

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 20, 2008, 6:07 pm

You can't possibly believe that taxing $6,000 from somone earning $30,000 has even remotely the same impact as someone who is taxed $600,000 for earning $3,000,000

.

Am I suppossed to feel sympathy for someone who takes home $2,400,000 after taxes vs others that take home $24,000? I believe that if any sort of "monetary threshold" were established, it will help the family that struggles to live on 30k. The sense that the "richer" person somehow earns a break from Uncle Sam simply because he has more money is a mentality I will never understand. We should all give the same %. We should all be subject to the same rules, without the loopholes that only people with money can afford to find and exploit.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 20, 2008, 6:17 pm

Zamtuk wrote:Not to mention that the rich get taxed on a whole lot more than income. Where as most people making 30k only gets taxed on their income. And where most lower income people look forward to a nice tax return at the beginning of the year, most rich people get to look forward to paying more taxes.

So does the average joe. Property taxes, Vehicle(s), gas tax, sales tax, thumb tax, ect. It's really pretty incredible when you add it all up.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 20, 2008, 6:40 pm

Zamtuk wrote:Not to mention that the rich get taxed on a whole lot more than income. Where as most people making 30k only gets taxed on their income. And where most lower income people look forward to a nice tax return at the beginning of the year, most rich people get to look forward to paying more taxes.

The rich can get taxed on more than income because their money is working for them in addition to their own paycheck. They also gain a good number of tax reductions and returns that someone who fills out an ez form will never know. It's because this residual income is working for them to earn money that they may owe taxes at the end of the year, a benefit that someone who can't afford to put money aside this way will never ever experience.

Fash, I'd like to see wasteful spending eliminated first and foremost. Unfortunately, the machine in place refuses to allow it. From a reality perspective I just can't say,"corporations and special interests groups should get their filthy hands off of our political system and the money they need to fuel it".

Fair, I'm not sure I understand how you think that someone who pulls in $2.4M net doesn't then earn $200k solely from logical mutual fund investing just on that year's income is going to be worse off than someone who pays the same percentage, barely puts food on the table, doesn't have home ownership, and has no money to work for them. How do you propose this tax structure? Is it a flat income tax? A flat sales tax? What? Because if it is a flat income tax, it is going to benefit the rich people.

Mid, you don't understand that a percentage of tax may mean that someone who earns more pays more but it doesn't mean that it's impact upon the household is the same. Just because the person earning $3M pays 600k and the person earning $30k pays 6k, doesn't mean that the 3M earner is now struggling, can't play the market, own things that appreciate over time, etc as the 30k earner faces. Do you also realize that the person in the 3M income bracket is most likely getting "free money" in the way of stock option and the like. It is so easy to make money if you already have it. You seem to think it's all about dollars, but it's really about the impact on the household.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 20, 2008, 6:43 pm

EDIT. Chidoro beat me to it.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 20, 2008, 6:44 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Zamtuk wrote:Not to mention that the rich get taxed on a whole lot more than income. Where as most people making 30k only gets taxed on their income. And where most lower income people look forward to a nice tax return at the beginning of the year, most rich people get to look forward to paying more taxes.
So does the average joe. Property taxes, Vehicle(s), gas tax, sales tax, thumb tax, ect. It's really pretty incredible when you add it all up.

Poorer people pay all of these as well. If they have a car, they pay gas and vehicle sales tax too. If they rent, property tax if built into the price so they pay that too. It does add up, and poorer people pay those taxes too.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 20, 2008, 6:49 pm

Truant wrote:I *think* what Chidoro was saying was that a flat tax isn't as fair as it would seem due to it hitting the lower end of the scale much harder than it hits anyone else.
Even though the numbers seem even, 6% is 6%, etc...the lower end of the income scale has much less residual income, and therefore may be put in a situation where they are unable to 'move up' in society (save towards the purchase of a residence, whatever).

Again, I could be wrong...I'm only trying to explain what I think Chidoro was trying to say.

That's how I read it, too. I think Fair and Chidoro are misunderstanding each other.

I think Chidoro was saying that it's worse for the guy making $30k, not the guy making $3M.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » February 20, 2008, 6:51 pm

Not to mention that the rich get taxed on a whole lot more than income. Where as most people making 30k only gets taxed on their income. And where most lower income people look forward to a nice tax return at the beginning of the year, most rich people get to look forward to paying more taxes.

We sure found that out the hard way. Apparently a number of other nurses my wife works with are finding the same thing. Filing with 0 exemptions and only getting small amounts or owing money now that they have 2 incomes. If anything this year we would have pumped back a nice portion of that big return into the economy.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 20, 2008, 7:46 pm

Taxes and voting are the primary ways that most citizens contribute to the country. All citizens should bear this burden\responsibility equally. Progressive tax brackets are an attempt to equalize the burden. I'm the first to bitch about taxes but I agree with the basic premise.

Personally I would like to see a flate tax rate applied on disposable income. No tax breaks other than the costs of your necessities (i.e. housing, transportation, food, child care, utilities, etc - with limits).

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 20, 2008, 7:53 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:
Zamtuk wrote:Not to mention that the rich get taxed on a whole lot more than income. Where as most people making 30k only gets taxed on their income. And where most lower income people look forward to a nice tax return at the beginning of the year, most rich people get to look forward to paying more taxes.
So does the average joe. Property taxes, Vehicle(s), gas tax, sales tax, thumb tax, ect. It's really pretty incredible when you add it all up.
Poorer people pay all of these as well. If they have a car, they pay gas and vehicle sales tax too. If they rent, property tax if built into the price so they pay that too. It does add up, and poorer people pay those taxes too.

So? You have to pay your fair share. You don't tax people by how much it would affect them. WTF? By your thinking you'd be in favor of taxing the 2.4mil/year person 1.5mil in taxes, so it hurts him like it would hurt the $30k/year guy? We aren't a socialist society.......yet.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 20, 2008, 9:27 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:
Zamtuk wrote:Not to mention that the rich get taxed on a whole lot more than income. Where as most people making 30k only gets taxed on their income. And where most lower income people look forward to a nice tax return at the beginning of the year, most rich people get to look forward to paying more taxes.
So does the average joe. Property taxes, Vehicle(s), gas tax, sales tax, thumb tax, ect. It's really pretty incredible when you add it all up.
Poorer people pay all of these as well. If they have a car, they pay gas and vehicle sales tax too. If they rent, property tax if built into the price so they pay that too. It does add up, and poorer people pay those taxes too.
So? You have to pay your fair share. You don't tax people by how much it would affect them. WTF? By your thinking you'd be in favor of taxing the 2.4mil/year person 1.5mil in taxes, so it hurts him like it would hurt the $30k/year guy? We aren't a socialist society.......yet.

First of all, it's a 3M person being charged 20% bringing the net to 2.4M, but that's just the tip of your misunderstanding. Your monetary example is completely ridiculous as to my rationale and you clearly do not understand what benefits having a large income w/ a ton of assets affords an individual nor do you have the understanding of a person who makes 3M annually paying 37% in tax before the numerous deductions that can be available is not going to be "hurt" in the same way as someone who can just make ends meet paying 18% w/ no deductions (or at least not many as can be afforded to them because they don't have accountants working for them to find all of the available deductions).

Just stop with the painting w/ a large brush crap.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 20, 2008, 11:06 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Everyone's final pay should be affected by the exact same tax %. I don't care if you make $20.00 or 20 million. Taxes is one of the places that the rich and working poor can share the burden equally.

I've always agreed with this completely. It's rather funny listening to people try to justify why their money is more important than those that make less than they do.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 20, 2008, 11:30 pm

Siji wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:Everyone's final pay should be affected by the exact same tax %. I don't care if you make $20.00 or 20 million. Taxes is one of the places that the rich and working poor can share the burden equally.
I've always agreed with this completely. It's rather funny listening to people try to justify why their money is more important than those that make less than they do.

Agreed. I can't seem to get through to Chid on this though. Maybe I'm not wording things properly.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 20, 2008, 11:39 pm

Chidoro wrote:Mid, you don't understand that a percentage of tax may mean that someone who earns more pays more but it doesn't mean that it's impact upon the household is the same. Just because the person earning $3M pays 600k and the person earning $30k pays 6k, doesn't mean that the 3M earner is now struggling, can't play the market, own things that appreciate over time, etc as the 30k earner faces. Do you also realize that the person in the 3M income bracket is most likely getting "free money" in the way of stock option and the like. It is so easy to make money if you already have it. You seem to think it's all about dollars, but it's really about the impact on the household.

I have been trying to word my rebuttal to this, but I can't quite get it down, so bear with me. You have to think, if you judge everyone equally, then it's not out of the realm to think that taxes hit the 3M guy just as bad as the 30k guy. The 30k guy rents, and has rented, so the cost of property taxes doesn't effect him (odds are he doesn't know he is paying them). The 3M guy probably has a rediculous house on which his mortgage could possibly be the same ratio as the 30k guy on top of his yearly property tax. That is as far as I will go with extra taxes, because it just occured to me that they vary in every state. Ohio doesn't pay vehicle tax except when they purchase the vehicle, where as NC pays every year.

The 30k guy probably lives within his means, has a credit card or two and some (probably) hand me down stuff with a few nice items, and buys pretty minimally. The 3M guy has all the cool shit, a massive line of credit and can afford to spend more and more often. Who do you think is paying more taxes there? The 3M guy will always invest more into his economy by purchasing items than the 30k guy and therefor, will be paying more taxes regardless of how their income is based. I guess what I am trying to say is that the 3M guy's consumption level is a lot more than the 30k guy and will always pay more tax (sales, gas, property, whatever).

It's hard to get into this conversation without getting into people's lives and states of living. I personally have seen people making 30k a year (literally) invest money in the stock market. Hell, my good friend made more off day trading than he did at his job working as a bartender in college. And vice versa, I have seen some millionaires know fuckall about the market and invests very little. It really boils down to how smart the person is regardless of income to use their money to suit them the best.

This is why I would like a flat tax. The rich will always end up paying more in the long run than the others.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 20, 2008, 11:45 pm

Flat tax is not equal. See: disposable income.

Ball park figures here... and we'll talk total annual income, not wages v's wages which would ignore returns on investment, etc.

A) Wage Slave: $40,000 PA

B) Warren Buffet: $46,900,000 (2006)

A) Pays ~$6,400 or 16% (according to http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)

B) Pays ~$8,442,000 or 18% (according to Buffet)

A) takes home ~$35,400

B) takes home $38,458,000

Now, assume minimal cost of living @ $25,000 just for the hell of it, you could argue higher or lower, but doesn't change too much in the final assessment. Note: that Warren chooses to spend far more than $25k is "discretionary".

Disposable income (discretionary spending)

A) $10,400 = 26% of gross income
B) $38,433,000 = 81.9% of gross income

I'm not sure that Warren is particularly bothered that he only gets to take home $38 million either, but you start to jack interest rates, etc, Mr A) gets squeezed and B) doesn't notice a difference.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 20, 2008, 11:47 pm

Zamtuk wrote: This is why I would like a flat tax. The rich will always end up paying more in the long run than the others.

I think what you really want is a consumption tax, but they don't work either in reality because the super rich don't spend every nickel they earn at nearly the rate that the poor do.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 20, 2008, 11:55 pm

Well, I was pointing out how much more the 3M guy would pay in consumption tax compared to the 30k guy.

Quick question, though. Why would you set the 40k guys cost of living equal to Warren Buffett's?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 20, 2008, 11:58 pm

Zamtuk wrote:Well, I was pointing out how much more the 3M guy would pay in consumption tax compared to the 30k guy.

Quick question, though. Why would you set the 40k guys cost of living equal to Warren Buffett's?

Because, as I said, that's "minimal" cost of living. If you CHOOSE to live a lifestyle that costs $5,000,000 PA, that would be discretionary spending.

BTW, if you want to insist that $5 million a year is the bare minimum Warren can scrape by with, then the figures don't change all that much (as a percentage)

A) $10,400 = 26% of gross income
B) $33,433,000 = 71.3% of gross income

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 21, 2008, 12:10 am

I like your argument and see where you are going/coming from, but I don't agree with your cost of living assessment. I'm just not entirely sure that the 40k guy would have to spend 62.5% of his income just to live where Buffet spends .5%, unless they are sharing a 2 bedroom townhouse or something. Sorry, I really seem to be arguing over semantics that probably wouldn't change your stance all that much.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2008, 12:15 am

Zamtuk wrote:I like your argument and see where you are going/coming from, but I don't agree with your cost of living assessment. I'm just not entirely sure that the 40k guy would have to spend 62.5% of his income just to live where Buffet spends .5%, unless they are sharing a 2 bedroom townhouse or something. Sorry, I really seem to be arguing over semantics that probably wouldn't change your stance all that much.

Put in your own cost of living figures, I really don't give a shit what they are, but unless you use completely unrealistic figures; say A) can live on $5 a year and B) *needs* to spend $35 million a year to live, the % of disposable income is always going to be higher for B)

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 21, 2008, 12:31 am

We will say that cost of living is a flat 35% (sorry, Buffett isn't living by the same means as wage slave, it is pretty relative, besides, jet fuel for your G5 get pricey). Here's the rub, though. Wage slave gets roughly 10% of that 16% back as a refund. Warren Buffet ends up paying more back to the IRS.

You can argue with that assessment all you want, but you are comparing an entry level analyst to Warren Buffett. The standard of living between the two is night and day.

Also, you are comparing his income after capital gains and dividends. His actual job income was taxed at 36%. Total it was 18% (they tax dividends and capital gains at 15% if that clues you in to how much he makes). I think a better agreement would be to tax gains more heavily.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2008, 1:06 am

Zamtuk wrote:We will say that cost of living is a flat 35% (sorry, Buffett isn't living by the same means as wage slave, it is pretty relative, besides, jet fuel for your G5 get pricey). Here's the rub, though. Wage slave gets roughly 10% of that 16% back as a refund. Warren Buffet ends up paying more back to the IRS.

You can argue with that assessment all you want, but you are comparing an entry level analyst to Warren Buffett. The standard of living between the two is night and day.

Also, you are comparing his income after capital gains and dividends. His actual job income was taxed at 36%. Total it was 18% (they tax dividends and capital gains at 15% if that clues you in to how much he makes). I think a better agreement would be to tax gains more heavily.

Whatever you say pal, but the 35% as a rule of thumb for living expenses that lenders use goes out the window when you start talking about 8 figure incomes. Choosing to live the high life is still a choice, a choice NOT exercised by all the super wealthy in any case. (Case in point: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006 ... 552834.htm)

And, right there at the start of the comparison I clearly stated that I didn't care to compare wages with wages since that's another ridiculous rationale. Would you suggest that if he stopped working at all he should sign up for Medicaid since he has no income?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 21, 2008, 3:19 am

Zamtuk wrote:We will say that cost of living is a flat 35% (sorry, Buffett isn't living by the same means as wage slave, it is pretty relative, besides, jet fuel for your G5 get pricey). Here's the rub, though. Wage slave gets roughly 10% of that 16% back as a refund. Warren Buffet ends up paying more back to the IRS.

You can argue with that assessment all you want, but you are comparing an entry level analyst to Warren Buffett. The standard of living between the two is night and day.

Also, you are comparing his income after capital gains and dividends. His actual job income was taxed at 36%. Total it was 18% (they tax dividends and capital gains at 15% if that clues you in to how much he makes). I think a better agreement would be to tax gains more heavily.

Again, i'm trying to clarify for someone else. Zam, you seem to be missing this key point.
In this model: cost of living is a fixed amount defined as the minimum amount required for a human to live in a society. It doesn't matter if you make $40k, $47million, or $ZERO$, it is still going to cost $25,000 to live. Living above this minimum is a CHOICE.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 21, 2008, 6:06 am

If 25k is an arbitrary number, then yes, I am totally missing the point and I apologize. (I think I mentioned this earlier) However, the minimum cost of living can't possibly be 8k over the poverty line (valued at 17k before min wage increased). And if it is an arbitrary number, then it is way to large to attribute to a 40k salary. That is my argument there.

Arguing that someone who makes a lot of money spending more than it would take someone of lesser means, is a dumb argument. I mentioned earlier that this all had to do with how people live and the choices they make, but comparing a guy making 40k doing the best he can with what he has and a guy making 47M and throwing him down to the same spending bracket is ridiculous. People would like to make more money to have nicer things and spend more money, in general, period. You can show me a billionaire who lives like shit, and I can show you a 25k a year student with 14k in credit card debt that has fuckall to do with school loans. It goes both ways.

The derailed topic was on taxes, and I believe that their should be a flat rate on income, though I didn't think to specify job income. If someone works their way up and pays their dues and is able to invest more money into stocks and what not then yes, I can agree with a certain tax break, though not to the tune of 15%, but a reasonable number like 22% would do.

To put this into some perspective, I am a student who probably qualifies in a shitty tax bracket (I am well above the poverty line though) and I am saying this, as the person who would be getting fucked. I am the 30k guy in these examples and to be honest, taxes don't bother me at all. Granted, I don't have any kids to feed and I do invest money in the market and what not, but it doesn't bother me that people are getting a better tax deal than me. To put it plainly and maybe shed some light on where I am speaking from, your income is what you make of it. You can live within your means and make it work to your advantage, or you can't. I've seen examples of both plenty times over.

And, right there at the start of the comparison I clearly stated that I didn't care to compare wages with wages since that's another ridiculous rationale. Would you suggest that if he stopped working at all he should sign up for Medicaid since he has no income?

So you are basically agreeing with me that we need to tax gains and dividends more then, right? I've stated that income tax (not including investments!) should be taxed equally. If you invest your money you take on a lot of risk. Why not be rewarded with a lower tax rate if you are able to succeed?

eOmniz · Post by **eOmniz** » February 21, 2008, 10:18 am

You do know that Warren Buffet has come out and said that his secretary pays a bigger % of what she makes in a year in taxes than he does, and that he disagrees with the current system, right?

The problem is not necessarily who should be paying what %, but the limitless number of ways the wealthy can get around paying a large chunk of their %.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 21, 2008, 11:14 am

Reading > you. His job income was taxed at 35 percent, just as his secretary. His capital gains and dividends weren't. The grand total of taxation was 18 percent (17.7 if you want to get technical). That is what he was bitching about.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 21, 2008, 11:36 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Siji wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:Everyone's final pay should be affected by the exact same tax %. I don't care if you make $20.00 or 20 million. Taxes is one of the places that the rich and working poor can share the burden equally.
I've always agreed with this completely. It's rather funny listening to people try to justify why their money is more important than those that make less than they do.
Agreed. I can't seem to get through to Chid on this though. Maybe I'm not wording things properly.

Ohh I understand your point of view, I just disagree w/ it wholeheartedly. Maybe it's because I know how much easier it is to make money when you have a lot of it than you do. It's almost a joke how easy it is. It's one of the reasons I throw a ticket down in the mega millions game on occasion because I know that if I took home $50M, I could be worth $120M in 10 years even with the philanthropic things my wife would like to accomplish and my desire to have a Netjets account. It's stupid easy. Maybe you have never been exposed to people in that financial range and that's fine, if I didn't go to corporate party invites given to my wife, I wouldn't know except in theory.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 21, 2008, 11:39 am

Chidoro wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Siji wrote:
Fairweather Pure wrote:Everyone's final pay should be affected by the exact same tax %. I don't care if you make $20.00 or 20 million. Taxes is one of the places that the rich and working poor can share the burden equally.
I've always agreed with this completely. It's rather funny listening to people try to justify why their money is more important than those that make less than they do.
Agreed. I can't seem to get through to Chid on this though. Maybe I'm not wording things properly.
Ohh I understand your point of view, I just disagree w/ it wholeheartedly. Maybe it's because I know how much easier it is to make money when you have a lot of it than you do. It's almost a joke how easy it is. It's one of the reasons I throw a ticket down in the mega millions game on occasion because I know that if I took home $50M, I could be worth $120M in 10 years even with the philanthropic things my wife would like to accomplish and my desire to have a Netjets account. It's stupid easy. Maybe you have never been exposed to people in that financial range and that's fine, if I didn't go to corporate party invites given to my wife, I wouldn't know except in theory.

If you personally feel guilty for working hard and making money, then you personally can go donate to people less fortunate than you. You should not want the government to mandate such a thing.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2008, 12:55 pm

Zamtuk wrote: So you are basically agreeing with me that we need to tax gains and dividends more then, right? I've stated that income tax (not including investments!) should be taxed equally. If you invest your money you take on a lot of risk. Why not be rewarded with a lower tax rate if you are able to succeed?

Investment on a broad basis, over a long term, in relatively high yielding investments is *less* risk than keeping your money in an S&L/bank/building society. The risk v's reward is higher returns anyway, not tax breaks.

You flat rate jackasses are always middle-class and don't understand what it's really like to scrape by, or economics, so you just can't get that if you have $10 to feed your family tonight and the government wants $2 of it, that's a LOT more impact than if you earnt $100,000 today and the government wants $20,000 of it.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 21, 2008, 12:56 pm

Zamtuk wrote:Reading > you. His job income was taxed at 35 percent, just as his secretary. His capital gains and dividends weren't. The grand total of taxation was 18 percent (17.7 if you want to get technical). That is what he was bitching about.

Why are you the only one in the thread that thinks "work derived income" is different from "income"?

Animale · Post by **Animale** » February 21, 2008, 1:12 pm

In this flat tax scheme, would corporations be subject to the flat tax on their overall income or on their profits?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 21, 2008, 1:17 pm

Zaelath wrote:You flat rate jackasses are always middle-class and don't understand what it's really like to scrape by, or economics, so you just can't get that if you have $10 to feed your family tonight and the government wants $2 of it, that's a LOT more impact than if you earnt $100,000 today and the government wants $20,000 of it.

You're goddamn right. I lived hand to mouth for about 6-7 years of my life. It was not easy at all. I was single too. I couldn't imagine trying to live like that with a family. During that time, I still managed to pay what the government demanded of me.

Now that I'm married with a child (and another is on the way!) and both my wife and my careers are taking off, we definatley pay more taxes based on our income, but the impact is felt far less.

I think one of the basic problems in the country is that you have people making economical decisions that just do not know or even comprehend what living like that is like.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 21, 2008, 1:19 pm

Zaelath wrote: You flat rate jackasses are always middle-class and don't understand what it's really like to scrape by, or economics, so you just can't get that if you have $10 to feed your family tonight and the government wants $2 of it, that's a LOT more impact than if you earnt $100,000 today and the government wants $20,000 of it.

I scraped by from 1995 to 2005. We we're on a tiny little budget, never got to go anywhere or do anything, drove shitty old hand me down cars, etc. I've never had a problem with paying my own way.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 21, 2008, 1:38 pm

Zamtuk wrote:If 25k is an arbitrary number, then yes, I am totally missing the point and I apologize. (I think I mentioned this earlier) However, the minimum cost of living can't possibly be 8k over the poverty line (valued at 17k before min wage increased). And if it is an arbitrary number, then it is way to large to attribute to a 40k salary. That is my argument there.

It was a completely arbitrary number (and stated as such). Zaelath said you could change the number if it bothered you, as long as it was reasonable.

Zamtuk wrote:People would like to make more money to have nicer things and spend more money, in general, period.

Exactly, and in a flat tax system, the closer someone's income is to the Cost of Living #, the less money they have to spend to try and have nicer things, etc. While some would argue that the flat tax is fair, this model shows that it can hurt the lower class...essentially eliminating their opportunity to advance in class/quality of living.

The trick is, if you use a weighted average method of determing the percentage, one end is going to suffer, while the other end gets it easy. If you set the percentage so that the bottom isn't stuck in the loop illustrated above, you significantly reduce the amount of total taxes you collect (which no government would ever agree to).

Fair and Mid, something you two are failing to consider. Is that under our current tax system when you (or I, or anyone else) is at or near the poverty line, we pay the lowest percentage of income in taxes. Under a (true)flat tax system it will be a higher percentage. So to say, "I did it when I was poor, they can too!" isn't really accurate because the poor in this model are having to pay more in taxes than you did in the real world. So unless the poverty line is increased to take this into account (and we know how much this country hates raising minimum wage), it really wouldn't be possible for the lowest class to make their taxes and have any opportunity for advancement with regards to quality of life.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 21, 2008, 2:05 pm

Truant wrote:
Zamtuk wrote:If 25k is an arbitrary number, then yes, I am totally missing the point and I apologize. (I think I mentioned this earlier) However, the minimum cost of living can't possibly be 8k over the poverty line (valued at 17k before min wage increased). And if it is an arbitrary number, then it is way to large to attribute to a 40k salary. That is my argument there.
It was a completely arbitrary number (and stated as such). Zaelath said you could change the number if it bothered you, as long as it was reasonable.
Zamtuk wrote:People would like to make more money to have nicer things and spend more money, in general, period.
Exactly, and in a flat tax system, the closer someone's income is to the Cost of Living #, the less money they have to spend to try and have nicer things, etc. While some would argue that the flat tax is fair, this model shows that it can hurt the lower class...essentially eliminating their opportunity to advance in class/quality of living.

The trick is, if you use a weighted average method of determing the percentage, one end is going to suffer, while the other end gets it easy. If you set the percentage so that the bottom isn't stuck in the loop illustrated above, you significantly reduce the amount of total taxes you collect (which no government would ever agree to).

Fair and Mid, something you two are failing to consider. Is that under our current tax system when you (or I, or anyone else) is at or near the poverty line, we pay the lowest percentage of income in taxes. Under a (true)flat tax system it will be a higher percentage. So to say, "I did it when I was poor, they can too!" isn't really accurate because the poor in this model are having to pay more in taxes than you did in the real world. So unless the poverty line is increased to take this into account (and we know how much this country hates raising minimum wage), it really wouldn't be possible for the lowest class to make their taxes and have any opportunity for advancement with regards to quality of life.

A flat rate doesn't exist now, so you nor I know what that rate would be. So you don't know if the poor today are paying more under the flat tax(that doesn't exist) versus in the past. We are just conjecturing. One would have to be put into place based on economists studies, etc. done to come up with one.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 21, 2008, 4:24 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:A flat rate doesn't exist now, so you nor I know what that rate would be. So you don't know if the poor today are paying more under the flat tax(that doesn't exist) versus in the past. We are just conjecturing. One would have to be put into place based on economists studies, etc. done to come up with one.

While it's true that since it isn't in existence (nor will be in our lifetimes hopefully), common sense would tell you that if the gov't needs to collect x amount of dollars and under the system we have in place today has top people paying a higher percetage and a poorer person paying a lower percentage, the top people would have to pay less and the poor pay more to meet in the middle. It's just simple mathematics really.

I scraped by from 1995 to 2005. We we're on a tiny little budget, never got to go anywhere or do anything, drove shitty old hand me down cars, etc. I've never had a problem with paying my own way.

While it's commendable that you've made sacrifices to get by, your way would have even been more difficult under a flat tax. Not only that, but saying you couldn't go anywhere, do anything special for your kids, etc, while someone not even working with a net worth $20M is probably worth about $40M solely because they already have money, makes your viewpoint so strange. I really think you have absolutely no idea how much money someone can make if they already have money. It's a totally separate form of earning than job related income but it is real. Hell, just being able to own your home affords you wealth that you just can't get if you are scraping by just renting.

But i've repeated myself a few times already. Maybe we will should just agree to disagree

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 21, 2008, 4:43 pm

I totally get how money makes money. I get it. I just don't have any ill will towards them because they are sucessful and wealthy. I admire the drive, will, talent, luck, nepotism, etc. that allowed them to be in that position. I don't feel they should have to pay any larger of a percentage than I do. The percentage is the great equalizer.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 21, 2008, 4:52 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I totally get how money makes money. I get it. I just don't have any ill will towards them because they are sucessful and wealthy. I admire the drive, will, talent, luck, nepotism, etc. that allowed them to be in that position. I don't feel they should have to pay any larger of a percentage than I do. The percentage is the great equalizer.

I agree and feel the same way.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 21, 2008, 5:04 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I totally get how money makes money. I get it. I just don't have any ill will towards them because they are sucessful and wealthy. I admire the drive, will, talent, luck, nepotism, etc. that allowed them to be in that position. I don't feel they should have to pay any larger of a percentage than I do. The percentage is the great equalizer.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just saying that there isn't anything equal about getting the same percentage. And the case is pretty cut and dry.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 21, 2008, 5:06 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I totally get how money makes money. I get it. I just don't have any ill will towards them because they are sucessful and wealthy. I admire the drive, will, talent, luck, nepotism, etc. that allowed them to be in that position. I don't feel they should have to pay any larger of a percentage than I do. The percentage is the great equalizer.
I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just saying that there isn't anything equal about getting the same percentage. And the case is pretty cut and dry.

Your position is as abscure as the one against 2 plus 2 equalling four. I admire your passion and all, but I don't even see your point in the slightest.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 21, 2008, 5:08 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I totally get how money makes money. I get it. I just don't have any ill will towards them because they are sucessful and wealthy. I admire the drive, will, talent, luck, nepotism, etc. that allowed them to be in that position. I don't feel they should have to pay any larger of a percentage than I do. The percentage is the great equalizer.
I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just saying that there isn't anything equal about getting the same percentage. And the case is pretty cut and dry.
Your position is as abscure as the one against 2 plus 2 equalling four. I admire your passion and all, but I don't even see your point in the slightest.

Oddly, I don't admire your passion for your stance because you really don't have an understanding of what you are trying to defend.