If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Wealthy French to new socialist government: We burst our pimples at you from our tax havens and call your 75% tax rate a silly thing   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 100
    More: Obvious, French citizens, tax rates  
•       •       •

2277 clicks; posted to Business » on 17 Jul 2012 at 10:52 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-17 12:24:43 PM

MugzyBrown: Sergeant Grumbles: Also pretty sure I covered that in the original post. Here it is again, since you obviously didn't read it the first time.

My point that you obviously missed is that it goes both ways. The standard of living isn't some magical fixed number. It can go up and down.


You have to, you know, actually say that, instead of telling me I'm ignoring something I just farking typed.

Yes, it changes. But it doesn't change quickly, and Americans can't immediately cut their wage expectations in half because someone a world away can do it for less. It doesn't help that business are expecting American prices for something made with Chinese wages, nor that, as Felgraf said, a worker picking up and moving to where the jobs are or the cost of living lower is much more difficult than for a corporation.

And any way you slice it, it's more complicated than can ever be explained with "rethink your skills, or your price."
 
2012-07-17 12:26:30 PM

FarkedOver: So America's standard of living should go down? Why do you hate America?


MugzyBrown: Cost of living is what I meant


Yes, don't hammer him on this, for all his other flaws. I was throwing the two around like they were the same thing, when I too meant cost of living.
 
2012-07-17 12:27:19 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: And any way you slice it, it's more complicated than can ever be explained with "rethink your skills, or your price."


It really isn't all the complicated to the conservative mind. The conservative mind figures you already have money and you can pack up and move and go to where the jobs are willy-nilly. If you don't have money, well fark off.
 
2012-07-17 12:31:13 PM

bhcompy: So, this rich guy lives in California, like a lot of rich guys, and he's got that 50% federal income tax rate, but on top of that he's also got a state 10.3% tax rate after $1m(9.3% after $45k, we're not a very progressive state). You're going to justify taking more than half a person's earnings(after a certain point, a low point considering the incomes we're talking about) in taxes? That's pretty brutal, particularly for a nation that isn't predicated on the fascist idea that people should owe a debt to society arbitrarily(in fact, the US is predicted on classical liberalism, which is more or less an antithesis to fascism's duty and anti-individualism tenants).


Ever hear of the idea of the "social contract?"

It's not fascist to think that everyone owes to society based on the idea that you gain inherent benefits from being part of it.

I agree that it is fascist to think that you owe dues to society because of some sort of warped anti-individualist hyper-nationalism.


Unfortunately, you and many others don't seem to make the distinction.
 
2012-07-17 12:42:56 PM

Calmamity: Fork in toaster stupid.


You pretty much are. The reverse was true with nafta/globalization. The time to universally tax the wealthy at even an Adam Smith level of normal capitalism is long overdue. If you think pushing that boundary is reckless, you're part of the gang of morons keeping this situation entirely farked. Even the wealthy would benefit from money being worth something again.
 
2012-07-17 12:49:19 PM

digistil: Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?


More than that, does anyone realize how much less our government's outlays will be? Rich people whine about the poor, but the "rich" just use different services the government provides. Those services (stabilizing the world, legal system) are VERY expensive.

So the "rich" whining about taxes is hilarious.
 
2012-07-17 12:51:16 PM

Calmamity: As long as that kind of Objectivist poison (more money somehow magically means that you are a harder worker and therefore deserve more) still pervades this country's thinking, we're fu*ked.


If you're going to attack Objectivism (and there are plenty of basis on which to do so) you might want to at least get the basic parts of Objectivism down first. Objectivism does not claim that a person who has earned more money has worked harder. Rather, it claims that when a person has earned more money through voluntary transactions with others, he must have, by definition, provided more value than others who earned less. The effort required to create that value is irrelevant. Your reward is based on the value you create for others, not on the amount of effort you expend.

If you think that your earnings should be tied to the amount of effort you expended, you're entitled to your opinion (but you're wrong).
 
2012-07-17 12:52:42 PM

inglixthemad: digistil: Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?

More than that, does anyone realize how much less our government's outlays will be? Rich people whine about the poor, but the "rich" just use different services the government provides. Those services (stabilizing the world, legal system) are VERY expensive.

So the "rich" whining about taxes is hilarious.


The rich have always been penny wise and pound foolish. They're just as dumb as the rest of us, they just have power.
 
2012-07-17 12:56:13 PM

Talondel: The effort required to create that value is irrelevant.


So they don't understand monopoly or monopsony at all. Boy, I'm entirely shocked that Ayn Rand was a dullard who was just angry about communists stealing her father's business.

I'm entirely shocked that she was a product of her environment that straussians exploited to trick the idiots.
 
2012-07-17 01:00:30 PM
Why not a regressive tax rate?
The first $15,000 of your income are taxed at 100%, but the government provides you with an apartment, food card, and a bus pass. The next $15,000 is taxed at 75%, and you get the same benefits as the first group, with the option to purchase your own food, car, or apartment, (ie you don't have to take the government's offerings). And each $15,000 is then reduced 25% (or similar system) , such that the more you earn, the less your tax burden represents as a % of your total income.
No need to worry, if you don't have a job, or can't get a job due to physical infirmity, you get enough, but if you want finer things, you need to work harder.

Please eviscerate my incentive plan... now.
 
2012-07-17 01:05:03 PM
The only thing about America I like is that I know it'll be dead in 20 years unless the entire shiathole grows up. Reality is the great teacher.
 
2012-07-17 01:05:45 PM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Why not a regressive tax rate?
The first $15,000 of your income are taxed at 100%, but the government provides you with an apartment, food card, and a bus pass. The next $15,000 is taxed at 75%, and you get the same benefits as the first group, with the option to purchase your own food, car, or apartment, (ie you don't have to take the government's offerings). And each $15,000 is then reduced 25% (or similar system) , such that the more you earn, the less your tax burden represents as a % of your total income.
No need to worry, if you don't have a job, or can't get a job due to physical infirmity, you get enough, but if you want finer things, you need to work harder.

Please eviscerate my incentive plan... now.


Eh, better to give every citizen minimum wage for existing, and then let them negotiate for anything their employer will pay on top of that.
 
2012-07-17 01:07:36 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Eh, better to give every citizen minimum wage for existing, and then let them negotiate for anything their employer will pay on top of that.


In a world of fake scarcity, your vision of communism isn't the craziest idea on the planet.
 
2012-07-17 01:23:31 PM

inglixthemad: digistil: Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?

More than that, does anyone realize how much less our government's outlays will be? Rich people whine about the poor, but the "rich" just use different services the government provides. Those services (stabilizing the world, legal system) are VERY expensive.

So the "rich" whining about taxes is hilarious.


What does this mean? Do you live in France? Because we're talking about France here.

Are you saying that rich French people will be negatively affected by reductions in French govt outlays after they leave? Why would they care? They're gone.
 
2012-07-17 01:33:29 PM

Phil Moskowitz: The only thing about America I like is that I know it'll be dead in 20 years unless the entire shiathole grows up. Reality is the great teacher.


Now let's see. How long have the Marxists been saying this? After the first hundred or so years it really starts to look like the Christian cults that spring up predicting the "End of the World"
 
2012-07-17 01:43:46 PM

DamnYankees: ScouserDuck: My arguement to that is that wealth in the US is private property.

"Private property" is a category defined by the state.

[snip]

At my house, private property is defined by Smith & Wesson.
 
2012-07-17 01:47:38 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Why not a regressive tax rate?
The first $15,000 of your income are taxed at 100%, but the government provides you with an apartment, food card, and a bus pass. The next $15,000 is taxed at 75%, and you get the same benefits as the first group, with the option to purchase your own food, car, or apartment, (ie you don't have to take the government's offerings). And each $15,000 is then reduced 25% (or similar system) , such that the more you earn, the less your tax burden represents as a % of your total income.
No need to worry, if you don't have a job, or can't get a job due to physical infirmity, you get enough, but if you want finer things, you need to work harder.

Please eviscerate my incentive plan... now.

Eh, better to give every citizen minimum wage for existing, and then let them negotiate for anything their employer will pay on top of that.


But then they're going to waste that money on Kools and PBR.
If you have to give all of your money to the government, I think you'll either be one of those people who is motivate to work harder, so you don't eat that damn gov't cheese, or you say, fark it, why should I have to work any harder.
 
2012-07-17 01:51:40 PM

imashark: bhcompy: So, this rich guy lives in California, like a lot of rich guys, and he's got that 50% federal income tax rate, but on top of that he's also got a state 10.3% tax rate after $1m(9.3% after $45k, we're not a very progressive state). You're going to justify taking more than half a person's earnings(after a certain point, a low point considering the incomes we're talking about) in taxes? That's pretty brutal, particularly for a nation that isn't predicated on the fascist idea that people should owe a debt to society arbitrarily(in fact, the US is predicted on classical liberalism, which is more or less an antithesis to fascism's duty and anti-individualism tenants).

Ever hear of the idea of the "social contract?"

It's not fascist to think that everyone owes to society based on the idea that you gain inherent benefits from being part of it.

I agree that it is fascist to think that you owe dues to society because of some sort of warped anti-individualist hyper-nationalism.


Unfortunately, you and many others don't seem to make the distinction.


Sure, but a Lockeian social contract doesn't include that provision, and Locke is easily the most visible and (arguably?) the most important influence on our founding documents. What I'm saying is that we weren't founded on that philosophy, and I disagree with the establishment of that philosophy to the level stated.
 
2012-07-17 01:57:01 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Why not a regressive tax rate?
The first $15,000 of your income are taxed at 100%, but the government provides you with an apartment, food card, and a bus pass. The next $15,000 is taxed at 75%, and you get the same benefits as the first group, with the option to purchase your own food, car, or apartment, (ie you don't have to take the government's offerings). And each $15,000 is then reduced 25% (or similar system) , such that the more you earn, the less your tax burden represents as a % of your total income.
No need to worry, if you don't have a job, or can't get a job due to physical infirmity, you get enough, but if you want finer things, you need to work harder.

Please eviscerate my incentive plan... now.

Eh, better to give every citizen minimum wage for existing, and then let them negotiate for anything their employer will pay on top of that.


The problem is that costs are relative. With his tax plan, you are provided for regardless of if you live in Los Angeles, New York, Little Rock, or Cedar Rapids. If you give a citizen minimum wage(living wage I assume), how do you set that? By municipality? By state? Federally? How do you provide balance?
 
2012-07-17 01:58:03 PM
DamnYankees

Debeo Summa Credo: The reason they are in the top1% is because they are better than the second percent at what they do, and so on and so on.

I love that you believe this. It's endlessly amusing.



You can be amused and thats part of your problem and an issue you need to address.

Debeo is absolutely correct. The rich are better than you at making money and developing businesses. Now I will tell you what amuses me. When some farkers will lament the plight of low wage earners having to work more than 40 hours a week to survive.

I know a lot of wealthy people not one of them works less than 40 hrs per work, the average is around 60 and even when at home, they are working on their business. Weekends , yeah thats work time also.

So yeah, these people are better than you. They have skills that you don't have.
 
2012-07-17 01:58:07 PM

MugzyBrown: DamnYankees: "Private property" is a category defined by the state. Why can't it revise that definition? To "own" something is merely to have a certain bundle of rights with respect to that thing, and we as a society determine what those rights are.

It's pretty sad you think that way. That private property is something the state simply allows you to have. You don't have a right to your own possessions.

I assume the same thing goes for your life. If we as a society determine your life is not valuable enough, then we can exterminate it.


Straw man
 
2012-07-17 01:59:43 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: digistil: Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?

Of course. Despite what the neomarxists of fark would tell you, the top 1% of earners didn't get to be the 1% by luck. The reason they are in the top1% is because they are better than the second percent at what they do, and so on and so on.


Despite being a neomarxist, I'll grant you there is some truth to that. However, the calculation can be very complex. For example, my brother the banker only rates somewhere in the 95th percentile in low cunning, but because so many of those who rank above him there also have honor and physical courage, they choose careers in organized crime. That leaves things like banking and politics wide open for people who lack both.
 
2012-07-17 02:01:05 PM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: But then they're going to waste that money on Kools and PBR.


And the problem with that is? You did mention having to work harder for the finer things, and I don't know what socioeconomic status you come from that thinks Kools and PBR is "the finer things".
Biggest problem with your idea is that you base it on hard work. What is the definition of hard work? How is it measured against the tax rate?
Giving everyone a subsistence wage doesn't have the same problem, as there's no question of who deserves what, everyone gets it, and however hard they want to work on top of that is their business.
 
2012-07-17 02:03:34 PM

Buffalo77: I know a lot of wealthy people not one of them works less than 40 hrs per work, the average is around 60 and even when at home, they are working on their business. Weekends , yeah thats work time also.


Why don't they hire a few workers to help with the load?
 
2012-07-17 02:04:04 PM
DamnYankees

Can someone please marshal evidence that this is resulting in a net negative revenue stream for the French government?

Google "Maryland's Millionaire Exodus"

This what happened when one state added a supplemental tax on millionaires. They hoped to raise an additional $106 million from the group but instead tax revenues fell by $257 million for the group as 3000 millionaires left the state.
 
2012-07-17 02:12:11 PM
FTFA:

The previous top tax bracket of 41 per cent on earnings over 72,000 euros is also set to increase to 45 per cent.

While the 75% tax on income over 1 million euro probably isn't a very good idea, the 45% tax on earnings over 72K Euro strikes me as especially insane. That's $87K/year, not exactly ultra rich. They are taxing crap out of their professional class - engineers, accountants, lawyers, architects, managers, etc. If I'm a French engineer, a job in the US or UK (or several other EU countries) is looking pretty good on a tax-adjusted basis, even throwing in a few trips home every year.

Of course, most of the revenue from this will probably come from the 72K Euro bracket - the huge hike on ultra high incomes is just for show to make the people who actually get things done feel better about the screwing they are about to get.
 
2012-07-17 02:14:47 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: But then they're going to waste that money on Kools and PBR.

And the problem with that is? You did mention having to work harder for the finer things, and I don't know what socioeconomic status you come from that thinks Kools and PBR is "the finer things".
Biggest problem with your idea is that you base it on hard work. What is the definition of hard work? How is it measured against the tax rate?
Giving everyone a subsistence wage doesn't have the same problem, as there's no question of who deserves what, everyone gets it, and however hard they want to work on top of that is their business.


Because in your plan, they starve, because they're innumerate, or they're bad with money. In my plan, regardless math ability, they can eat every night.
I was responding to your assertion that we give them a (set) minimum wage, and they get to do with the money as they wish. My assertion is that they'll get 4g and air jordans, instead of broccoli and a bed, so that they can't feed themselves, they go looking for a handout. I'm suggesting that they provide their own handout, by having the government care for all of the physical NEEDS. They are then responsible for their wants (PBR & Kools, or Whatever things that you would consider non-need based consumer goods that one would esteem as frivolous).
What is the definition of hard work? Earning more than $15,000 per year.
How is it measured against the tax rate? See my regressive tax scale above.
 
2012-07-17 02:17:06 PM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: My assertion is that they'll get 4g and air jordans,


This is really tiring.
 
2012-07-17 02:26:30 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: digistil: Assuming the 1% do leave, does anyone honestly believe there aren't other people that are just as capable to replace them?

Of course. Despite what the neomarxists of fark would tell you, the top 1% of earners didn't get to be the 1% by luck. The reason they are in the top1% is because they are better than the second percent at what they do, and so on and so on.

Now, if you are referring to investment income in previously obtained wealth, then yeah they may have no irreplacable skills. But of course, they do have the investment capital on which they are making the investment income. To the extent that capital is mobile, it may follow the taxpayer out of the country - and the 99% will not be able to replace it.


Presumably many of the 1% got there by virtue of skill or drive. When they depart, there will be a new set of people occupying the 1% slot, but because they'll be second-raters, the income figure that marks the 1% boundary will be lower. Tax them at the same high rates as the original 1% and they'll leave too, and the 1% become third-raters. Continue until you've driven out most of the entrepreneurial class.
 
2012-07-17 02:34:46 PM

Uncontrolled_Jibe: Phil Moskowitz: The only thing about America I like is that I know it'll be dead in 20 years unless the entire shiathole grows up. Reality is the great teacher.

Now let's see. How long have the Marxists been saying this? After the first hundred or so years it really starts to look like the Christian cults that spring up predicting the "End of the World"


Well, to be fair to Phil, it's not only the marxists who have been claiming this. The far right has their share of "society's doomed" loons as well, even apart from the religious nuts.
 
2012-07-17 03:14:00 PM

bhcompy: Sure, but a Lockeian social contract doesn't include that provision, and Locke is easily the most visible and (arguably?) the most important influence on our founding documents. What I'm saying is that we weren't founded on that philosophy, and I disagree with the establishment of that philosophy to the level stated.



You don't believe that the Founding Fathers believed they owed a duty or debt to the public by virtue of their station in life?
 
2012-07-17 03:42:59 PM

FarkedOver: It really isn't all the complicated to the conservative mind. The conservative mind figures you already have money and you can pack up and move and go to where the jobs are willy-nilly. If you don't have money, well fark off.


Weird, I was out of work for 7 months back in 2002. I worked in video production for 5 years, got promoted a couple times, but was laid off. I couldn't find a job and had student loans to pay off. I moved several states away living basically in somebody's living room.

I got a entry-level job in insurance at a call center. Worked there for half a year, and got another insurance job back in the Philly area and got an apartment. I've taken classes and got 2 professional designations and have been promoted 3 times where I manage a book worth about $900k in revenue to the agency and now have a house.

So yeah, you take your lumps, retrain, and grow back
 
2012-07-17 03:44:51 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Calmamity: bdub77: Rich friends of mine have argued that it's not fair.

You need to tell your rich friends that it's not fair that I work harder than they do and am not rich.

Lots of things aren't fair, but rich people and Republicans seem to think it's only worth changing when matters of fairness aren't skewed towards them.

As long as that kind of Objectivist poison (more money somehow magically means that you are a harder worker and therefore deserve more) still pervades this country's thinking, we're fu*ked.

The reason you work harder and make less is because your labor is worth less. You are exchanging something you have (skills and labor) for something someone else has (money). The ratio of exchange is determined by bilateral agreement and completely fair.

Your skills and labor are
apparently not worth that much money. Deal with it. I'm for a progressive tax system like the one we have. We have expenses to pay for and it is better that those who can afford more should pay more. But in no way is it inherently "fair" to take from one simply to give it to another, to compensate the other for their lack of marketable skills.




Oh please. This is the United States. I've seen so many dumb-as-hell rich people it's absurd. Inheritance and favors will get you further here then hard work ever will.
 
2012-07-17 03:45:56 PM
Don't piss off people that have the means to relocate. Why would anyone be surprised by this?
 
2012-07-17 03:47:02 PM

MugzyBrown: FarkedOver: It really isn't all the complicated to the conservative mind. The conservative mind figures you already have money and you can pack up and move and go to where the jobs are willy-nilly. If you don't have money, well fark off.

Weird, I was out of work for 7 months back in 2002. I worked in video production for 5 years, got promoted a couple times, but was laid off. I couldn't find a job and had student loans to pay off. I moved several states away living basically in somebody's living room.

I got a entry-level job in insurance at a call center. Worked there for half a year, and got another insurance job back in the Philly area and got an apartment. I've taken classes and got 2 professional designations and have been promoted 3 times where I manage a book worth about $900k in revenue to the agency and now have a house.

So yeah, you take your lumps, retrain, and grow back


Damn straight. It can always happen like that. As long as there are people like you I know I have a job I can always fall back on down at the bootstrap factory.
 
2012-07-17 03:51:22 PM

ScouserDuck: bdub77: Even I think that is a retarded tax rate. 75% if you make just a million euros? Seriously ridiculous.

Now 75% if you make 200 million euros a year? If you are earning that much, then maybe. But I'd top out at 50-60%.

Personally I'd like to see the US adopt a 50% highest tax rate, with much more reasonable tax rates (33%) at the 250k-1 million level, progressing from 33-40% at 1 million-5 million, 40-50% from 5-10 million, and 50% any higher than that.

Rich friends of mine have argued that it's not fair. And my answer is that it's not about whether it's fair to tax the rich more, it's about what is best for everyone. At some point I believe you keep taxes low to allow consumption to occur at lower tax brackets so that the rich make money and hire more and everything else.

And more focus should be on education. Jobs going overseas are not coming back, people. The money is in innovation and new technology. People need to be properly educated. And to me it's not about high school - with some exceptions there are decent high schools out there. No, the college system is totally f*cking broken.

My arguement to that is that wealth in the US is private property. In no way should it be okay for the government to take private property just because it's for the good of everyone. Taxes at 50% is boarderline slavery by society.


I know! We fought a war to end this bullshiat. Just think of all those africans who were rounded up, put into slave ships and brought to the US to pay a 50 percent tax rate. Hell it is hundreds of years later and african americans still haven't recovered socially or economically from that 50 percent tax rate, it is like we've learned nothing from the past.
 
2012-07-17 04:25:44 PM

JK47: bhcompy: Sure, but a Lockeian social contract doesn't include that provision, and Locke is easily the most visible and (arguably?) the most important influence on our founding documents. What I'm saying is that we weren't founded on that philosophy, and I disagree with the establishment of that philosophy to the level stated.


You don't believe that the Founding Fathers believed they owed a duty or debt to the public by virtue of their station in life?


I believe that the Declaration of Independence, among other documents that are not of law, provides a decent summary to what governmental social contract they ascribed to, which is heavily in Locke territory(which ignores owed duty based on station/means, and, in fact, is probably against that idea since Locke's social contract is centered around the protection of personal property[which includes the person and their natural rights along with actual property]). There has always been a strong undercurrent of charity and philanthropy in America, but it is always frowned upon when it is forced as a duty to society, largely due to the original structuring of the nation and some of the ideas behind it.
 
2012-07-17 05:02:40 PM

ScouserDuck: Taxes at 50% is boarderline slavery by society.


1) I would be quite happy to pay a 50% tax rate on my $1 Million+ income.

2) $7/hr is borderline slavery by the rich.
 
2012-07-17 05:22:00 PM

bdub77: And my answer is that it's not about whether it's fair to tax the rich more, it's about what is best for everyone.


Actually, those are pretty much the same thing, right? I'm a dirty socialist myself, so all in all I agree with you.

I 60% over a million and that would solve ALOT of problems, including unemployment.
 
2012-07-17 06:08:29 PM

the_geek: ScouserDuck: Taxes at 50% is boarderline slavery by society.

1) I would be quite happy to pay a 50% tax rate on my $1 Million+ income.

2) $7/hr is borderline slavery by the rich.


When you perform enough work to earn 1 million I'm sure you would sing a different tune. When it's a choice of magically gaining half a mil or nothing...sure, it's easy. But when you've worked your ass off to be in a position that you're making a million dollars plus, 500,000 is a lot to just give up.
 
2012-07-17 07:00:26 PM

ScouserDuck: When you perform enough work to earn 1 million I'm sure you would sing a different tune. When it's a choice of magically gaining half a mil or nothing...sure, it's easy. But when you've worked your ass off to be in a position that you're making a million dollars plus, 500,000 is a lot to just give up.


When you perform enough work to earn 1 million, you quite literally could not have done it by yourself. The only way you could have done so is with help, either from public services or employees, and if you're unwilling to reduce your tax liability via paying your employees, you owe the rest of us for the public services you consumed.
 
2012-07-17 07:05:08 PM

Marcus Aurelius: So, they're escaping to the UK, where the tax rate is "only" 50%.

Looks like we can raise taxes on the wealthy after all.


Oh, don't worry about those rich people. The government makes sure there are plenty of loopholes and schemes for them to avoid tax. Taxes are for little people.
 
2012-07-17 07:19:00 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: ScouserDuck: When you perform enough work to earn 1 million I'm sure you would sing a different tune. When it's a choice of magically gaining half a mil or nothing...sure, it's easy. But when you've worked your ass off to be in a position that you're making a million dollars plus, 500,000 is a lot to just give up.

When you perform enough work to earn 1 million, you quite literally could not have done it by yourself. The only way you could have done so is with help, either from public services or employees, and if you're unwilling to reduce your tax liability via paying your employees, you owe the rest of us for the public services you consumed.


Tell me how a successful neurosurgeon uses up MORE public services than an average "Joe". After that, tell me how 35% of his million dollars isn't paying for more that 35% of a guy who gets paid 50,000 a year.
 
2012-07-17 07:37:56 PM

ScouserDuck: Tell me how a successful neurosurgeon uses up MORE public services than an average "Joe".


I did say employees or public services, you know. I'm sure the most successful neurosurgeons can do what they do without the aid of say... electricity and water. Surely. I'm sure he brings his own clean water to wash up with before every surgery, right? No need for assistants, no need for those pesky anesthesiologists to help out during the surgery. No need for nurses to care for his patients after he's done....

You see what I'm getting at, right? The neurosurgeon is jack shiat by himself.
 
2012-07-17 07:48:47 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: ScouserDuck: Tell me how a successful neurosurgeon uses up MORE public services than an average "Joe".

I did say employees or public services, you know. I'm sure the most successful neurosurgeons can do what they do without the aid of say... electricity and water. Surely. I'm sure he brings his own clean water to wash up with before every surgery, right? No need for assistants, no need for those pesky anesthesiologists to help out during the surgery. No need for nurses to care for his patients after he's done....

You see what I'm getting at, right? The neurosurgeon is jack shiat by himself.


Right, but he/she pays water and electricity bills...so that's taken care of. And those other people you mentioned are all payed salaries...sooooooo. I don't see where taxes fall into this. And you still haven't taken into account that 35% of 1,000,000 is already significantly more than 35% of 50,000.

Either way, our hypothetical doctor has paid his/her share.
 
2012-07-17 07:50:54 PM
Buffalo77:
i39.tinypic.com
Google "Maryland's Millionaire Exodus"

This what happened when one state added a supplemental tax on millionaires.
They hoped to raise an additional $106 million from the group but instead tax
revenues fell by $257 million for the group as 3000 millionaires left the state.

i43.tinypic.com

The decline in tax revenue and "disappearance" of millionaires in that story straddles the start of the recession.

i51.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-17 08:42:04 PM

ScouserDuck: Right, but he/she pays water and electricity bills...so that's taken care of. And those other people you mentioned are all payed salaries...sooooooo.


Water and electricity are much more important for the success of the neurosurgeon than the average Joe. That is, the neurosurgeon derives more benefit from it, and would suffer more without access to those things. The neurosurgeon would suffer more if his co-workers and/or employees did not have access to those things. He might pay the bill for what he personally uses, but he has a much larger stake in the system than Joe Sixpack the ditch digger, is already paid well above ole' Joe for the privilege, and thus must offer a greater contribution to maintaining the system.

I don't see where taxes fall into this. And you still haven't taken into account that 35% of 1,000,000 is already significantly more than 35% of 50,000.

Either way, our hypothetical doctor has paid his/her share.


So many things wrong with this.... don't even know where to start.

Marginal utility of money. 35% is worth more to the person making $50K than the person making $1 million, but it doesn't matter what the actual dollar amount is, because taxes don't work that way.
Dr. Neurosurgeon pays the exact same amount on his first $50K as Joe Sixpack does on his $50K. They are equal in this regard. Dr. Neurosurgeon's additional income is taxed as higher, but the tax is never so high as to make him poorer for it. He pays more because he earns more, and as I've been saying, he doesn't do it alone.
 
2012-07-18 06:16:38 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Water and electricity are much more important for the success of the neurosurgeon than the average Joe. That is, the neurosurgeon derives more benefit from it, and would suffer more without access to those things. The neurosurgeon would suffer more if his co-workers and/or employees did not have access to those things. He might pay the bill for what he personally uses, but he has a much larger stake in the system than Joe Sixpack the ditch digger, is already paid well above ole' Joe for the privilege, and thus must offer a greater contribution to maintaining the system.


So you claim that society, in turn, derives no benefit from the neurosurgeon, as you say the neurosurgeon "owes more" than the people he helps? Do you think that it's easy being a neurosurgeon -- that anyone could do it equally well? If so, are you against malpractice suits? If not, why does having a greater ability to help society require you to sacrifice more to society?
 
2012-07-18 07:44:02 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: ScouserDuck: Right, but he/she pays water and electricity bills...so that's taken care of. And those other people you mentioned are all payed salaries...sooooooo.

Water and electricity are much more important for the success of the neurosurgeon than the average Joe. That is, the neurosurgeon derives more benefit from it, and would suffer more without access to those things. The neurosurgeon would suffer more if his co-workers and/or employees did not have access to those things. He might pay the bill for what he personally uses, but he has a much larger stake in the system than Joe Sixpack the ditch digger, is already paid well above ole' Joe for the privilege, and thus must offer a greater contribution to maintaining the system.

I don't see where taxes fall into this. And you still haven't taken into account that 35% of 1,000,000 is already significantly more than 35% of 50,000.

Either way, our hypothetical doctor has paid his/her share.

So many things wrong with this.... don't even know where to start.

Marginal utility of money. 35% is worth more to the person making $50K than the person making $1 million, but it doesn't matter what the actual dollar amount is, because taxes don't work that way.
Dr. Neurosurgeon pays the exact same amount on his first $50K as Joe Sixpack does on his $50K. They are equal in this regard. Dr. Neurosurgeon's additional income is taxed as higher, but the tax is never so high as to make him poorer for it. He pays more because he earns more, and as I've been saying, he doesn't do it alone.


Scouser duck is correct, it is you that are misguided. The Anesthesiologist and nurses and maintenance workers all get paid for their efforts. They are owed no more. The water and electricity benefit everyone in the room, including the patient.

Your perception of marginal utility of income is arbitrary. Yeah, $20 might mean more to a person making $50k per year than someone making $1m, but you have no idea whether $20 to the middle class person is worth more than $400 to the rich guy.

And those numbers are proportional- assuming a flat tax, the neurosurgeon pays 20x as much toward societal infrastructure as the middle class guy.

All your spinning around "he didn't do it by himself" is just desperate contortions of reason to try to convince yourself that the rich aren't paying their fair share. When the uncomfortable truth is the rich are subsidizing society with their tax dollars - middle class and in particular, poor people enjoy a huge net benefit from this subsidization.
 
2012-07-18 04:39:56 PM
So who is buying these houses if everybody is leaving the country?
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report