Do rich people pay taxes?

In reply to STM317 :please reread that. I said the rules are rigged against the workers.  To the benefit of the wealthy.  

Did I succeed in spite of them?  OK  if that’s how you see it.  

But many smart people work hard and wind up with nothing.  Hoping the social security check gets there before the food runs out or  dying because they can’t afford the lifesaving procedure that Medicare doesn’t cover.  

A business owner who puts an extra few million in his pocket by under paying his workers is what is wrong.  The grandchild of a financial success stuffing her nose with drugs because she’s unhappy.   A politician taking a bribe and calling it a campaign contribution. 

I don’t have a single thing against the wealthy, I’d like to be one someday, but until then I’ll work as hard and smart as I can  and complain about the things that are wrong.  ( while doing what I can to fix them)  

mazdeuce - Seth said:

Enyar said:

In reply to Cotton :

Just cause you believe it doesn't mean it's true! $250k a year should set you up quite nicely to retire early and keep a nice standard of living. If it doesn't you're doing something wrong.

The math on this is not as nice at it feels. Say you make $250k, and you're "frugal" and live off 75k of that. Pay about $75k in taxes, and invest $100k. Numbers are just to make math easy, so work with me. 

The commonly used 4% rule says that you can withdraw 4% in perpetuity, roughly, again, work with me, so you'd need 25 times that 75K, or 1.875 million which wold be 18 years of savings. But growth, so maybe 13 years? Still, most people I know don't start making that until their early 40's and that seldom gets them retiring before their mid 50's at the earliest, and only if they've planned well which most people I know who make that kind of money don't. They keep saving at about the same rate they've been saving at. 

So SHOULD $250k a year set you up for a very comfortable early retirement? Yes. Does it? From my experience with people who make that, not really. The people who retire "rich" all have a big lump sum in there somewhere, usually from the sale of a business. 

By your own logic this person retired at 53, making  33% more than the median income in the US. That's excluding any income from Social Security in later years and assuming they didn't save a penny of the income they had from years 18-40 where they were obviously making decent money because you don't walk into a 250k job without prior experience.

Yes there are plenty of people that squander that opportunity. But there are also plenty of people that do much more with much less. Try as all you may please, no one is talking me into $250k a year as not being rich.

STM317 said:

So, you followed the rules, and amassed 7 figures in assets. But the rules are rigged to prevent people from amassing lots of assets?

You've had an expensive boat and a fancy lake house. But it's rigged against you? You've had vintage race cars. How is it rigged again? Those are rich man's toys and by "following the rules", you were able to obtain all of them. Based on previous posts, I know that you've lost a lot of what you once had, and that has to be frustrating but you've still got a net worth in the 90th percentile or higher. It would be pretty tough for me to be frustrated about that end result and the path that you took to get there.

The rules may indeed be rigged against him now even if he was on the winning side of them before...but his previous benefit from the rigged rules doesn't invalidate his argument. If LeBron James thinks that the NBA's rules have been rigged, he has every right to complain.

Other people follow the rules and don't get anything for it. This shows that the supposed game of skill is at best, more of a game of chance.

I do want to say that it's fascinating what we all believe to be factual and the right way to move forward. We all have our own opinions and we are all equally entrenched with our ways. I do think that having such a wide variety of people in this country can be a huge benefit but it also makes it so no one actually gets what we want. Maybe that is good because it slows progress to a slow but steady pace. Time will tell where we end up and which system is proven to be the most sustainable.

Well done folks, it's been a pleasure engaging in this conversation with y'all.

Signed - 17% effective rater

In reply to Enyar :

I agree, but from the inside it's clear why people making this money don't feel rich like they thought they would when they were making 1/5 that. It seems like it should be a huge life changing thing, and if you consider that you never have to worry about this months bills or filling your tank all the way up or whether or not you can afford cheese, it's HUGE. I think most people think being rich is like a switch where your life is all of a sudden different. I know very few rich people who are noticeably different than regular middle class people other than their brokerage statements and sometimes their houses. 

Everyone needs perspective and it's hard to find. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I know that we're on different sides of this, so I won't rehash old arguments too much. His claim that it's rigged basically boils down to the fact that some people have advantages over others just by chance. I'm willing to acknowledge that to be true. Due to the parents that created them, or the color of their skin, or their reproductive parts, or any of a million other reasons It's harder for some to succeed than others. That may not feel right, but there's no way around it. We can improve the situation regarding the way that people are perceived (race, height, gender, etc) but you'll never be able to remove the chance related to who your parents are, or where/when you're born. All you can do is play the hand you're dealt as best you can.

You can play your hand by complaining about how unfair it is, and hope that some external force works to your advantage and improves your life, or you can go about improving your life yourself. There's a chance of failure either way, and a chance of success either route. But the odds of succeeding or failing are very different depending on the path you choose. Generally, successful people don't look to blame others.

mazdeuce - Seth said:

In reply to Enyar :

I agree, but from the inside it's clear why people making this money don't feel rich like they thought they would when they were making 1/5 that. It seems like it should be a huge life changing thing, and if you consider that you never have to worry about this months bills or filling your tank all the way up or whether or not you can afford cheese, it's HUGE. I think most people think being rich is like a switch where your life is all of a sudden different. I know very few rich people who are noticeably different than regular middle class people other than their brokerage statements and sometimes their houses. 

Everyone needs perspective and it's hard to find. 

 

That's fine, I can't control feelings. But it is a switch where your life is all of a sudden different. It may not feel like it but not having to worry about bills, college tuition, shopping for new cars , retirement is life changing. Again I get where you're coming from and see plenty of examples from my own circle that validates your point. The director at my work makes ~175k and thinks she's middle class and complains she wont be able to retire. She's right but it's not because she's not making enough money. It's cause she has a 6 bedroom hours and gets a new car every 2 years.Meanwhile, I make 1/2 what she does and I'm planning to retire in 10 years. I don't look any different than the rest of the middle class (modest 1200 sq ft house, driving a 2005 corolla that was bought new) but I can certainly acknowledge that I am upper class when it comes to income.

I'm reading a book currently called 'sapiens'. Its an interesting look at humans in their history on the planet.

One point made in the book is that current political battle in the world is mostly based on the logical disconnect between freedom and equality. If we're all free we are absolutely not equal, and if we are all equal we are absolutely not free. So where/how is the line drawn between the two? You can probably pick a spot on the scale for all in this thread (and I actually think you would find us all to be quite similar all said).

Interesting to consider.

(politics is defined as the art of reconciling logically opposed but commonly held morals - example: how can you be a good 10th century knight and kill/raid/pillage all week but then be a christian in church on sunday? politics answers the question)

STM317 said:

I know that we're on different sides of this, so I won't rehash old arguments too much. His claim that it's rigged basically boils down to the fact that some people have advantages over others just by chance. I'm willing to acknowledge that to be true. Due to the parents that created them, or the color of their skin, or their reproductive parts, or any of a million other reasons It's harder for some to succeed than others.

I don't think that's the entirety of his argument - it's certainly not the entirety of mine. There are also advantages to people with very large incomes and those who can reroute most of their income through capital gains intentionally and explicitly written into laws of most countries around the world. Not just biases in people's perceptions influencing outcomes within the laws.

STM317 said:

You can play your hand by complaining about how unfair it is, and hope that something else works to your advantage and improves your life, or you can go about improving your life yourself. There's a chance of failure either way, and a chance of success either route. But the odds of succeeding or failing are very different depending on the path you choose. Generally, successful people don't look to blame others.

You may be confusing cause and effect. People with the means to be successful have less incentive to place blame anywhere because they are less likely to encounter any hardship along the way, and likewise people who have become successful actually have a disincentive to criticize the system that made them successful, unjust as it may be.

GameboyRMH said:

STM317 said:

You can play your hand by complaining about how unfair it is, and hope that something else works to your advantage and improves your life, or you can go about improving your life yourself. There's a chance of failure either way, and a chance of success either route. But the odds of succeeding or failing are very different depending on the path you choose. Generally, successful people don't look to blame others.

You may be confusing cause and effect. People with the means to be successful have less incentive to place blame anywhere because they are less likely to encounter any hardship along the way, and likewise people who have become successful actually have a disincentive to criticize the system that made them successful, unjust as it may be.

Yes, and yes, but can we agree that which is the 'cause' and which is the 'effect' is largely unknown? It comes down to what you believe, and maybe, which camp you would rather go stay in.

I agree to some extent the system is 'rigged'.  I don't think tax loopholes are the major issue.  

The county I live in was recently ranked 3rd worst for upward mobility.   The only 2 that were worse are indian reservations in South Dakota.  https://www.wfdd.org/story/upward-mobility-forsyth-county-tale-two-cities

It is pretty easy to notice some of the reasons behind this living here.  If I were poor, I know I would have difficulty working around them.  It is a sad situation.  

In reply to Ian F :

No there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just a little sad that I'm damn near 40 and make so little. But that's all on me and the choices I've made. 

I agree with the rest of your post.

z31maniac said:

Nick Comstock said:

Ian F said:

Nick Comstock said:

Now what they do with those taxes are beyond my control. Once they have that money they decide the best way to spend it, not me as it's not my money anymore. It's theirs. I certainly would like to see it used for things I agree 100% with however that's an unreasonable expectation. So that money I paid may be used for welfare or war in places we have no business being in or paying off strippers (that's a joke people) but it's beyond my control. It's not my money anymore. 

So just because I'm fine with things being taxed differently in no way means that I agree with welfare. But again the government does and it's beyond my control.

You may choose for govt actions to be beyond your control, but it is the foundation of our society to have some faith in the representative process.  While I will be the first to admit the system has some (possibly fatal) flaws, it is still the system we have to live with.

Let's say that you and I both, well let's go ahead and include every single person who has ever posted on this message board all agree that we want the government to oh let's say not go to war with Russia for instance. So we all call our Representatives and get our friends and family to do the same. But the government goes ahead and votes to go to war with Russia. There's nothing that any of us can do about it. Same with welfare. Same with the current health Care laws. Same with everything the government touches. Once that money is out of our hands and into theirs and we voice our opinions about how it should be spent that's all we can do. The government does what the government wants. 

Like it or not most of those things are out of our control. I may be the only one but I do believe the government does act in our best interest. Or at least tries to. But to alfadrivers point there is a huge difference between being okay with paying taxes and being okay with every single thing the government decides to do with that money.

 

It's almost like the protesting teachers of West Virginia and Oklahoma would disagree with you. 

Make the idiots afraid they are going to lose their cushy job and they change their tone. Hell look at Boehner now backing weed since he has a financial interest in it.

Okay let's me and you get everyone we can together and protest until the fair tax is implemented in it's entirety. I know that's something we both believe in. I'll be homeless with one weeks missed pay, your not in the same boat but I assure you you'll be homeless before it's ever implemented.  Because it will never be implemen ted.

Robbie said:

I'm reading a book currently called 'sapiens'. Its an interesting look at humans in their history on the planet.

One point made in the book is that current political battle in the world is mostly based on the logical disconnect between freedom and equality. If we're all free we are absolutely not equal, and if we are all equal we are absolutely not free. So where/how is the line drawn between the two? You can probably pick a spot on the scale for all in this thread (and I actually think you would find us all to be quite similar all said).

Interesting to consider.

Very true. You could also look at it as a balance between theoretical freedom (freedom as discussed in your book) and practical freedom (equality). There is a tradeoff between the two. The improve practical freedom, or maximize the "agency" (as Marx would call it) of the average person, you must impose artificial rules and limit theoretical freedom. If you maximize theoretical freedom, equality will be minimized. If you asked people to pick a spot though, they'd be all over the map. I'm very much on the practical freedom/equality side and Nick Comstock, I don't think he'd disagree, is very much on the theoretical freedom side. Then you have communists and fascists who've gone so far that they've wrapped around into a nether-zone where both are very low.

Practical freedom/equality is good for everyone or at the very least, the vast majority. What is theoretical freedom good for? What's the point or practical benefit of having a very free market? Should our economy work for the benefit of as much of humanity as possible, or should it be set up to allow for an elite cadre of super-winners to reap most of the rewards for being maybe a little better and certainly a whole lot luckier than most of humanity?

I believe in equality of opportunity not in equality of outcomes. I need to dig into it a bit to understand what you mean by theoretical freedom and practical freedom - that sounds like an interesting concept.

In reply to T.J. :

Go hang out in a poor elementary school, interact with the kids and their parents. Now go do the same at a wealthy one. There is no equality of opportunity. What we can do is make things a lot more equal than they are. 

T.J. said:

I believe in equality of opportunity not in equality of outcomes.

The trouble is that equality of opportunity is vague and possibly meaningless, and that equality of outcome should matter to some degree, at least in relation to certain inputs.

When I try to interpret "equality of opportunity," it seems to me that animals in the jungle have equality of opportunity. When they're all hatched/born they have an equal shot at becoming one of the most successful of their species. If this understanding is correct, then it's practically a meaningless term. Otherwise, what does it mean?

mazdeuce - Seth said:

In reply to T.J. :

Go hang out in a poor elementary school, interact with the kids and their parents. Now go do the same at a wealthy one. There is no equality of opportunity. What we can do is make things a lot more equal than they are. 

I may be wrong, but I think he was saying he believes people deserve equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcome.

I agree currently there is no equality of opportunity - see my post above.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I think you hit the nail on the head. Equality of opportunity really means freedom. Each animal hatched/born has an equal shot and is free to attempt in any manner she sees fit. But still not really, because you could be born with a defect or enhancement that makes you better or worse than the rest.

Freedom, equality, truth, etc, etc are only idealistic beliefs that can pursued but never achieved. Similar to physics modeling the universe...

Robbie said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I think you hit the nail on the head. Equality of opportunity really means freedom. Each animal hatched/born has an equal shot and is free to attempt in any manner she sees fit. But still not really, because you could be born with a defect or enhancement that makes you better or worse than the rest.

Also every baby sea turtle, even if all are born in good health, has a fair and equal chance of being immediately eaten by a seabird, or born on a beach across the road from a yard light so that they'll all be run over by cars.

In reply to ProDarwin :

I agree with this. Try to level the playing field so that your life doesn't depend on which va jay jay you happen to pop out of. If you chose to squander those opportunities then that's your problem. There will be certain safety nets but no redistribution of wealth just because one guy made out like a bandit

Enyar said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I agree with this. Try to level the playing field so that your life doesn't depend on which va jay jay you happen to pop out of. If you chose to squander those opportunities then that's your problem. There will be certain safety nets but no redistribution of wealth just because one guy made out like a bandit

OK, making progress toward defining equality of opportunity. So I think first of all it means we have to eliminate any kind of birth defects or hereditary disease. A tall order but an easy one to define on paper. Next, how do we equalize the effects of the wealth of the vajayjay you came out of? If you're born to a single mother in Da Hood you'll obviously have less opportunity than being born to the housewife of some rich guy who's made sizable donations to an Ivy League university, can hire all the private tutors you'd ever need, and has a cushy office job at his firm for you if that doesn't work out, for example. How can that be addressed without redistributing wealth or income?

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Agreed. Health and education are the big ones and we require taxation to achieve any sort of equality with those. 

One practical way to consider 'equality of opportunity' is to make a lower bound. Everyone gets at least 'this'. If you happen to win the lottery and be above 'this' then nice. If not, we are taxing folks in order to bring you up.

But then you have to figure out what 'this' is. And you have to answer the big question: that if you make a lower bound, have you really done anything at all?

Unfortunately as much as I like discussing these ideals, probably the more relevant and likely to help work is in discussing small incremental changes that can actually be implemented. And I'm generally pisspoor at that.

Robbie said:

But then you have to figure out what 'this' is. And you have to answer the big question: that if you make a lower bound, have you really done anything at all?

You could make a lower bound that ensures that people working full-time jobs can support themselves decently, that would be a nice improvement to many people's lives. This would also be great for the economy since legal sub-livable wages amount to a massive, unorganized and unaccountable corporate welfare scheme for every company that hires people who still need government/community assistance to support themselves.