Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: How are you confused? Are you selectively choosing what words you want to see?! You're prospering? Great. You need a handout? Fine. But you're prospering AND you want a handout? No. how is a tax cut when you already pay more money than everyone else that results in you still paying more money than everyone else a handout?

Because you take more share of income than anyone else and the deficit is made up with borrowing that everyone else has to pay for well into the future.

Taxes pay for the public goods on which the economy depends. When you take a larger share of the income generated in the economy and your share of the taxes that make your income possible grows smaller, you're in effect getting a handout.

This is something I wrote elsewhere.

Referring to Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data (October 6, 2010).

The top 1%, with adjusted gross income of more than $380,354 per year, paid a 38.02% share of income taxes on a 20.00% share of total adjusted gross income. That's 1,399,606 filers reporting adjusted gross income totaling $1,685,472,000,000 and paying a total of $392,149,000,000 in income taxes for a net income total of $1,293,323,000,000. That averages to $1,204,247 annual adjusted gross income, $280,185 annual income taxes and a net income of $924,062 per filer.

The bottom 50%, with adjusted gross income of less than $33,048 per year, paid a 2.70% share of income taxes on a 12.75% share of total adjusted gross income. That's 69,980,290 filers reporting adjusted gross income totaling $1,074,514,000,000 and paying a total of $27,873,000,000 in income taxes for a net income total of $1,046,641,000,000. That averages to $15,354 annual adjusted gross income, $398 annual income taxes and a net income of $14,956 per filer.

So roughly, in 2008 the bottom half of all income earners as a whole only got 64% (three fifths) as much income as the top 1%. And on average the bottom half of all income earners only got a net income equal to 1.62% (less than one fiftieth) as much as the income of the top 1%. Put another way, on average the top 1% of all income earners got a net income nearly 62 times as large as the incomes of the bottom half. The bottom line is that the rich carry the tax burden because they receive the bulk of the income benefits. If you want the poor to carry more of the burden, then demand they get a larger share of the income then they are getting now.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread You ought to visit Mexico sometime (when it's safe again to do so, of course).

mexico has a single climate zone, smaller landmass, smaller population than japan, and 60-80% of them are from a single ethnic group (though 90% of their population falls into ethnic groups that are uniquely mexican).

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: Original post by LessBread You ought to visit Mexico sometime (when it's safe again to do so, of course). mexico has a single climate zone, smaller landmass, smaller population than japan, and 60-80% of them are from a single ethnic group (though 90% of their population falls into ethnic groups that are uniquely mexican).

I've been there before. I wasn't comparing it with Japan. I was pointing to it as a place with a huge disparity of income, where the causality of "the correlation between wealth inequality and social problems" is observationally evident.

W2L2C, I don't think these sentiments should apply to healthcare. As has been explained, basic healthcare isn't like getting a free x-box or toys.

There are some facts to consider.

1) Health care can cost a lot more than most working class can afford. That's the nature of the beast; many procedures and medical technologies are complicated, and a lot of countries that have them cheaper, do so because they're subsidized.

2) "Working harder" isn't a valid solution.

There isn't a parallel universe where everyone can be a doctor. Burgers must be flipped. Papers pushed. Holes dug.

The vast majority of people have to do something like this because that's what needs to be done, and under capitalism, those people aren't going to be rolling in dough.

Robin hood taxation does go against our individualist ideals, but what about our other ideals?

Do you oppose conducting any activity as a society?

All society-level action must ultimately be paid for through some kind of tax, and health care for all should be one of our top priorities as a society. It should be one of the last things we cut.

A lightly progressive tax that only goes up to around 40% is a good compromise. It's not a punitive or spiteful and you still live fantastically well on the income that the tax in question applies to. Alternatively, we could raise the corporate tax rate or tax trade and have a flat individual tax.

Is there a better way than taxes to solve this problem?

Is there a solution that isn't going to involve people with money paying into the system more than people who don't have any?

Or should we sod the whole thing and let people die so that folks don't have to suffer a slight tax hike?

And if that's the case, why not let most of our military and intelligence go? They also step on individual rights, also depend on taxes, monitor you, and for what?

To protect us from terrorism and whatnot so that people don't die?

If we're not acting as a society, does it even matter if we're invaded? Do we even need to "protect our borders"?

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: Original post by Antheus Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care it isn't that bad! at my last job I made minimum wage and I got by just fine. - Are you single with no children? - Do you have a home? - Have you never suffered from chronic illness or disability? - Do you have any skills for anything beyond manual labor? - Are you literate? - Do you have a degree? - Do you live in warm climate? If you answer any of those with Yes, then you are ahead of large portion of population. Yea... but a large portion of the working population makes more than minimum wage. A large portion of it in america makes more than what I make now as a contract SE and gets full benefits.

This is really dependent upon where you live. Here in CT, the minimum wage is $8.25. Now, if you live in Fairfield County, that can be unrealistic, regardless if you live a frugal life or an extravegent one. The average rent in the Stamford area is $1700 for a one bedroom. Of course you can live a more frugal life. One of my friends was paying ~$900 for a 300 sq ft apartment. This is without utilities. You want to get cheaper? What you're looking at is renting a room from a person. Maybe that's fine if you're out of college, but who in their later 20's or older, or having a family, wants to rent a room from someone else's living complex? Now, you have to throw in food, car/metro, taxes, and other expenses. And you can't just move further away, because on one side, you have some of the most expensive real estate in the country, and on the other, you have a huge amount of people all travelling to New York City, which makes for some of the worst traffic in the country.

Yes, most people make over minimum wage, because it's required just to live. What you're realistically looking at around here on minimum wage is 50 hour weeks just to pay for housing. You'll need to work longer to pay for anything else (food, etc).

Quote:

Original post by Antheus Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care it isn't that bad! at my last job I made minimum wage and I got by just fine. - Are you single with no children? - Do you have a home? - Have you never suffered from chronic illness or disability? - Do you have any skills for anything beyond manual labor? - Are you literate? - Do you have a degree? - Do you live in warm climate? If you answer any of those with Yes, then you are ahead of large portion of population.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008 around 2.2 million people made at or below the minimum wage. That's 1.5% of the population. 70% of those making at or below minimum wage were in the service industry and who's income is supplemented with tips. Food service workers are notorious for under reporting their tip income. Half of those making at or below the minimum wage are between 16 and 24 a lot of which are working part time during high school and college. It really doesn't sound to me like the vast majority of those making minimum wage are in such dire circumstances.

Beyond that, being poor in the USA is not really the same as being poor in most other countries. We don't have masses of poor children who are starving to death. On the contrary, a lot of our poor children are obese, so clearly they are not having much trouble getting enough to eat. Our poor have cars, cell phones, and cable tv. Sure, there are exceptions where people are legitimately impoverished in this country, and there are programs and charities that are more than willing to help those people, but it's far from as rampant as those like mikeman would have you believe.

Quote:

Original post by JoeCooper W2L2C, I don't think these sentiments should apply to healthcare.

Where did healthcare come from? We were talking about raising taxes on the rich.

Quote:

Yes, most people make over minimum wage, because it's required just to live. What you're realistically looking at around here on minimum wage is 50 hour weeks just to pay for housing. You'll need to work longer to pay for anything else (food, etc).

and that sucks, but then you should reassess your life plan and seriously consider relocating instead of subsidizing your need to live in an overpriced neighborhood by taxing rich people.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by Antheus Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care it isn't that bad! at my last job I made minimum wage and I got by just fine. - Are you single with no children? - Do you have a home? - Have you never suffered from chronic illness or disability? - Do you have any skills for anything beyond manual labor? - Are you literate? - Do you have a degree? - Do you live in warm climate? If you answer any of those with Yes, then you are ahead of large portion of population. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008 around 2.2 million people made at or below the minimum wage. That's 1.5% of the population. 70% of those making at or below minimum wage were in the service industry and who's income is supplemented with tips. Food service workers are notorious for under reporting their tip income. Half of those making at or below the minimum wage are between 16 and 24 a lot of which are working part time during high school and college. It really doesn't sound to me like the vast majority of those making minimum wage are in such dire circumstances.

High schoolers making minimum wage and tips are normally living at home with the parents and paying for their own expenses: extra-school activities, car, insurance, going out, etc. College students making minimum wages with tips are living on their own and paying their own expenses: cars, insurance, extra-curricular activities, tuition, books, board, going out, etc. They're not third-world but they're not going to be hobnobbing in at the country club either. Also remember that high-schoolers and college-students maybe actually supporting a family and/or kids.

Quote:

Beyond that, being poor in the USA is not really the same as being poor in most other countries. We don't have masses of poor children who are starving to death. On the contrary, a lot of our poor children are obese, so clearly they are not having much trouble getting enough to eat. Our poor have cars, cell phones, and cable tv. Sure, there are exceptions where people are legitimately impoverished in this country, and there are programs and charities that are more than willing to help those people, but it's far from as rampant as those like mikeman would have you believe.

A lot of these people are illegally getting cable and internet. Poor children are eating cheap fat-filled foods. Anything healthy is outrageously expensive. They're driving cars that may be repossessed. And without insurance. (Matter of fact I have seen plenty of instances where that is the case). In the fair state of Oklahoma, a large number of elementary and middle school children come to school hungry. And the only consistent meal they get is from school. Education funding is not the greatest there. Are these people third-world poor? No. But that doesn't mean that they should suffer just because they haven't hit a certain level of poor either.

edit: citation gotten

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: Original post by JoeCooper W2L2C, I don't think these sentiments should apply to healthcare. Where did healthcare come from? We were talking about raising taxes on the rich. Quote: Yes, most people make over minimum wage, because it's required just to live. What you're realistically looking at around here on minimum wage is 50 hour weeks just to pay for housing. You'll need to work longer to pay for anything else (food, etc). and that sucks, but then you should reassess your life plan and seriously consider relocating instead of subsidizing your need to live in an overpriced neighborhood by taxing rich people.

Oh. So they should go live in ghetto basically. Right?

Quote:

Original post by Nytegard The average rent in the Stamford area is $1700 for a one bedroom. Of course you can live a more frugal life. One of my friends was paying ~$900 for a 300 sq ft apartment. This is without utilities. You want to get cheaper? What you're looking at is renting a room from a person. Maybe that's fine if you're out of college, but who in their later 20's or older, or having a family, wants to rent a room from someone else's living complex? Now, you have to throw in food, car/metro, taxes, and other expenses.

Looks like there are plenty of rentals available for under $1,000. Of course if you're going to be living that close to one of the most expensive areas in the nation, you're going to be paying more.

Quote:

And you can't just move further away, because on one side, you have some of the most expensive real estate in the country, and on the other, you have a huge amount of people all travelling to New York City, which makes for some of the worst traffic in the country.

This doesn't make any sense at all. What exactly is preventing someone from moving away from NYC?