 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> It *is* the "cream rising" if you define "cream" as "capable of
>> creating wealth."
>>
>
> Ah, that's my problem. I keep defining "cream" as "having a brain and
> using it in some productive way" or even as "being a decent person."
Well, those two are certainly not mutually exclusive. If you look at
"wealth" as "the result of being productive", then yes, people are using
their brains in a productive way.
> No, just observing. It's like real estate--"location, location,
> location"--not something over which Bill and Oprah had any particular
> prenatal control, just incredibly good luck.
Sure. But you seem to be complaining that they're wealthy.
> Again--what is the relationship between any individual's _taxpayer_
> percentile and _income_ percentile?
It's in that table. I'm not sure what question you're asking, if that
table doesn't answer it.
> (And don't those figures paint a
> lovely picture of the gap between the filthy rich and the dirt poor?)
What, that less than 1% of the people in the country make more than ten
times the median income? You know, that doesn't seem too bad to me.
> Which leads to a bizarre, sideways-to-the-topic speculation: Is it
> actually possible to have more money than you can spend?
I think you can have more than you can *not waste* pretty easily. I
think having more than you could actually *throw away* would be harder.
> or is it like that business about not being able to march all the
> Chinese past a given point?
Clearly, if you had more than half the money in the world, you couldn't
spend it all. Other than that...
> You could calculate/guesstimate the amount
> of income per day or second or whatever (and the amount of expenditure
> necessary to reduce that amount consistently), but how do you calculate
> potential expenditures? In a world that has space tourism and Japanese
> toilets, this could be a problem. Not actually trying to change the
> subject, just slightly distracted by a shiny thing. ;)
Sure. I read that at one point, assuming Bill Gates worked 14 hours a
day, it wasn't worth the four seconds it would take for him to bend over
and pick up a $500 bill he dropped. I'd say that's "faster than you can
spend it."
Not faster than you can invest it, of course.
> Yep. Of course, that Microsoft stock *smells* a lot like money... ;)
> But it has to make you wonder--weren't the people who designed the AMT
> aware of that particular point?
Yep. Trust me. :-) I know several friends who got into serious grief
with the IRS by getting stock grants at $2/share, exercising (but not
selling) it when it was $50/share, and then selling it when it was back
to $1/share, and nevertheless owing taxes on $48/share even tho they
lost money in the whole thing.
But yes, Gates pays his 36% or whatever it is this year on any stock he
gets. He doesn't pay it on stock that just went up in value until he
actually gets the value of that stock in FRNs.
> I *like* arg-- erm, "discussing" with you--ye're rat smart. ;)
I *think* that's a compliment? :-)
> P.S.: Sorry it took me so long to get back to an interesting
> discussion--the so-called Real World keeps intruding on my Me-time,
> dammit. The other day, I looked out in the yard and thought, "Hmm, the
> ice storm left quite a lot of tree limbs lying around, but then the last
> couple of floods carried some of them away...but the the tornado left
> some new ones behind." OK, that's wacky even by Missouri weather
> standards. I keep expecting to look out and see giant steaming piles of
> glowing neon-colored sparkly horse doo, from the Four Horsemen of the
> Apocalypse riding overhead.* And then there's school.
Heh.
> *<Pratchett reference> I imagine Binky's is silvery colored, with blue
> and clear glitter. </Pratchett reference>
I think it's made clear he's just white, a plain old horse. Magically
enhanced, yes. But isn't Mort's first job to shovel up after Binky?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> Again--what is the relationship between any individual's _taxpayer_
> percentile and _income_ percentile?
Am I reading it wrong? Isn't the middle column the income percentile (or
absolute number at least) and the last column the tax percentile? Are
you asking something different?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sherry Shaw wrote:
>> Again--what is the relationship between any individual's _taxpayer_
>> percentile and _income_ percentile?
>
> Am I reading it wrong? Isn't the middle column the income percentile (or
> absolute number at least) and the last column the tax percentile? Are
> you asking something different?
>
AGI vs. _income_ ... Doesn't $364,657 strike you as a teensy bit
off-base for 1st percentile?
--Sherry Shaw
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sherry Shaw wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> It *is* the "cream rising" if you define "cream" as "capable of
>>> creating wealth."
>>>
>>
>> Ah, that's my problem. I keep defining "cream" as "having a brain and
>> using it in some productive way" or even as "being a decent person."
>
> Well, those two are certainly not mutually exclusive. If you look at
> "wealth" as "the result of being productive", then yes, people are using
> their brains in a productive way.
>
I say again, wealth is the result of succeeding at getting wealth.
Aren't schoolteachers productive? (The good ones, anyway?)
>> No, just observing. It's like real estate--"location, location,
>> location"--not something over which Bill and Oprah had any particular
>> prenatal control, just incredibly good luck.
>
> Sure. But you seem to be complaining that they're wealthy.
>
I say again, I am _not_ complaining that they're wealthy. I'm
_observing_ that they're wealthy not only because they're good at what
they do (getting wealth, among other things), but because they had the
immense good fortune to be born in a location where it was possible for
them to exercise that ability.
>> Again--what is the relationship between any individual's _taxpayer_
>> percentile and _income_ percentile?
>
> It's in that table. I'm not sure what question you're asking, if that
> table doesn't answer it.
>
$364,657 is 1st percentile? Does that seem likely to you? Really? And
does the organization that posted these figures have an agenda?
>> (And don't those figures paint a lovely picture of the gap between the
>> filthy rich and the dirt poor?)
>
> What, that less than 1% of the people in the country make more than ten
> times the median income? You know, that doesn't seem too bad to me.
>
Columns one and three, top two rows. Column two is...dubious. (Think
about the many, many businesses where the top guys make 100+ times what
the lowest-paid employees make. Then review the figures.)
>> Which leads to a bizarre, sideways-to-the-topic speculation: Is it
>> actually possible to have more money than you can spend?
>
> I think you can have more than you can *not waste* pretty easily. I
> think having more than you could actually *throw away* would be harder.
>
Ah. Define "waste."
>> or is it like that business about not being able to march all the
>> Chinese past a given point?
>
> Clearly, if you had more than half the money in the world, you couldn't
> spend it all. Other than that...
>
Why not?
Amelia the Wonder Dog and I are the last two people in the world. I
have $10. She has $5 and the last bottle of Guinness in the world. I
say, "Please sell me that bottle of Guinness." She says, "I will, for
$10." You can imagine the rest.
>> You could calculate/guesstimate the amount of income per day or second
>> or whatever (and the amount of expenditure necessary to reduce that
>> amount consistently), but how do you calculate potential
>> expenditures? In a world that has space tourism and Japanese toilets,
>> this could be a problem. Not actually trying to change the subject,
>> just slightly distracted by a shiny thing. ;)
>
> Sure. I read that at one point, assuming Bill Gates worked 14 hours a
> day, it wasn't worth the four seconds it would take for him to bend over
> and pick up a $500 bill he dropped. I'd say that's "faster than you can
> spend it."
>
> Not faster than you can invest it, of course.
>
There's a speed difference between "spending" and "investing"?
> I know several friends who got into serious grief
> with the IRS by getting stock grants at $2/share, exercising (but not
> selling) it when it was $50/share, and then selling it when it was back
> to $1/share, and nevertheless owing taxes on $48/share even tho they
> lost money in the whole thing.
>
I think that's called "evolution at work."
>
>> I *like* arg-- erm, "discussing" with you--ye're rat smart. ;)
>
> I *think* that's a compliment? :-)
>
Yep.
>
> I think it's made clear he's just white, a plain old horse. Magically
> enhanced, yes. But isn't Mort's first job to shovel up after Binky?
>
It strikes me that the ability to fly, both in the world and between
realities (if you count Death's Place as an alternate reality), could
easily be enough to make your poop sparkle, at least as a side effect,
but that's just a speculation. And sure, Mort had to muck out the
stable, but did he follow Binky around with a pooper-scooper while he
(Binky, that is) was on duty? I think not.
--Sherry Shaw
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> I say again, wealth is the result of succeeding at getting wealth.
> Aren't schoolteachers productive? (The good ones, anyway?)
Depends how you count, I suppose. Just saying "wealth is the result of
getting wealth" isn't a very useful statement. Wealth has to be measured
by someone outside of you. Hence, it's what people will pay you for the
value you give them.
Now, if you want to argue that the measurement is distorted, and that
Buffet doesn't actually do very much to generate value (from what I can
see), I'll agree. But I think what Gates did was pretty valuable.
> I say again, I am _not_ complaining that they're wealthy. I'm
> _observing_ that they're wealthy not only because they're good at what
> they do (getting wealth, among other things), but because they had the
> immense good fortune to be born in a location where it was possible for
> them to exercise that ability.
I meant in the over-all screed.
> $364,657 is 1st percentile? Does that seem likely to you? Really? And
> does the organization that posted these figures have an agenda?
Did you actually look at where the numbers come from? Do you think a
report from the IRS to the House Of Representatives has *less* reliable
numbers on income and tax paying than you'll find elsewhere?
> Columns one and three, top two rows. Column two is...dubious. (Think
> about the many, many businesses where the top guys make 100+ times what
> the lowest-paid employees make. Then review the figures.)
Where would you go, besides the IRS, to get less dubious numbers?
>> I think you can have more than you can *not waste* pretty easily. I
>> think having more than you could actually *throw away* would be harder.
> Ah. Define "waste."
Spending it without getting a fraction of the value?
You could pay $100K for a used honda civic and waste your money.
You could pay $100K for a new lotos lambergini and not waste your money.
You could pay $100K to a good teacher on the condition he stop teaching,
and create negative value.
You could pay $100K for an Indy formula-1 race car and invest your money.
>> Clearly, if you had more than half the money in the world, you
>> couldn't spend it all. Other than that...
>
> Why not?
What would you buy with it?
> Amelia the Wonder Dog and I are the last two people in the world. I
> have $10. She has $5 and the last bottle of Guinness in the world. I
> say, "Please sell me that bottle of Guinness." She says, "I will, for
> $10." You can imagine the rest.
Then she has more wealth than you, because she has $5 plus $10 worth of
beer, and you only have $10. If it's down to two people, you can't value
"money" abstractly any more. Fiat currency doesn't work when there's
only two people.
> There's a speed difference between "spending" and "investing"?
Uh, sure. Wait. I don't know. What's a "speed difference"?
>> I know several friends who got into serious grief with the IRS by
>> getting stock grants at $2/share, exercising (but not selling) it when
>> it was $50/share, and then selling it when it was back to $1/share,
>> and nevertheless owing taxes on $48/share even tho they lost money in
>> the whole thing.
>>
>
> I think that's called "evolution at work."
It's called "not understanding the fuckage that is the USA tax system."
>>> I *like* arg-- erm, "discussing" with you--ye're rat smart. ;)
>> I *think* that's a compliment? :-)
> Yep.
I'm glad. :-)
>> I think it's made clear he's just white, a plain old horse. Magically
>> enhanced, yes. But isn't Mort's first job to shovel up after Binky?
>>
>
> It strikes me that the ability to fly, both in the world and between
> realities (if you count Death's Place as an alternate reality), could
> easily be enough to make your poop sparkle, at least as a side effect,
... "And other sentences not often heard" ...
> but that's just a speculation. And sure, Mort had to muck out the
> stable, but did he follow Binky around with a pooper-scooper while he
> (Binky, that is) was on duty? I think not.
I will concede that perhaps Binky's poop was sparkly enough to attract
ravens as well as sparrows.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Sherry Shaw wrote:
>>> Again--what is the relationship between any individual's _taxpayer_
>>> percentile and _income_ percentile?
>>
>> Am I reading it wrong? Isn't the middle column the income percentile
>> (or absolute number at least) and the last column the tax percentile?
>> Are you asking something different?
>>
>
> AGI vs. _income_ ... Doesn't $364,657 strike you as a teensy bit
> off-base for 1st percentile?
You think it's too high, or too low?
I think "adjusted gross income" is a good measure. If you're paying
$900/month on a lease that you then sublease for $1000/month, what's
your income there? $100, or $1000?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> AGI vs. _income_ ... Doesn't $364,657 strike you as a teensy bit
>> off-base for 1st percentile?
>
> You think it's too high, or too low?
>
Impossibly low. I've been acquainted with too many people who make that
kind of money. $364,657 is common-as-dirt doctor/lawyer income, not
filthy rich.
--Sherry Shaw
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sherry Shaw wrote:
>> I say again, I am _not_ complaining that they're wealthy. I'm
>> _observing_ that they're wealthy not only because they're good at what
>> they do (getting wealth, among other things), but because they had the
>> immense good fortune to be born in a location where it was possible
>> for them to exercise that ability.
>
> I meant in the over-all screed.
>
Oh, Lord love a duck. Please allow me to reiterate. Wealth is a
privilege, not a right. Privileges have to be paid for. Wealth in the
US (or pick the industrialized nation of your choice) is always in part
a result of the wealth-getter's access to the opportunities available in
the US (or pick the industrialized nation of your choice), therefore
that's who gets paid for that privilege, in the form of higher tax
rates. It's reasonable. It's not reasonable to reward people for
making lots of money, because they've already been rewarded, with lots
of money.
That's my point, my whole point, and nothing but my point. I have
absolutely no objection to people getting rich. I have lots and lots of
objection to governments effectively handing out big stacks of cash to
rich people as a reward for being rich. It's just creepy, and it
doesn't get the road repaired.
>
> Did you actually look at where the numbers come from?
>
No, because there's no way of knowing. The table contains what appears
to be a summary of tax information, unsupported by any raw data or any
indication of how the figures were calculated. It's on a web page
produced by a political action organization. But I didn't see any
references to anyone being probed by aliens, so maybe it's reliable.
>
>> Ah. Define "waste."
>
> Spending it without getting a fraction of the value?
> You could pay $100K for a used honda civic and waste your money.
> You could pay $100K for a new lotos lambergini and not waste your money.
> You could pay $100K to a good teacher on the condition he stop teaching,
> and create negative value.
> You could pay $100K for an Indy formula-1 race car and invest your money.
>
How is $100K for a Lamberghini not waste, if a $50 used Honda Civic will
get you where you're going, and with better gas mileage? Where's the
line? And how in heaven's name is that Indy car different from a very
expensive lottery ticket?
>
>>> Clearly, if you had more than half the money in the world, you
>>> couldn't spend it all. Other than that...
>
>> Amelia the Wonder Dog and I are the last two people in the world. I
>> have $10. She has $5 and the last bottle of Guinness in the world. I
>> say, "Please sell me that bottle of Guinness." She says, "I will, for
>> $10." You can imagine the rest.
>
> Then she has more wealth than you, because she has $5 plus $10 worth of
> beer, and you only have $10. If it's down to two people, you can't value
> "money" abstractly any more. Fiat currency doesn't work when there's
> only two people.
>
Oopsie, you switched from "money" to "wealth" as if they were the same
thing, and then turned around and said that they're different. Naughty.
>> There's a speed difference between "spending" and "investing"?
>
> Uh, sure. Wait. I don't know. What's a "speed difference"?
>
Got it right here...."I read that at one point, assuming Bill Gates
worked 14 hours a day, it wasn't worth the four seconds it would take
for him to bend over and pick up a $500 bill he dropped. I'd say that's
'faster than you can spend it.' Not faster than you can invest it, of
course."
Why is investing faster than merely spending?
>>
>> I think that's called "evolution at work."
>
> It's called "not understanding the fuckage that is the USA tax system."
>
There's that. And also not understanding the whole "buy low, sell high"
thing.
>> It strikes me that the ability to fly, both in the world and between
>> realities (if you count Death's Place as an alternate reality), could
>> easily be enough to make your poop sparkle, at least as a side effect,
>
> ... "And other sentences not often heard" ...
>
LOL!
>> but that's just a speculation. And sure, Mort had to muck out the
>> stable, but did he follow Binky around with a pooper-scooper while he
>> (Binky, that is) was on duty? I think not.
>
> I will concede that perhaps Binky's poop was sparkly enough to attract
> ravens as well as sparrows.
>
And let us not forget the blue jays. And of course the techies, geeks,
and nerds.
--Sherry Shaw
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:45:57 -0500, Sherry Shaw <ten### [at] aol com>
wrote:
>
>Oh, Lord love a duck. Please allow me to reiterate.
LOL, I've not heard that phrase in donkey's years :)
BTW I'm with you all the way on this one. Wealth is a right indeed!
Tell that to the marines :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:23:19 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Did you actually look at where the numbers come from? Do you think a
> report from the IRS to the House Of Representatives has *less* reliabl
e
> numbers on income and tax paying than you'll find elsewhere?
I've checked one level down and the figures are accurate, they're just n
ot
explained well.
For example if:
9 people earn $2,000/year with tax@10%
1 person earns $10,000/year with tax@10%
Therefore total tax = $2,800
Therefore the top 10% is paying ~36% of all the tax; better yet
9 people earn $2,000/year with tax@10%
1 person earns $10,000/year with tax@8%
Therefore total tax = $2,600
Therefore the top 10% is paying ~31% of all the tax. How dare we force
this percentile to carry the burden for the remainder :-P
Nota Bene. With the real figures the bottom 50% pay between 7% and 12% o
n
their taxable income whereas the top 50% pay between 12% and 28%, so the
y
really are paying more percentage-wise it's just that they're not paying
'as much' as the press release might suggest.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
