 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sherry Shaw" <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:4802e18d@news.povray.org...
> Oh, Lord love a duck. Please allow me to reiterate. Wealth is a
> privilege, not a right.
On a side note. I ran across this today
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/11/who%e2%80%99s-to-blame-for-midd
le-class-woes/
Now, I know very little about the economic situation in the US, other that
what I read, so I may be waaaay off base but...
Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
else completely without blame?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> that's who gets paid for that privilege, in the form of higher tax
> rates.
I wouldn't say it's a privilege, as the wealth-creator is already giving
much back to the country in terms of creating wealth. That's why they
get money. Everyone giving them money thinks they should have it.
Except the government. They get money because they shoot you if you
don't give it to them.
> 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.
Well, sure. I am not sure why you're arguing that rich people should
pay more taxes, since they do.
> 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.
Sure. But as the IRS documents showed, the government doesn't seem to be
handing out big stacks of cash as a reward for being rich.
> It's on a web page produced by a political action organization.
It's on a web page produced by "political action organization"??
It's on a web page produced by THE F'ING CONGRESS OF THE USA!
Of *course* it's a political action organization! It's what we elect
them for, to take political action!
I ask you again: where do you think you'd get better numbers on tax
rates than a congressional investigation requesting the IRS summarize
those numbers?
If you count the IRS as a "political action organization", what
organization would you trust to give you the numbers you're asking about?
If you think the congress and the IRS are lying, then you'll have to
come up with something more than "I don't believe it" to be credible. I,
personally, believe the IRS is a credible source of information about
how much taxes were collected from whom.
> How is $100K for a Lamberghini not waste,
Because you can't get a Lamberghini for $50, even used.
> And how in heaven's name is that Indy car different from a very
> expensive lottery ticket?
It's not. They're both investments. Different costs, and different
qualities, but both investments.
>> 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.
I switched from "money" to "wealth" when you knocked it down to only two
people, removing any need for money and any possibility of competition.
I think you're confusing "money" with "currency."
This leads me to believe you don't know how wealth actually works, or
how money actually works, or both.
> Why is investing faster than merely spending?
Oh. Because I don't expect to get back and use up the result of
investing as quickly as I get back and use up the result of spending.
See, when you "spend", you trade some money for some stuff, and then
you're done. I "spend" money on rent, because once I write the check, I
have a month's worth of shelter in my pocket.
When I invest, it takes much longer to recoup my money, and maybe I'll
never get value from it. I spend money to buy a house that I plan to
rent out to others. But it takes me years and years of collecting rent
to get the value of my investment back.
Investments are when you give other people money in order to enable them
to create value, then taking part of the value they create in return for
having created the opportunity. Since there are many more people out
there than just me who are capable of creating value given the
opportunity, I can invest much more in other people than I can spend on
myself.
I can buy rental houses for lots of renters, whereas I couldn't live in
more than just a couple myself.
>> 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.
No, they bought low and unfortunately sold lower because the tax laws
encouraged that. Of course, they were taxed *as if* they sold high.
I see you've never run into the AMT before.
Spending $5000 to buy and selling for $2000 isn't a disaster. Owing
$100,000 in taxes on that transaction because folks like you think that
being able to keep your own money is somehow a privilege? That is the
problem. Folks who don't know that there's a difference between wealth
and money. Of course, the government prefers money the treasury can
forge, so you are required to pay your taxes in FRNs. If the folks I was
talking about were able to pay their taxes in stock certificates, it
also wouldn't have been a problem.
--
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:
> 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.
Huh. I think you're mistaken, but OK.
So go and find more reputable numbers than the IRS. When the IRS says
"99%th percentile is $364K", and Sherry Shaw says "my gut feelin' is
a-tellin' me that's too low, and besides, my gout says it's a gonna
rain", I'll take the IRS's word for it.
Are you accounting for the money the doctors and lawyers are paying out
to run their businesses, like malpractice insurance and all?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:49:59 +0200, "Gail Shaw"
<initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
>else completely without blame?
Governments are an easy target and it is healthier than blaming
minority groups.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
