 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:47f4b32f@news.povray.org...
>
> I believe that in many countries (such as the US) a 60% tax sounds
> completely incredible and outrageous. But it happens here.
>
It maxes out at 45% here. Though that's just income tax and doesn't include
VAT (14%), road tax (I think 5% on all petrol/diesel) and the assorted other
involuntary drains.
Seeing that we don't have free schooling, public hospitals are a mess, the
roads are falling apart and so's the electricity grid, I have no idea where
all that money actually goes.
Welcome to the 3rd world. Where the rich support the politicians' expensive
holidays and mansions and the poor still starve.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> Seeing that we don't have free schooling, public hospitals are a mess, the
> roads are falling apart and so's the electricity grid, I have no idea where
> all that money actually goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Graph_%28military_spenders%29.jpg
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw escribió:
> VAT (14%)
VAT is 21% in Argentina. >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47f502ce@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> > Seeing that we don't have free schooling, public hospitals are a mess,
the
> > roads are falling apart and so's the electricity grid, I have no idea
where
> > all that money actually goes.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Graph_%28military_spenders%29.jpg
And it's not the millitary.
No big surprise, we've got no one to fight. Millitary's not even patroling
the borders anymore (Job belongs to the already understaffed police service)
p.s. I'm not in the USA.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message
news:47f53b2a@news.povray.org...
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Graph_%28military_spenders%29.jpg
31st place!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> VAT (14%)
>
> VAT is 21% in Argentina. >_<
And it recently went up from 16% to 19% here in Germany.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> p.s. I'm not in the USA.
I apologize. I don't know why I got the impression that you were.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> And it recently went up from 16% to 19% here in Germany.
At least you pay only that VAT when you buy a car. Here in Finland you
pay something like 98% in taxes when you buy a car (which means you have
to pay almost double of the car's original price).
(OTOH it's not as bad as in Denmark, where they have to pay something
like 210% in taxes when they buy a car.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> At least you pay only that VAT when you buy a car. Here in Finland you
> pay something like 98% in taxes when you buy a car (which means you have
> to pay almost double of the car's original price).
Why doesn't everyone in Finland go to do another EU country to buy their car
then? Heck, lots of people in England do this even though the difference is
at most just a couple of thousand pounds and you have all the hassle with
buying a right hand drive car in a left hand drive country.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 Apr 2008 03:54:58 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>> p.s. I'm not in the USA.
>
> I apologize. I don't know why I got the impression that you were.
It's hard to tell colonials apart, sometimes. <g>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > At least you pay only that VAT when you buy a car. Here in Finland you
> > pay something like 98% in taxes when you buy a car (which means you have
> > to pay almost double of the car's original price).
> Why doesn't everyone in Finland go to do another EU country to buy their car
> then?
Because when you bring the car to Finland you have to pay the taxes
anyways.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Because when you bring the car to Finland you have to pay the taxes
> anyways.
In the US they're clever. They don't call it "sales tax". They call it
"use tax". So you can't go to a state without sales tax, buy a car or
boat or something, and avoid paying your home sales tax.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> ...I got in an argument with a fellow about fare collectors. Anyway,
> that's not the interesting part.
>
> What really made me stop and think was when I realized that most
> everyone agrees that things "should" be "fair", but disagree what "fair"
> means.
>
> To one camp, "fair" means that everyone pays the same price for the same
> service. Ie, a gallon of gas costs Donald Trump the same X dollars as
> Joe Blow next door. Since it's X for both guys, it's "fair".
>
> To the other camp, "fair" means that everyone pays the same *percentage*
> of their income for certain goods. I pay X% of my income in taxes for
> the benefit of good roads(1), and the Donald pays the same(2) X%. Since
> X is the same, it's "fair".
Donald Trump would *love* to pay the same percentage of his income in
taxes as I do. His proportion of taxes vs. income is much higher than mine.
Such proposals as your opponent advocates could only appeal to someone
so lacking in self-confidence that the only joy they can hope for is the
neurotic joy of sticking it to people who are more fortunate.
"They're the party of the rich!"
"Then sign me up! I'm tired of being poor!"
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Because when you bring the car to Finland you have to pay the taxes
>> anyways.
>
> In the US they're clever. They don't call it "sales tax". They call it
> "use tax". So you can't go to a state without sales tax, buy a car or
> boat or something, and avoid paying your home sales tax.
>
Depends on the state, since individual states implement sales taxes.
For instance, Washington State has a sales tax. Oregon doesn't. Lot's
of Washintonians who live on the border do their shopping in Oregon as a
result.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Because when you bring the car to Finland you have to pay the taxes
>>> anyways.
>>
>> In the US they're clever. They don't call it "sales tax". They call it
>> "use tax". So you can't go to a state without sales tax, buy a car or
>> boat or something, and avoid paying your home sales tax.
>>
>
> Depends on the state, since individual states implement sales taxes. For
> instance, Washington State has a sales tax. Oregon doesn't. Lot's of
> Washintonians who live on the border do their shopping in Oregon as a
> result.
But if you buy something big, like a car or a boat, and take it back to
Washington, when you try to register it to use it, they'll charge you a
"use tax". That's what I'm saying. They couldn't charge you a sales tax,
because you didn't buy it in their jurisdiction. But they can charge you
a use tax for driving it there.
In theory, this is true of most everything. In practice, they can only
catch you if you're required to tell them you bought it. It is, for
example, why it's illegal to bring cigarettes into New York without
paying for New York tobacco stamps, and the same with liquor in
Pennsylvania.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
> (3) I wish the Democrats would get over their "Robin Hood" mentality and
> figure this out.
>
OK. (1)
The biggest "entitlement boondoggle" in the history of the world is the
idea that some people are entitled to grab everything within reach and
are then entitled to hang onto it. Baloney. It's never been that way
in the history or prehistory of the world, and it isn't that way now.
"Wealth" (2) is also called "privilege" because that's what it is--a
privilege.
Privilege isn't about the cream rising, it's about being good at getting
and holding on and about being in the right place at the right time. (3)
If Bill Gates had been born in Kenya, he'd be outstanding in his
field--actually out standing in his field, leaning on a spear, and
counting his cows. If Oprah Winfrey had been born in Kenya, well, hell,
she'd be dead by now--uppity woman, anyway. But Bill and Oprah had the
_privilege_ of being born in a place where they could amass wealth and
power and _privilege_ and I'm damned if I can see why they shouldn't pay
for that privilege. (4) There ain't no such thing as a free lunch for
rich folks, either.
Back in the halcyon days of Ozzie and Harriet and Ward and June, the
uppermost income tax bracket paid something like 90% (5) Oddly enough,
the rich folks didn't all just roll over and play dead--they kept right
on doing what they did and building stuff and inventing stuff and making
lots of money and so forth. And meanwhile, we all got NASA and the
interstate highway system and a whole buttload of new school buildings
and so on.
The proper function of government is to standardize or purchase the kind
of infrastructure that can't practically be gotten piecemeal, and taxes
are the proper mechanism for that process. (6) Taxes are _not_ the
proper mechanism for making public servants (7) rich, or for declaring
war on the rest of the planet, or for increasing the divide between rich
and poor or for obliterating the middle class (which, in the long run,
is the ultimate source of the rich folks' wealth, as well as the poor
folks' hope of not being poor anymore.
Aaaaaaah, there's nothing like a good rant!
--Sherry Shaw
(1) Actually, I'm a Pie-Throwing Anarchist who votes Democratic. But
I'll bite.
(2) By which I mean wealth down at the far-right, skinny end of the
bell curve.
(3) The three most intelligent and hard-working people I know are all
teachers; needless to say, none of them is wealthy.
(4) Yep, poor example; both Bill and Oprah give a lot of their money
away. But they're at the top of their respective heaps, so I'm using
them anyway.
(5) By the way, the part most people miss is that it's n% of Adjusted
Gross Income, not just income. You have to look at the exemptions,
deductions, credits, etc. (If you want to know if your taxes have
really been going up or down, you need to plug this year's data into
last year's forms, and vice versa.)
(6) Beyond that, governments should be caged, muzzled, and injected
with Haldol whenever possible.
(7) Read "public masters"; yep, I swiped that from Mr. Heinlein.
--
#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:
> "Wealth" (2) is also called "privilege" because that's what it is--a
> privilege.
I know a fair number of wealthy people. If you took away all their money
today, they'd all be wealthy again in a few years or less.
> If Bill Gates had been born in Kenya, he'd be outstanding in his
> field--actually out standing in his field, leaning on a spear, and
> counting his cows.
And that's why Kenya is a poor country.
> _privilege_ of being born in a place where they could amass wealth and
> power and _privilege_ and I'm damned if I can see why they shouldn't pay
> for that privilege. (4) There ain't no such thing as a free lunch for
> rich folks, either.
No, there isn't. They pay huge amounts of taxes. The top 1% of the
taxpayers in the USA pay something like 50% of the taxes.
> (4) Yep, poor example; both Bill and Oprah give a lot of their money
> away.
Actually, I read an interesting article that basically argued that
without people who are so rich they couldn't possibly spend all their
money, you wouldn't have anyone who would be forced to invest, so you'd
get very little improvements in the lives of those with only enough to
live on. Basically, everyone's hand-to-mouth, until you get people rich
enough they can't use it all, at which point that has to flow back into
the economy as investment.
> (5) By the way, the part most people miss is that it's n% of Adjusted
> Gross Income, not just income. You have to look at the exemptions,
> deductions, credits, etc.
And you have to look at AMT.
Why do you think there are all those deductions? Because congress can't
resist taking bribes to make up deductions for their friends.
--
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:
>> "Wealth" (2) is also called "privilege" because that's what it is--a
>> privilege.
>
> I know a fair number of wealthy people. If you took away all their money
> today, they'd all be wealthy again in a few years or less.
>
Right. That's what they're good at. Kinda my point.
>> If Bill Gates had been born in Kenya, he'd be outstanding in his
>> field--actually out standing in his field, leaning on a spear, and
>> counting his cows.
>
> And that's why Kenya is a poor country.
>
Precisely. It's circular.
>> _privilege_ of being born in a place where they could amass wealth and
>> power and _privilege_ and I'm damned if I can see why they shouldn't
>> pay for that privilege. (4) There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
>> for rich folks, either.
>
> No, there isn't. They pay huge amounts of taxes. The top 1% of the
> taxpayers in the USA pay something like 50% of the taxes.
>
Whoa...hard to know where to start. Source of figures? And
relationship of top 1% of the taxpayers to top 1% of incomes...?
>> (4) Yep, poor example; both Bill and Oprah give a lot of their money
>> away.
>
> Actually, I read an interesting article that basically argued that
> without people who are so rich they couldn't possibly spend all their
> money, you wouldn't have anyone who would be forced to invest, so you'd
> get very little improvements in the lives of those with only enough to
> live on. Basically, everyone's hand-to-mouth, until you get people rich
> enough they can't use it all, at which point that has to flow back into
> the economy as investment.
>
IRAs. Pension plans. Savings bonds. Why do you think people have to
be "forced" to invest? People invest to make money or to secure their
futures, not because they can't think of anything else to do with their
money. And, if everyone's either too rich to spend their money, or else
living hand-to-mouth, where's the middle class?
>> (5) By the way, the part most people miss is that it's n% of Adjusted
>> Gross Income, not just income. You have to look at the exemptions,
>> deductions, credits, etc.
>
> And you have to look at AMT.
>
Which, oddly enough, tends to hit the middle class way worse than the
upper class.
> Why do you think there are all those deductions? Because congress can't
> resist taking bribes to make up deductions for their friends.
>
Well, yeah. (But then there's the EIC...not too many Congressman and
their friends getting that...)
--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:
> Right. That's what they're good at. Kinda my point.
I guess I quoted the wrong part of your screed. It *is* the "cream
rising" if you define "cream" as "capable of creating wealth." It isn't
just "being in the right place at the right time", but knowing what
place you should be in when.
>> And that's why Kenya is a poor country.
> Precisely. It's circular.
I guess I'm not following why you seem to be complaining, if that's what
you're doing.
>> No, there isn't. They pay huge amounts of taxes. The top 1% of the
>> taxpayers in the USA pay something like 50% of the taxes.
>
> Whoa...hard to know where to start. Source of figures? And
> relationship of top 1% of the taxpayers to top 1% of incomes...?
GIYF.
http://www.house.gov/jec/news/news2006/pr109-94.pdf
I was slightly off. The top 5% pay 50% of the taxes. The top 1% pay only
a third of the taxes.
And it's apparently getting more skewed:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
> IRAs. Pension plans. Savings bonds. Why do you think people have to
> be "forced" to invest? People invest to make money or to secure their
> futures, not because they can't think of anything else to do with their
> money.
Some do, yes: Those who don't have more money than they know what to do
with. Those who *do* have more money than they could possibly spend
invest because it's that or burn it in the fireplace. :-)
> And, if everyone's either too rich to spend their money, or else
> living hand-to-mouth, where's the middle class?
My distinction is between people who could spend all their money (on
personal material goods) and those who couldn't. I'd expect everyone in
the "middle class" could certainly find something to spend their entire
life savings on.
When you have more money than California, it's hard to spend it all.
> Which, oddly enough, tends to hit the middle class way worse than the
> upper class.
It does now, yes. In truth, the really rich people don't actually own
that much money, which is how you get away from AMT. Bill Gates doesn't
have all that much money. He has a whole bunch of Microsoft stock, and
*Microsoft* has a whole bunch of money. And Bill Gates has a whole
bunch of credit.
(OK, yes, Bill Gates has lots of money. But hopefully you follow what
I'm saying there.)
--
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:
> 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."
>
>>> And that's why Kenya is a poor country.
>> Precisely. It's circular.
>
> I guess I'm not following why you seem to be complaining, if that's what
> you're doing.
>
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.
>
> I was slightly off. The top 5% pay 50% of the taxes. The top 1% pay only
> a third of the taxes.
>
Again--what is the relationship between any individual's _taxpayer_
percentile and _income_ percentile? (And don't those figures paint a
lovely picture of the gap between the filthy rich and the dirt poor?)
>
> Those who *do* have more money than they could possibly spend
> invest because it's that or burn it in the fireplace. :-)
>
> ...When you have more money than California, it's hard to spend it all.
Which leads to a bizarre, sideways-to-the-topic speculation: Is it
actually possible to have more money than you can spend? I've heard
this description of extreme wealth for roughly forever, but I can't say
that I've ever seen it analyzed in any way. Is this a real condition,
or is it like that business about not being able to march all the
Chinese past a given point? 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. ;)
> In truth, the really rich people don't actually own
> that much money, which is how you get away from AMT. Bill Gates doesn't
> have all that much money. He has a whole bunch of Microsoft stock, and
> *Microsoft* has a whole bunch of money. And Bill Gates has a whole
> bunch of credit.
>
> (OK, yes, Bill Gates has lots of money. But hopefully you follow what
> I'm saying there.)
>
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?
I *like* arg-- erm, "discussing" with you--ye're rat smart. ;)
--Sherry Shaw
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.
*<Pratchett reference> I imagine Binky's is silvery colored, with blue
and clear glitter. </Pratchett reference>
--
#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:
> 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] aolcom>
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> 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!
Apologies. Being undercaffinated, it didn't occur to me you might not
know how the USA's tax system works.
This is a report from the people who *write* the tax laws, saying "this
is what the people who *collect* the taxes told us they're collecting,
which we should consider when we ammend next year's tax laws."
It's not a political action committee. It's the actual elected officials
in charge of deciding on how much tax to collect from whom, saying
"here's how it works out right now."
--
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.
By the way, I think thinking fully 1% of the population should be
"filthy rich" is a bad idea. I also think that this is typical selection
bias.
How many patients do you think that doctor sees? Let's be generous, and
say four a day, for 200 days a year. That's 800 patients, presumedly few
who are themselves doctors.
How many health insurance adjusters are there for each doctor?
Walk into the big grocery store nearby. Look around. How many people
shopping there do you think are making $400K a year?
Watch a movie. Look at the credits. How many people in the 5 minute
scroll of names do you think are making as much money as the names in
the first 30 seconds of the scroll?
It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the
poor people who you pass every day.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is everyone
> else completely without blame?
Generally, it takes a government with the ability to print its own money
and to take away yours against your will to *really* screw up an
economy. Otherwise, you just get particular sectors having trouble.
--
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" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4803ab8e$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > Look how many of the comments are only blaming the government. Is
everyone
> > else completely without blame?
>
> Generally, it takes a government with the ability to print its own money
> and to take away yours against your will to *really* screw up an
> economy.
Like Zimbabwe...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> 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.
You mean that in western societies we have a silent majority of civil
servants?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48038975$1@news.povray.org...
> It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the poor
> people who you pass every day.
That was a low call.
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New /
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
> By the way, I think thinking fully 1% of the population should be
> "filthy rich" is a bad idea. I also think that this is typical selection
> bias.
>
> How many patients do you think that doctor sees? Let's be generous, and
> say four a day, for 200 days a year. That's 800 patients, presumedly few
> who are themselves doctors.
>
> How many health insurance adjusters are there for each doctor?
>
> Walk into the big grocery store nearby. Look around. How many people
> shopping there do you think are making $400K a year?
There might be a selection bias here too. If I go to a grocery nearby I
most probably won't see any filthy rich person. They don't live here.
Then again I know some places where I wouldn't expect less than 90% rich
people (the other 10% being their servants).
But that might have been your point too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:41:29 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> 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.
>You mean that in western societies we have a silent majority of civil
>servants?
What part of the Netherlands do you live in, again? ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:37:51 +0200, "Gail Shaw"
<initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>
>Like Zimbabwe...
Like Zimbabwe, indeed.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:47:11 +0100, "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
>news:48038975$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
>> It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the poor
>> people who you pass every day.
>
> That was a low call.
>
Fighting talk, where I come from. Worse than putting your empty beer
glass, upside down on the table.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
> "Wealth" (2) is also called "privilege" because that's what it is--a
> privilege.
Actually, I'm going to dispute this. Your ability to hang on to the
money that others have voluntarily given you is not a privilege. It's a
fundamental fact.
This is what a war-lord is: someone with enough money to buy weapons and
defenses and to hire people to man them in order to keep you from taking
away what's left.
Midieval knights didn't get their armor by collecting taxes to pay for
it. They got their taxes by wearing armor to collect it.
In what conceivable sense is it a "privilege" to take at gunpoint
someone else's labor? I don't know about where you live, but here we
used to call that slavery.
I suspect that if Bill Gates took his $140 billion dollars to Kenya in
some form that wasn't just fiat currency, he would have no trouble at
all keeping it, given that he'd have twice the GDP of all of Kenya at
his disposal for buying fortresses, weapons, etc.
So no, having money that *you* earned isn't a privilege unless you think
"privilege" means "i've decided to not try to kill you for your money."
If you think it's a privilege not to be torn apart by the mob, yeah, I
can see where you might think being wealthy is a privilege.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:48038975$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
>> It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the poor
>> people who you pass every day.
>
> That was a low call.
Perhaps I phrased it wrong. It's that you're not conciously counting all
the people who aren't making $400K that you pass each day, because
they're not exceptional in your mind. (That's what "selection bias"
means, in some sense.)
--
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:
> St. wrote:
>> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
>> news:48038975$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>
>>> It's not that you know lots of doctors. It's that you ignore all the
>>> poor people who you pass every day.
>>
>> That was a low call.
>
> Perhaps I phrased it wrong.
I.e., not that you're "ignoring them" as unworthy, but that you're
"ignoring them" when counting the percentage of people who make lots of
money. You obviously interact more with people who make lots of money -
that's how they make it.
Me, I think I know very few people who make >$250K who don't have
millions and millions of dollars. (I know a fair number of people who
have millions and millions of dollars, tho.)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Nota Bene. With the real figures the bottom 50% pay between 7% and 12%
> on their taxable income whereas the top 50% pay between 12% and 28%,
You're missing the AMT there, which goes 29% to 36% this year, I think.
Anyway, here's another question to ponder: How much of the government
services do people making >$200K consume?
I'd expect they're paying for public schools and sending their kids to
private schools.
I don't imagine the police are coming around to their house every week.
I don't imagine they take up *too* many hours of public defender's time.
They're not on welfare.
They're indeed paying half of *everyone*'s FICA taxes. If not 3/4'ths.
I wouldn't imagine they use up (say) ten times as much military
preparedness.
They can afford to hire their own bodyguards, so they don't need police
cruising the neighborhood.
So what *is* the excuse for taking more, other than "the rich people
don't get hurt enough to actually fight back with violence."
--
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 14:18:53 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Me, I think I know very few people who make >$250K
And you work in IT?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:14:01 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
> yeah, I
>can see where you might think being wealthy is a privilege.
Come the revolution, comrade :)
Seriously tho' thinking like that is so … yesterday.
That's how the B*st*rds grind us down by promises that we can join
them.
--
Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
:-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
