 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
>>>> 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.)
>
> You're not making sense.
That's because you're taking the conversation completely out of context.
In this context, if you actually look, "poor" is the 98th percentile and
lower. "Poor" as opposed to "filthy rich." "Poor" as in "I know lots of
people making more than $328K a year, so there couldn't possibly be 99%
of the country making less than that."
--
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 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:11:22 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com>
wrote:
>> It seemed such a Dutch reply. (No bad thing :)
>Huh, ok.
Some humour does not travel :)
>> I am working in Sluiskil, Zeeland just now, for my sins :)
>Shall I do another one?
No, I have enough of my own :)
>I know there are differences in legislation between the Netherlands and
>Belgium which makes Zeeuws Vlaanderen a good place for a certain type of
> business. I hope you are not referring to that kind of sin.
LOL No (If I understand you, although I have been to Terneuzen where
there is a large tourist industry for that sort of thing :). I am
working for a chemical and fertiliser company.
I had not heard "Zeeuws Vlaanderen" before but now know where you
mean.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:06:24 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>
>Yes. Relatively speaking, I know personally not that many whose AGI is
>more than $250K. One out of 100 of the people I know? Yeah, that's
>about right.
Well OK 250k USD even at today's rate is a bit high, although 200k USD
would be not unusual for IT consultants in the UK (at least in SAP).
But then our cost of living is high.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:08:11 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Thinking that it's actually *right* for the mob to tear the rich people
>apart instead of simply mob violence? Yeah, that *is* so yesterday.
>
I forgot that "Come the revolution" is probably not a common phrase in
the US :)
Of course it is not right to condone mob violence and I personally
don't. I was just feeling "Bolshy"
>I subscribe to the "if it needs to be done, don't try to justify it with
>morality" school. If the rich need to be beat up, don't try and get God
>or Right or History to justify you. Just go do it.
Well I don't agree with that approach at all, at all.
Although a little bit of pragmatism never comes amiss.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:27:46 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> 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.
For 2004 I've got the AGI and returns broken down by wages, the taxable
income for each and the total tax generated from that income.
So for those in 2004 earning <$2,000 we have 300,578 returns making up
0.2926% of all returns with a taxable amount of $12,5052,000 of which
$9,080,000 is tax (7.2610%) totaling 0.0010% of all tax collected.
The highest percentage is those earning between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000;
45,055 returns; $69,937,281,000 gross taxable; $19,605,837,000 in tax
(28.0335%) and 2.2503% of total tax collected.
> Anyway, here's another question to ponder: How much of the government
> services do people making >$200K consume?
Amusingly when I first read this thread that was a point I was going to
make - why should those who don't use the services be forced to contribute
to them. Okay assume that if you have the money then you'll pay to go
private and not use any public services; that means by definition the only
ones using them will be those who can't afford to pay for private (i.e.
the poor). So you hit a problem - you either don't take enough money to
run such services properly or you take so much that you leave the people
destitute.
Of course it might open up new business, if a private health clinic offers
treatment per annum for less then the government is taking away from you
then more people opt out of this public service; except such businesses
can opt to be picky on who they take.
So the healthy and unhealthy rich get fantastic treatment, the healthy
poor get some treatment and the unhealthy poor are essentially left to
fend for themselves and possibly turn to mugging the healthy poor (the
rich having too much security). Oo don't forget trickle-down :-P
> So what *is* the excuse for taking more, other than "the rich people
> don't get hurt enough to actually fight back with violence."
No that's pretty much it. There was an amusing Bremner, Bird, and Fortune
sketch on TV not long ago discussing the loss of our 10% bracket and how
one of the advisors (from Goldman Sachs) had no notion of loosing any
chunk of their income -
by her personal assistant"
"And how did she react?"
"Well she didn't notice for a couple of years"
[audience laughter]
Likewise we've had some Times columnists shoot herself in the foot by
and then got blitzed by people pointing out that those loosing said amount
large.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:49:57 +0100, Chambers
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I blame the people.
>
> Here's one comment I loved:
>
> "The middle class is to blame for for middle class woes. Middle class
> America has been living lifestyle that exceeds their income for far too
> long.
>
> It’s hard for me to feel sorry for people living in McMansions, with
> plasma tv’s and driving luxury cars and SUVs. I think before the
> governemnt starts giving out more handouts, middle class America needs
> to tighten their belts, live sensibly, and yes, maybe even cancel cable
> TV before sending out a lynch mob on the GOP and big oil."
>
> The other day, I was talking to someone about saving money. They tried
> the usual objects, "Oh, it's hard, I don't make very much, blah blah
> blah". Of *course* they think it's hard, they've never done it! Anyway,
> I was telling this person that first, it's possible, and second, it's
> important that they make sacrifices to save money. One of the other
> tellers butted in, agreeing with the customer that it wasn't reasonable
> to expect them to save money! I practically wanted to rip her throat
> out for being so stupid, and undermining everything I was saying.
Ah now see you're being a good member of society and she's being a good
member of the bank; remember it's debt that makes the world go around. You
should be encouraging people to live beyond their means by taking out ever
increasing loans; that's how bonuses are awarded.
> As long as society in general doesn't value thriftiness(1), sacrifice,
> or saving, then society in general will have all kinds of problems. I'm
> not going to have those problems(2), because I'm not going to *let*
> myself have them.
Well no we seeing what happens when banks stop wanting to lend out money
and people are begin to want to save and not move houses, buy that new car
etc. The economy starts to grind to a halt.
> (2) This is not to say I won't have problems. However, I'm not going to
> have to worry about my financial future, or my ability to live. I am
> completely in control of those things, and I know enough to take care of
> myself.
Then in economic terms you're a plug stopping the flow of money, how
selfish of you :-P
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:57:53 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> 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.
To back you up for 2004, 0.6544% of returns earn more then $500,000 and
2.9371% earn more then $200,000; so that top 1% point has to lie in the
$200k-$500k bracket.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48043cc2$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>>>> 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.)
>>
>> You're not making sense.
>
> That's because you're taking the conversation completely out of context.
>
> In this context, if you actually look, "poor" is the 98th percentile and
> lower. "Poor" as opposed to "filthy rich." "Poor" as in "I know lots of
> people making more than $328K a year, so there couldn't possibly be 99% of
> the country making less than that."
OIC. Are you sure?
~Steve~
>
> --
> 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:
> $19,605,837,000 in tax (28.0335%) and 2.2503% of total tax collected.
Yes, I misremembered the rules here. 28% is the "normal" high end of the
AMT, but it can go up to 35% in some cases apparently, due to some rule
or other not being quite phased out or some such nonsense.
--
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:
> Then in economic terms you're a plug stopping the flow of money, how
> selfish of you :-P
Fine by me; I'll plug up the economy, let everyone else go bankrupt, and
then buy all their stock with my hardearned savings :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
