Well you’re implicitly mapping your completely loose definition to a concrete dollar value.
However, I was just pointing out the inconsistency.
I don’t personally have a problem with cut-offs; we have to do them all the time with all sorts of concepts.
Instinctively most of us are quite comfortable dealing with concepts in a fuzzy way; we can describe someone as having a full head of hair or balding without having to state a specific number of hairs at which one becomes another.
But for public policy purposes, it’s often necessary to draw lines. The 200K higher tax rate is just one of many such lines.
Which isn’t, of course, what I said. I was comparing the criticality of two sets of money both of which are not my own.
And I’d be happy to say that $1K of my salary is less critical to me than $1K of someone who earns only $15K.
Not really. I’m far from rich, but I can still look objectively at the situation and agree that paying a few more bucks will hurt me little, but would hurt someone below the poverty line considerably more.
I love theoretical altruists. Why don’t you guys convert it to practice. Find a family, locally, that earns $15K or less and give them $1K. Find like-minded altruists around and have them do the same with other families.
First of all, I put my altruism into practice in many ways, thank you very much.
As for your argument: it’s completely fatuous, and you know it.
Yes I can afford to pay more tax than some, and I’m happy to do so. No, I don’t think it’s a sensible proposition for me to try to find a family to give a lump of cash to (whether it’s instead of, or as well as, paying tax).
I love them too, and the real ones, but that’s all beside the point.
Get back to the real debate.
You’re trying to claim that people who make taxable income over $200K will experience some sort of hardship due to the marginal tax rate increasing 3% such that we’re better off as a country not trying to pay off our debt by increasing their taxes.
Say, I wonder if Terr is also one of those folks who thinks the federal government should be run like a household. What would his $400 a month entertainment budget look like if scaled up to the federal level? And how much higher would the federal government’s “basic level” be than his (since after all, his “basics” are so much more expensive than the vast majority’s)?
I am trying to claim that providing more funds to the government hoping that it will reduce the debt is like providing more booze to an alcoholic hoping that it will reduce the cirrhosis of his liver. Thus I don’t want to provide more, whether from someone earning $200K+ or from someone earning $50K.
I disagree with all tax increases, but why are the arguments about who is rich of not “beside the point”? we veered off “the point” of the OP long ago (which was “why aren’t we taxing corporations more?”). So every part of the discussion here is “beside the point”.
Was it a private college? Back when I went to college even expensive ones were a lot cheaper, even accounting for inflation. I got a loan one year, but after that my father decided it wasn’t worth the effort (we were middle class but not as well off as I am now) and thanks to inflation I finished paying it off when the monthly payments were on the order of the postage.
Maybe I should define rich is that you file a FAFSA for your kid and get nothing except requests from the college for donations while you are paying tuition.
I am late to the party and what I have to add has probably been said, but it needs to be repeated until understood.
Corporations DON’T PAY TAXES, consumers do. If you raise taxes on a coroporation they will inturn raise the prices of their products to pass on the cost. I get really frustrated when I hear this question. Once again, COPRORATIONS DON’T PAY TAXES, YOU DO.
One of my economics professors told me that one reason why the Bush corporate tax cuts were ineffective was because they were not directly tied (not proportional to) production, so corporations had no incentive to hire more workers or pass the savings on to consumers. Instead they just pocketed the money. If that’s true, then wouldn’t the opposite also hold?* Could we tax corporations in ways that are not tied to production numbers, so they don’t pass as much of that on to consumers?
*The flaw here, I’m suspecting, is that unexpected losses are punished disproportionately more to how unexpected gains are rewarded because of risk aversion, so they would raise prices or cut expenses if leveraged with an unexpected tax like that.
