Yep, both private. And I don’t know how much tuition inflation there’s been since the 1990s, but it was in the vicinity of 20 grand a year (for me, at least-- I think my sister’s school was cheaper).
And obbn, individuals don’t pay taxes. The corporations that hire those individuals pay tax indirectly, through their paychecks. See how that works? We could go on this way for as long as you like.
I think aside from the whole 200k debate going on, there’s also a fundamental difference of opinion about taxation as well.
Many people on this board have the idea that they ought to happily pay their taxes as a way to foot their part of the common bill for government services.
A lot of other people have the view that the money they earned is theirs, and taxes are essentially a government-mandated form of theft to pay for the common bill.
Where the real friction occurs is when there are differences of opinion about what that common bill does and should consist of.
If you come from the second school of thought, and 2 things happen, those things being a lot of items on the common bill that you don’t agree with, and don’t want to pay for, and someone suggesting that the government steal a larger proportion of your money to pay for those things, especially in redistributive schemes, it can inflame someone mightily.
I’m somewhere in the middle myself; I understand the necessity of funding the government, but I don’t like the idea that I work between 1.5 and 2 days a week to fund the Federal government; I don’t feel like I get that much value out of the taxes I pay, and am not enthusiastic about paying more tax, unless everyone’s going to share that load equally.
There’s no ‘gotcha’ there, you know. For the third time, ‘a few hundred’ was without property being included.
Self-employed people pay their taxes directly.
I feel this debate has gotten too insane and stupid for me to continue.
I believe you are correct, this is the current debate. But I also believe it demonstrates a relatively new – and rather frightening – turn of mind.
Once upon a time the majority decided what the government would fund, and where those funds would be obtained. I don’t know that anybody on either side paid their taxes “happily” but they seemed to accept it as part of their obligation to the community. The minority bitched, moaned, and planned how to become the majority come next election so they could decide who, what, and where to tax and fund. The two party system ‘worked’ (irony quotes deliberate) because both sides accepted without thought that there was in fact a social contract and all of us were partners in it.
Today though one party has apparently decided that they are no longer partners in the social contract. They demand the ability to pick up their ball and go home, or to actively destroy the game, (the government) rather than accede to the will of the majority. They are not content to await their own turn in the majority, but will instead tear apart the very society that has given them the success and the freedom to do so. The idea that all taxes are “theft” unless they are spent on exactly what they demand, not what the majority has decided, is the height of selfishness and makes them seem like petulant but potentially destructive children. Like the boy who could wish you into a monster or into the corn field if you didn’t smile along with his whims.
This is, I believe, unprecedented in American history. And it scares the shit out of me. Corn field here we come.
You really think that out of those $30M+, all of it was tied in their house?
Bolding mine.
Just to pick a nit - 7th richest actually, if you count GDP, as per 2010. (And one ought to count GDP for these things, no?)
The idyll you describe was when the government spending was 20% of GDP (30s). Or 30% (50s, 60s, 70s). The discontent started in the 80s, when it went to 35% in the 80s-90s but NOW it has reached 40% and has shown no sign of abating. The government is a monster that is growing out of control. So if you want to be scared, be scared of that.
The reason for this is threefold:
One, everybody isn’t chipping in to pay the government bill. In fact, half the income earning population has been exempted from federal income tax altogether.
Two, it’s largely the segment of the population that is no longer contributing to the government bill while also being the recipient of government spending that is deciding that more taxes are needed.
Three, government has expanded tremendously in the last fifty years and most of the group targeted for more taxes is fundamentally opposed to big government. So resistance to increased taxation also comes from a desire to limit the size and scope of government.
Where did I say that? I’d say that some of that money is in their own house and in other properties they own, yes - property is a common investment.
Ok - if you don’t mean their own house, then how is owning property fundamentally different from owning stocks, or bonds, or a business? What’s the point of the distinction you’re making?
Can I ask you again Terr, what a couple of other people have also asked: if the difference between 20k and 200k is so small, and the changes in your life so insignificant, then why are you worried about tax taking any more of your money away?
If you just dislike tax so very much, why not get a different job that pays far less, giving you less tax to pay? After all, it won’t matter if you earn a tenth of what you do now, according to you, you’ll still be poor, and your lifestyle will be ‘broadly the same.’
Did I say the difference was “small” and the changes are “insignificant”?
If you dislike air pollution so much, why don’t you breathe less?
Malthus was excluding property, so I did too, when talking to him. That was what you quoted. I then clarified for you why I was excluding property; this is the second clarification. Please try to read what I write before responding to it.
You repeat this over and over and over and over and over again. And it’s still disingenuous crap. Just because they don’t pay federal income tax doesn’t mean they’re not chipping in to pay the government bill. There’s more taxes than federal income taxes. Why do you keep repeating this lie that half the population doesn’t pay taxes?
You misunderstood Malthus. He was excluding principal residences - as in, your house.
Here’s what you said:
You also said:
And, when asked what you meant by qualitative, since it seemed to differ to the dictionary definition of the word, you said:
If you don’t see much difference, and you’re living broadly the same kind of life, then increasing tax or decreasing pay is not going to make much difference to you, is it?
If you don’t like air pollution, you get a car that pollutes less than others. That analogy was terrible.
BTW: I didn’t misunderstand Malthus, but was going with what he said, and I did make it very clear THREE TIMES (four for the last post this is the fifth) that I was excluding property because he had and that the number would be much larger if you include property. Why do you keep on and on asking me the same thing again and again while not answering a question posed to you?
It will make quantitative difference. I enjoy that quantitative difference.
Yes you did misunderstand him. Hell, ask Malthus what he meant - he’ll tell you. It is common, when talking about people’s assets, to exclude principal residences. It isn’t common (and makes no sense) to exclude any property owned.
You link to a site describing GDP per capita, which seems somewhat irrelevant.
It’s more relevant than absolute GDP. Still the countries above US are small ones, which may not have the same dynamic. It takes serious economic power to have high per capita GDP with 300M people.