As you said, if he truly believed that the tax rates are unfairly low for his income, he could easily pay more (as could all the naysayers on this thread). But he won’t, and they won’t.
What an excellent post. I get sick and tired of hearing the left pretend that rich people get rich by accident. It’s like they think there’s a money fairy that floats around, doling out dollars according to some cosmic dice roll. They don’t realize that nobody gives money to other people unless they get something in return of higher value (to the buyer). Rich people only get rich by doing things that others either can’t do (take out your appendix or entertain millions with their music) or won’t do (spend 8 years in medical school or practice 10,000 hours on their craft).
And for some reason, the people on this board seem to think that it’s perfectly fine that the bottom half of the country doesn’t pay a dime in income tax and that the 70% overall that the top 10% pay isn’t high enough! It is to laugh.
Honestly, it’s nothing but jealously and greed, standard traits of the left.
Why would someone willingly put themselves in a worse financial position relative to their peers? Advocating for higher taxes only works if its applied to everyone in the same class as you. Otherwise, you feel a significant loss of salary without any commensurate benefit.
I think this is exactly right. I have plenty of friends from law school who make six figures; I don’t. However, the folks making that kind of money often work 60-hour weeks, and so their hourly wage isn’t significantly greater than mine. I figure that free time and weekends have value all their own, and I’m willing to “purchase” that free time by forgoing the extra money I could make working a longer week. In fact, I make that decision on most Saturdays; overtime is available, but I rarely take it.
Not us, for sure! And actually a lot of folks who earn 250K or more wouldn’t be hit either - because I assume that this would be income net of deductions. Let’s assume someone earning 250K is paying 5,000 a month on a mortgage, or 60,000 a year (that’s about 25%). If 4,000 of that is interest and taxes, your income drops by 48,000 right there. And there’s state income tax (in most states), medical, etc.
How dare they squander their subsistence-level income on extravagances like food and shelter, while the rest of us struggle to afford a third flatscreen for the newly-remodeled rumpus room!
The mere thought that someone, somewhere is paying in one thin dime less than they extract from me (at gunpoint! Like communist thugs!) nearly makes me choke on my cognac.
That’s right, the well to do person who pays 25% of his income in taxes and still has a lot left over is feeling a lot more pain than the wage earner who is barely making enough to feed his family and keep his house?
On the contrary, Republicans seem to be in favor of workers paying less income tax - for instance by cutting the pay of state workers, which will reduce their tax burden.
Do you honestly think that one half of this country’s population lives subsistence-level lives, barely able to keep food on the table? If so, you’re so far out of touch with reality that there’s no point in arguing with you about it.
State workers should have their pay cut. Their benefits too. I see no reason why employees of the state should be paid out of proportion to what they would make in private enterprise. And I’m sure you know as well as I do that higher pay and better benefits is the result when you work for the government, because the government doesn’t have to worry about profit and can largely make its own rules.
What percentage of the nearly half do you feel are living the life of Riley, and should be taxed until they are sufficiently destitute? Is there a poverty rate you’re personally comfortable with, which if achieved, would liberate you to enjoy (at long last) the manifold comforts of your own life? C’mon, let’s haggle.
And, what kind of overhead and growing the government will be required to collect the federal income tax of the bottom 50%? How to collect that tax in a way that is revenue net positive versus the cost of collection, and doesn’t grow the government in the process? That’s a bitch, ain’t it? Or is it cool to grow the tax collection part of the government even if it costs more than the incremental tax it raises?
Funny, when I was working as a court interpreter for the Feds, with a 3.5 undergrad GPA from a competitive school, I could have made more (and had better benefits) working as a receptionist in the private sector. Even after 3 years.
You needn’t worry, that’s happening all by itself. I’ve had two cost of living increases in 8 years, and I’m at the same paygrade I was hired in at 1996. As a webmaster. I’m their CISO now. Heck of a lot more responsibility.
Healthcare sucks, too.
And that cushy retirement? They’ve been hacking away at that too. It’d be horribly ironic if the LAST thing that kept me here gets legislated away before I get it.
Oh, and we’ve lost a good 40% of our staff over the last 4 years…and the replacement jobs are all dropped a grade and at-will. Like the private sector, you can be canned on a whim. Unlike the private sector, you’ll get paid crap! Whatta Bargain!
Starving Artist, just demonstrates once again how far he is from making $250k. Dude, give up the dream, you’re never going to make enough money that the “rich” tax breaks will help you.
The lottery dream: I don’t make that much now but when I do I don’t want the government taking a penny of it. Wealth acquisition is directly proportional to hard work, the American Dream, the poor are lazy the rich have earned it.