# Taxing the "rich" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 24, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209 "2011-07-24T21:14:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2011, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/281 "2011-07-30T21:21:42Z")
> [@lokij](#): > > You feel, apparently, that the lack of any relative difference between your lifestyle now and the one 20,000 dollars ago must be because of income taxes you are no longer paying. Or all of the payroll taxes. > [@](#): > > Nobody gives a fuck what the hell you ‘notice’ or don’t. We don’t give a wet shit whether, in your opinion, you can take a 20,000 dollar hit on your household income and not notice. You might if there was a large block of people out there who had the same experience and chose to not work, or work well below their potential, for the rest of their lives. I have no idea whether or not it would turn out that we are actually living on significantly less money (if for no other reason, no one here has proved it), but the fact is, we live as if we haven’t had any change. If you don’t give a wet shit, why are you so concerned about how I perceive my current lifestyle? > [@](#): > > Ever stop to consider the fact that your perception about your overall cost of living may be skewed by not working? Maybe you’re happier and don’t spend as much as a result now, maybe you had a lot of hidden costs involved in you working (transportation costs to and from work, clothing budgets, eating out, less time to shop for bargains etc.). Well, I know I’m happier not working, but I also know that we are still, say, going to Vegas as often as we always have, I am still traveling the west coast as much as I did, and since I worked from home, there were no hidden costs there. I’m not saying that we are literally getting the same amount of money - I cannot prove that either way since I don’t have any records from four years ago. All I am pointing out is the perception of lack of difference in lifestyle despite my not working, and if this is something that could happen to others, it may turn out that more folks will choose to not work, or not advance in salary if that means they have to work more or commute further. Particularly since most raises are not $20K worth. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/282 "2011-07-30T22:01:25Z")
**curlcoat** , I do not know why anybody bothers to engage with you any more. You are completely full of shit. You just make stuff up, then make up some more, then accuse other people of putting words in your mouth. You replace your goal posts more often than a high school in the deep south. Your assertions have so little merit they are actually demerits. You aren’t even entertaining in your crazy. Give it up. Pack it in. Take a hike. Give us all a break. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/283 "2011-07-30T22:16:23Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > **curlcoat** , I do not know why anybody bothers to engage with you any more. You are completely full of shit. You just make stuff up, then make up some more, then accuse other people of putting words in your mouth. You replace your goal posts more often than a high school in the deep south. Your assertions have so little merit they are actually demerits. You aren’t even entertaining in your crazy. Give it up. Pack it in. Take a hike. Give us all a break. I think she may be doing us a favor by showing us the thought processes of conservatives. You take some pre-conceived notion (taxes are bad, poor people are lazy), wrap it all up with anecdotes that aren’t really true, then repeat it into the echo chamber enough times that it becomes accepted wisdom. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/284 "2011-07-31T03:27:05Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > **curlcoat** , I do not know why anybody bothers to engage with you any more. You are completely full of shit. You just make stuff up, then make up some more, then accuse other people of putting words in your mouth. You replace your goal posts more often than a high school in the deep south. Your assertions have so little merit they are actually demerits. You aren’t even entertaining in your crazy. Give it up. Pack it in. Take a hike. Give us all a break. Well, setting aside why you would care, I’ll make it easy for you. Find one place here where I’ve made something up (you know you have to prove that, right?) or moved a goal post. I’ll wait. > [@sh1bu1](#): > > I think she may be doing us a favor by showing us the thought processes of conservatives. You take some pre-conceived notion (taxes are bad, poor people are lazy), wrap it all up with anecdotes that aren’t really true, then repeat it into the echo chamber enough times that it becomes accepted wisdom. Huh. Well, I probably said taxes are bad at some point, but I’m not a conservative, haven’t said poor people are lazy (I think the only person to do that was when **gonzomax** was claiming **DragonAsh** said that - neither of those folks is me) nor have I presented any anecdotes that aren’t true. So I suppose I could be as idiotic as you are being and say that you are showing us the thought processes of liberals, but I’m not that narrow minded. Which of course is your problem. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2011, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/285 "2011-07-31T03:49:05Z")
Interesting article from a couple of months ago about the federal debt. While not absolving Obama and the Democrats, it also makes clears and puts into perspective just how much responsibility the previous administration and the overall “starve the beast” GOP mentality bears for the mess we’re in. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html) > [@](#): > > In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed. > > Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. “In the end, the floodgates opened,” said former senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax-cut bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001. > > Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II. And > [@](#): > > The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/286 "2011-08-01T15:06:46Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > You are allowed to have a viewpoint that “the loss of my ability to work has meant zero to us”, that is a personal value judgement and being a working parent is difficult. > > On the other hand, the idea that you are forgoing $20K in pre-tax salary and not seeing an actual reduction in your family post-tax income is not a viewpoint, it’s a factual claim and it does not correspond to the way that taxes work. I know at least half a dozen families where the mother quitting work has resulted in an increase in discretionary income. Largely because they have several children and they no longer have to pay for day care, they no longer eat out as much, etc… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/287 "2011-08-01T15:15:24Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Do you believe this to be the case? > > Here is some data (from 2006) for inflation-adjusted incomes since 1967. Note that the 40% percentile is basically flat. [Change in incomes since 1967 (middle, upper-middle quintiles) — Visualizing Economics](http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/02/23/change-in-incomes-since-1967-middle-upper-middle-quintiles/) This may be true of the last decade or so but this is not true of the 20 years before that. During Reagan and Clinton everyone was better off. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/288 "2011-08-01T15:19:59Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I used top figure out how much I made on overtime. Working long overtime, I wound up making less per hour than I did on 40 hours. But I had a job to do and delivery dates to meet. i never thought a minute about how it affected my paycheck. I was dumb enough to believe the company and I would both prosper if we got the jobs out on time. > Workers do not sabotage the company. Most work their ass off for not much money.It is the American way. So you got paid the same rate for overtime as you got for regular time? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/289 "2011-08-01T15:26:20Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Yup! This one is just a bit more amazing in that we have a poster here telling me that I am wrong about my own money. You might be confusing after tax income with disposable income. You might end up with mroe money because you are saving more money by staying home and taking care of the kids or whatever than you would make by working and paying for day care etc. > [@](#): > > There is no way that our tax system is even close to 1+1=2. No its not, but it still obeys the laws of mathematics. You after tax income income rarely goes up when you quit a job. > [@](#): > > As you understand the tax system. Are you saying that you are such an expert on taxes that you can tell a stranger that they are completely wrong about their own finances? It’s not like I’m talking post-tax dollars here, so you really cannot know with just the few facts I’ve presented everything that might affect our incomes. Shoot, for all I know, this just happened to coincide with the Bush tax cuts and that affected us more than I know. I think you guys might be talking about different things. You seem to be talking about your disposable incoem while Shu is talking about math. If you have mroe money now than before you quit your job, its not likely due to your taxes. > [@](#): > > Which is exactly what your problem is. I am not arguing about anything, I am merely telling you that the loss of my job has made almost no difference to us financially. Think about where you might be saving money now that you quit your job. Its not likely your tax bill is 20K lower now than it used to be. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/290 "2011-08-01T15:30:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So you got paid the same rate for overtime as you got for regular time? Taxes made it that way I actually got time and a half. But I still did the job. Still met delivery dates. People really don’t just work for money. When you hire in, money is a major consideration. Once you start doing the job, you spend almost no time thinking about money. ---
**Author:** ![Lady\_of\_the\_Lake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@Lady\_of\_the\_Lake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lady_of_the_Lake)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/291 "2011-08-01T15:31:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You might be confusing after tax income with disposable income. You might end up with mroe money because you are saving more money by staying home and taking care of the kids or whatever than you would make by working and paying for day care etc. (Just to clarify) Curlcoat does not have children. Therefore childcare savings etc… can not have any impact on her miraculous monetary increase after quitting her job. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/292 "2011-08-01T15:45:06Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Well, setting aside why you would care, I’ll make it easy for you. Find one place here where I’ve made something up (you know you have to prove that, right?) or moved a goal post. I’ll wait. > > Huh. Well, I probably said taxes are bad at some point, but I’m not a conservative, haven’t said poor people are lazy (I think the only person to do that was when **gonzomax** was claiming **DragonAsh** said that - neither of those folks is me) nor have I presented any anecdotes that aren’t true. So I suppose I could be as idiotic as you are being and say that you are showing us the thought processes of liberals, but I’m not that narrow minded. Which of course is your problem. To be fair, you DID at one point claim that you didn’t feel the effects of quitting your job because your taxes got lower. Some people (reasonably) interpreted this to mean that your take home income didn’t go down despite quitting your job BECAUSE OF TAXES. This is HIGHLY unlikely (I cannot think of a scenario where this could be true) because the Obama tax cuts simply weren’t large enough to make up for a 20K drop in income. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/293 "2011-08-01T15:48:27Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Taxes made it that way I actually got time and a half. But I still did the job. Still met delivery dates. > People really don’t just work for money. When you hire in, money is a major consideration. Once you start doing the job, you spend almost no time thinking about money. I agree with your view on job satisfaction, but I can’t imagine how you could make 50% more an hour pre-tax and make almost the same after-tax. Can you give an example? This isn’t one of these “bumped up into the next tax brackets” things is it? Or was your withholding artificially high when you worked overtime and you got it back at the end of the year? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/294 "2011-08-01T15:54:21Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Taxes made it that way I actually got time and a half. But I still did the job. Still met delivery dates. > People really don’t just work for money. When you hire in, money is a major consideration. Once you start doing the job, you spend almost no time thinking about money. WHOA!!! So you made 50% more pre-tax income but thosse extra house earned you less per hour than your regular shift? I don’t think there is an incremental tax step that jumps 33 percentage points. e.g. If you earned $10/hour with regular time and your tax rate including FICA/WICA was 30%, you took home $7/hour. For overtime you earned $15/hour then your marginal tax rate on those overtime dolars would have to be over 50% for this statment to be true. FICA and WICA do not change and the biggest jump in federal marginal tax rates is 13% when you go from the 15% bracket to the 28% bracket. Does your state and local marginal tax rates jump 7+% points? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/295 "2011-08-01T15:56:31Z")
> [@Lady\_of\_the\_Lake](#): > > (Just to clarify) Curlcoat does not have children. Therefore childcare savings etc… can not have any impact on her miraculous monetary increase after quitting her job. Then I’m at a loss. I can’t think of any other type of savings that would have that large an impact on a household budget. Perhaps she is just making shit up. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/296 "2011-08-01T16:04:51Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This may be true of the last decade or so but this is not true of the 20 years before that. During Reagan and Clinton everyone was better off. That’s not what the data in the chart shows. Do you have some other data source that shows that the lower, say, 40% did better in inflation-adjusted terms from 1980 to 2000? The periods from 1983-1989 and 1993-2000 was certainly the best for the lowest group, but they were partially offset by 1989-1993. And even during that period the top quartiles did much, much better in terms of real income growth. There is really no way to look at the data and conclude that both the income and wealth disparities have been growing in the US from quite some time, and show no sign of decreasing. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/297 "2011-08-01T16:40:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > To be fair, you DID at one point claim that you didn’t feel the effects of quitting your job because your taxes got lower. Some people (reasonably) interpreted this to mean that your take home income didn’t go down despite quitting your job BECAUSE OF TAXES. This is HIGHLY unlikely (I cannot think of a scenario where this could be true) because the Obama tax cuts simply weren’t large enough to make up for a 20K drop in income. No whoa. I would comp[are a 40 hour check with an overtime check and discover the take home change was equiv. to straight time for the OT. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/298 "2011-08-01T16:52:43Z")
That’s because tax was withheld as though you were making the overtime rate all the time, which would put you in a higher tax bracket. However, you didn’t really lose that money. You got it back at the end of the year because your tax bill is based on your yearly income and not your overtime. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/299 "2011-08-01T17:27:36Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > but I’m not a conservative, haven’t said poor people are lazy (I think the only person to do that was when **gonzomax** was claiming **DragonAsh** said that - neither of those folks is me) Stop making shit up, would you please? I said nothing about whether or not poor people are lazy. I said people are poor because they make stupid decisions, and don’t figure it out until the window has closed. My family was dirt poor in high school. Dirt poor, as in, we couldn’t buy dirt, even if it was on sale. I still managed to go to university and get an education. Ditto my sister. My brother didn’t go to college but started working out of high school and didn’t spend his paychecks at the bar like his dad. He now owns his own home and has a nice nest egg. A higher tax rate doesn’t necessarily stop me from working harder once I’m in a job - as \*\*gonzomax \*\*noted, once you’re in the job, you work as hard as you can, because most people want to do a good job, they want the satisfaction that comes with doing a good job, and they want the recognition that goes with that - and not necessarily monetary recognition. However: you’d better believe that as the government takes more of my money away, I spend more time thinking about how I can hold on to more of it. You’d better believe I consider (among other things) tax rates when I’m thinking about where I want to live, even to the extent of moving overseas or restructuring work contracts to avoid higher taxes. And I have turned down jobs that paid more, because it wasn’t really worth it given the marginal increase after taxes were factored in. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/300 "2011-08-01T18:00:03Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I said people are poor because they make stupid decisions, and don’t figure it out until the window has closed. Seeing as how the bottom 50% of wealth-holders now have significantly less compared to the top, I guess they are making more and more stupid decisions? So I guess my question is why are people so much stupider today than they were in 1967? Or, is it possible that there have been changes to “the system” since then that has led to this increasing disparity? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=16)