# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/341 "2011-08-03T05:09:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You are clutching at straws. I was being polite. I can’t think of a single situation where your tax rate exceeds 100% (which is what I believe you need to have your after-tax income increase after your pre-tax income has decreased. What you believe I’d need. Are you a CPA? > [@](#): > > Then you are missing something. Well, I’m missing +/- $20K… > [@](#): > > Its not because of taxes and you implied that it was. The thing is? You don’t _know_ that any more than I know it is. Nobody here has admitted to being a tax expert, and since every one of you is coming from a completely different background, it is possible that you are simply unaware of some combination of circumstances that would cause my husband and I to more or less come out even after the loss of my income. For example, we pay a state income tax - if you are one of the lucky ones living in a state without that, it could be that is the difference. I simply don’t know, and really neither do you. The only reason I bring it up in a discussion of taxes is that is the only real difference we saw, the amount of money my husband had to withhold in the past compared to now. > [@](#): > > Because when no other explanation is plausible, it looks like you are making shit up. No other explanation that you can think of. It amazes me the number of (people who think they are) geniuses in here - how else could you come to that conclusion? > [@emacknight](#): > > You think my premise is ridiculous because people got a bunch of spam? I had 3 credit card offers in the mail today. There are hundreds of shit offers in my junk mail folder. You know how many of them I respond to? Zero. > > Only an idiot thinks a “expert” is offering them “a deal.” That’s how it works. People pretend to be experts, and take money from stupid people. Unfortunately, there are _lots_ of people who will swallow this sort of spam whole. I don’t know if it’s because we have more twits in our population than, say, 30 years ago, or if it’s because ripping people off has become essentially legal. Yet, we are supposed to feel sorry for folks who bought houses they just had to have known they couldn’t afford, or who ran up 10’s of thousands in credit card debt, and rush to help them get out of their financial holes. Which reinforces teh stupid… > [@Voyager](#): > > If you subtract the amount of income needed to stay alive, the rich have even more than their apparent share, and should be paying taxes on that. If it takes $20,000 to live in a town, and you have 10,000 people making $20,500 and 50 people making a million, should a fair share of taxes be levied on the entire income or income less than money needed to live? If you decide that the tax should be 10%, the poor starve and the rich have $900K left. If you levy it on the money left over, and least the poor have $450, but the rich have still almost $900K. The 50 rich people contribute $5 million to the tax pool, while the poor contribute $500K. Unfair to the rich, right? Now, is the increase in benefit to the poor from going from $50 in taxes to nothing greater than the cost to the rich of going from $100K in takes to $110K? Would they even notice a 1% decrease in income (after expenses) versus a 10% increase for the poor (after money needed to stay alive?) How do you decide that any X amount of money is what is needed to stay alive in any one place? It seems like “stay alive” would mean quite a bit different things to a homeless bum and a couple with four kids. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/342 "2011-08-03T06:15:46Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > The thing is? You don’t _know_ that any more than I know it is. Nobody here has admitted to being a tax expert, and since every one of you is coming from a completely different background, it is possible that you are simply unaware of some combination of circumstances that would cause my husband and I to more or less come out even after the loss of my income. For example, we pay a state income tax Oh, you pay a state income tax, that must explain why your combined marginal tax rate is more than 100% :rolleyes: You don’t have to be a “tax expert”, you just need not be a moron, which as far as I can tell is impossible for you. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/343 "2011-08-03T06:36:01Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Oh, you pay a state income tax, that must explain why your combined marginal tax rate is more than 100% :rolleyes: > > You don’t have to be a “tax expert”, you just need not be a moron, which as far as I can tell is impossible for you. You don’t have to be a tax expert to know that 100% number was something that was just pulled out of someone’s butt either. However, a moron might believe it and try to use it as “proof” of something… ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/344 "2011-08-03T15:20:51Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You don’t have to be a tax expert to know that 100% number was something that was just pulled out of someone’s butt either. However, a moron might believe it and try to use it as “proof” of something… I don’t have crayons, but I will try and use as simple words as I can. If you think that a decrease in taxes made up for a $20K dollar reduction in income, then the combined tax rate on that $20K must have been 100%. If if were 50% for example, you would have seen a $10K reduction in after tax income. Is this really too hard for you to understand? ---
**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:** [August 3, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/345 "2011-08-03T16:43:23Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > … Is this really too hard for you to understand? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/346 "2011-08-03T17:43:38Z")
Simple answer: Her husband and her already lived below their means, so their quality of life stayed the same, which would only be possible if they were saving ~$20k compared to their previous lifestyle. But she is deluded either way. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/347 "2011-08-03T18:49:54Z")
I’ve been trying to follow this, but it just makes my head hurt. Let me see if I have this right: **curlcoat** says that in the past, the family earned x+$20,000 before taxes. Now that gross income is only x, and there has not been any change in after-tax income. Am I getting that right? That’s impossible. ---
**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:** [August 3, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/348 "2011-08-03T19:56:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’ve been trying to follow this, but it just makes my head hurt. Let me see if I have this right: **curlcoat** says that in the past, the family earned x+$20,000 before taxes. Now that gross income is only x, and there has not been any change in after-tax income. > > Am I getting that right? > > That’s impossible. You are getting it right. It is impossible for the claimed effect to actually happen. It is NOT impossible for \*\*curlcoat \*\*to _make the claim_. That’s why all of our heads hurt. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/349 "2011-08-03T19:59:20Z")
Not mine. Haven’t read a word. More tea? ---
**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:** [August 3, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/350 "2011-08-03T20:00:45Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Not mine. Haven’t read a word. More tea? Yes, thanks. Use the BIG cups, please. Here’s the rum. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/351 "2011-08-03T20:07:28Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > That looks good in theory. But what happens to your budget if just a few of those 50 millionaires move or go broke? > > You established a $5.5million entitlement program that people were counting on. Now you’ve got a budget deficit of $500,000 that needs to be picked up by the remaining 45 millionaires, assuming you can’t reduce the handouts. Do you think the small increase in taxes is going to make anyone go broke? Moves cost money - do you think many would spend it or go to a worse place for a 1% increase in effective income? 90% tax rate, sure, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/352 "2011-08-03T20:16:14Z")
I didn’t see if it was resolved, but Starving Artist is absolutely right. “Rich” has to do with net worth and not income. It’s sort of like asking, “I am paying $300/month for a Nissan Altima. Did I get a good deal?” You can’t possibly know the answer to that question unless I tell you the total purchase price, the term of the loan, the interest rate, etc. Likewise, someone’s income this year, or even year to year, does not determine their wealth status. If I have ten million dollars in gold, but I took last year off to catch up on relaxing, am I poor? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/353 "2011-08-03T20:22:40Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You’re arguing that folks don’t compare themselves to folks on a different level, which I’d think would mean they _ **wouldn’t** _ care whether the rich are getting richer… As I’ve already said, not if they are getting richer too. But consider how most people would feel about making 1/2 of what their officemate makes (with roughly comparable skills and age) versus 1/10 or 1/100 of what the CEO makes. Though they should be made at the latter case, most people would be a lot more upset about the former one. > [@](#): > > How do you figure that? How could I hypothetically falsify it? Imagine two rich guys: one gets richer at the expense of his poorer countrymen – and the other gets richer, but not at the expense of his poorer countrymen. Is that possible? If not, why not? If so, how can we tell which is which? Mostly I’m speaking of the rich as a class. For particular people, we do make distinctions between the person who got rich and a raise from building up a company, creating jobs, and adding value, and the CEO who gets a big raise after laying off 10% of the company because the company just can’t afford the expense. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure. I’d like to hear the exact reasons given by the guy who thinks he’ll get the best results from a winner-take-all distribution, so that I could (a) try to sell him on the idea of getting better results with a different distribution, or (b) position myself to be the winner who takes all. a is reasonable. b is an example of Joe the Plumber syndrome, where people whose chance of making it into the ranks of the wealthy are near zero support policies that actually hurt them because the rich wave that tiny chance in front of their faces, and many are optimists to the point of unreason. If a kid was flunking out because he spend all his time shooting hoops in order to make it as an NBA star, you’d think he was pretty dumb, right - unless some real coach said he had talent, and even that coach would tell him to do his damn homework. > [@](#): > > No, some poor folks never had kids, and some who have kids don’t send their kids off to fight. How can we make sure _ **they** _ pay as much as the ones you’re talking about? Why don’t you try to respond to my initial scenario, which covers this? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/354 "2011-08-03T20:27:58Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > How do you decide that any X amount of money is what is needed to stay alive in any one place? It seems like “stay alive” would mean quite a bit different things to a homeless bum and a couple with four kids. Same way you decide on the poverty level. No perfect answer, of course. I’m arguing principles, not details. We both know that shacks in our neighborhoods cost as much as mansions in many parts of the country. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/355 "2011-08-03T20:33:15Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Congratulations, that is the dumbest post of all time. > Spend a little time thinking. The ARMs and phony mortgages were products of the banks. There is no way a person is responsible for creating zero down loans, 100 percent mortgages or not assessing property. That was a wet dream of banks. > They offered these crappy and dangerous loans because they immediately sold them off. They moved the risk to major investors around the world who took horrible baths on them. > These major investment companies are the people who you somehow think are special smart people, not dumb like those people who forced the banks to give them a house they could not afford. > Try and buy a house today. The requirements are much more stringent. Like they were before the banks lowered them before. Note ,the banks lowered them before. I wish you could understand that. It is not difficult. Even dumber than you say. On one hand we have mortgage professionals, with lots of sales backup, who have taken internal classes on the contracts and have done a ton of these every week, and on the other we have a poor guy, who isn’t making much, might not be proficient in English, and who struggled with math in high school. Equal power there, right? Or rather **emacknight** is claiming the poor guy has all the power in the negotiation. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/356 "2011-08-03T20:51:39Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As I’ve already said, not if they are getting richer too. No, regardless. You already agree with me that an office worker feels no better or worse if the janitor suddenly does better or worse; I’m mystified as to why you disagree about whether we should feel no better or worse if someone rich suddenly does better or worse. I mean, if you disagreed about both, I’d merely think you were (a) twice as wrong, but (b) consistent; why the split? > [@](#): > > But consider how most people would feel about making 1/2 of what their officemate makes (with roughly comparable skills and age) versus 1/10 or 1/100 of what the CEO makes. Though they should be made at the latter case, most people would be a lot more upset about the former one. Well, yeah. It’s the “roughly comparable skills” part that would stick in my craw, because I’d want to be compensated the same for doing the same work, and would make a case for it as best I could. As you put it: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m not sure. I’d like to hear the exact reasons given by the guy who thinks he’ll get the best results from a winner-take-all distribution, so that I could (a) try to sell him on the idea of getting better results with a different distribution, or (b) position myself to be the winner who takes all. > > a is reasonable. b is an example of Joe the Plumber syndrome, where people whose chance of making it into the ranks of the wealthy are near zero support policies that actually hurt them because the rich wave that tiny chance in front of their faces, and many are optimists to the point of unreason. So long as (a) is reasonable, I’m content with it. As for (b), remember that I was replying to your smaller-stakes scenario: Iwasn’t talking about Joe the Plumber striking it rich, I was talking about a winner-take-all promotion that comes with a raise for one. And I’ve been in that situation, as the guy who felt he was passed over for someone less deserving, and promptly tried to find out how to game the system to get the next such promotion. > [@](#): > > Mostly I’m speaking of the rich as a class. For particular people, we do make distinctions between the person who got rich and a raise from building up a company, creating jobs, and adding value, and the CEO who gets a big raise after laying off 10% of the company because the company just can’t afford the expense. Do we? All you said was that the rich are getting richer at the expense of the folks who aren’t. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you try to respond to my initial scenario, which covers this? Oh, sorry; emacknight beat me to it, and I didn’t get around to writing “emacknight beat me to it.” That said, why don’t you respond to what I wrote? You say the poor pay for it by sending their children off to fight in wars; I say many of 'em don’t, and so ask why you’re bringing it up. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/357 "2011-08-04T08:53:51Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > If you think that a decrease in taxes made up for a $20K dollar reduction in income, then the combined tax rate on that $20K must have been 100%. If if were 50% for example, you would have seen a $10K reduction in after tax income. Is this really too hard for you to understand? Well, there’s your problem right there - lack of reading comprehension. I have said that there appears to be no difference in our lifestyle, I have _never_ given any dollar amounts other than a loss +/- $20K from when I quit working. I have no specific information on the difference in the amount of taxes we paid then as opposed to now, nor do I know the exact numbers on our incomes then as opposed to now. So, the 100%, or the 50% are just numbers folks are pulling out of their butts to try to “prove” me wrong. I did try to guesstimate using the tables [here](http://www.themoneyalert.com/Tax-Tables.html), and it looks like we are paying about $10K less in fed income tax, maybe even less. My guesstimate on state income tax is about $2K less, and SS at least $3K less. So even if I’m way off on the fed tax, we are still paying quite a bit less in tax than we were. Remember, my whole point was about perception. Four years down the road, even if I could go back to work, neither of us see any value in it, there simply has been no appreciable affect on us due to the loss of my income. It may only happen in couples with our particular set of circumstances - no kids, low bills, one person making significantly more than the other. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I’ve been trying to follow this, but it just makes my head hurt. Let me see if I have this right: **curlcoat** says that in the past, the family earned x+$20,000 before taxes. Now that gross income is only x, and there has not been any change in after-tax income. > > Am I getting that right? No, not even close. It helps if you only read what I post, rather than what others are trying to make it out to be. > [@Voyager](#): > > Same way you decide on the poverty level. No perfect answer, of course. I’m arguing principles, not details. We both know that shacks in our neighborhoods cost as much as mansions in many parts of the country. Ah. I’m still not sure it’s an equitable way to approach it tho. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/358 "2011-08-04T09:15:40Z")
So you come into a tax thread to say that you don’t care that you’re not making as much money. Well, no, originally you said you didn’t make any more money, which was just simply factually wrong. Now you’re saying it doesn’t make a difference in your life. Ok, who cares? Most people like more money and notice it. You apparently don’t. What statement do you feel like you’re making about the tax system? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/359 "2011-08-04T09:38:37Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > So you come into a tax thread to say that you don’t care that you’re not making as much money. Well, no, originally you said you didn’t make any more money, which was just simply factually wrong. Now you’re saying it doesn’t make a difference in your life. Ok, who cares? Most people like more money and notice it. You apparently don’t. What statement do you feel like you’re making about the tax system? Jesus. I said exactly the same thing thruout - that despite what you all may want to think, there may be a decent number of people out there just like us, who find that it simply isn’t worth it to work the overtime or commute for hours to make enough money to get bumped into another tax bracket. Despite how much you seem to love our tax system, it screws those over a certain income level, which is no where near rich. Once you do start getting up into that “rich” area, (whatever income level an individual decides that is), it is no wonder they spend so much effort trying to hide their true worth to see if they can lower their taxes. Even if someone is making $4M a year, having to send 30% just to the IRS has got to hurt. Every year we pay too much to the IRS, the state income tax and everything else. Every year more rich people say fuck this noise and hide as much as they can, and more of the middle class decide owning a McMansion isn’t worth working harder to pay out more tax and hope to have enough at the end to make the mortgage. And all you do is say “we should be taxing the rich more”. You keep punishing people for succeeding, some of them are going to quit trying - maybe that’s where our middle class is going? Shrug. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/360 "2011-08-04T10:08:19Z")
You are stupid. There is no such thing as getting “bumped” into a new tax bracket. There is never a situation in which you earn an extra dollar, and then lose money because you crossed a bracket line. See the OP, or 30 or 40 other posts in the thread, for an explanation as to why this is the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=19)