# 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:** 25
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/481 "2011-08-11T19:27:14Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > I didn’t wave them away. I evaluated them. I weighed the pros and cons and gave you the conclusion. I don’t know why you think that me saying “You sum up all the pros and cons and conclude that it’s worth $12,000” is complicated but me breaking it all down into dollars and cents, writing essays about how stressed you’ll be, etc is uncomplicated. Fine, you evaluated the pros and cons. For you. Which has fuckall to do with me. Hence, your hypothetical is shitty. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you don’t understand about “YOU VALUE THE BENEFITS AT $12,000”! I told you exactly how much you’d be willing to pay for all the benefits. I told you explicitly how bad you want those things. I told you clearly and unambiguously how much you’d be willing to trade/give up/forgo in order to have the benefits. NO you did not. For the third fucking time now, you have made ZERO mention of what new work and responsibilities this new position entails. You’re only giving me one side of the equation – a car worth $12,000 – and you’re refusing to make any mention of whether the new effort in Sara’s position is worth the… what, $1500/yr difference. If it ain’t, it ain’t, and that has fuckall to do with tax rates. > [@](#): > > And I further don’t understand how you fail to grasp that before taxes, the raise is better. After taxes, the benefits are better. It’s really a simple concept. Taxes are an important consideration when deciding whether to go for the extra money! It’s so obvious, it’s painful. Hey, that is an obvious point. The corresponding hypothetical is the boss can give me a raise worth $12,000 after taxes or one worth $10,500 after taxes. But you can’t simply equate cash and benefits, and – more egregiously – _you cannot simply wave away considerations about stress, effort, job satisfaction, job security by repeating “But the car is worth $12,000!”_ ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/482 "2011-08-11T19:31:33Z")
Fine, I’ll do it again: The car, stress, effort, job satisfaction, job security, and everything else is worth $12,000 **to you**. Not to me, not to the car dealership, not to your best friend, not to your boss. TO YOU. THAT’S HOW BAD YOU WANT THE BENEFITS. THAT’S HOW YOU EQUATE BENEFITS AND MONEY. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/483 "2011-08-11T19:44:50Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > No, it’s between $12k and $10.5k, or maybe it’s actually $11.5k, wait no, it’s really $13k, or perhaps it’s really only $8.5k- You’ve got to figure in the taxes to find out what it really is. Thus, it proves that the tax rate is important. No shit, Sherlock. But is it any more important than any of the other factors that have to be taken into consideration? That’s the dispute. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/484 "2011-08-11T19:45:49Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Fine, I’ll do it again: > > The car, stress, effort, job satisfaction, job security, and everything else is worth $12,000 **to you**. So we’ve got car, stress, effort, job satisfaction, job security, miscellaneous, and taxes going into this equation. How is it you consider _one factor_ out of _seven_ a “significant factor”? It’s a consideration. This is obvious. But it’s not a make it or break it point, and the ridiculously hypothetical “me” in your shitty hypothetical has failed to demonstrate any point whatsoever. Just like my ridiculously hypothetical you, who takes a $2,000 car because he likes the color, also failed to demonstrate anything meaningful. Me? I don’t need the hypothetical. I’m in a situation where I’m facing a possible swing in income of $50,000. Taxes is a minor, minor blip compared to daycare costs, time with the kids, sleeplessness, marital stress, ability to focus on my work and get a bump to the next level, etc. It just doesn’t swing the equation meaningfully at all. It’s minor. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/485 "2011-08-11T20:06:31Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Fine, I’ll do it again: > > The car, stress, effort, job satisfaction, job security, and everything else is worth $12,000 **to you**. > > Not to me, not to the car dealership, not to your best friend, not to your boss. TO YOU. THAT’S HOW BAD YOU WANT THE BENEFITS. THAT’S HOW YOU EQUATE BENEFITS AND MONEY. Awesome. So as long as we’re on the topic of fighting the hypothetical, are we to assume that I live in a universe where I’m completely ignorant of the concept of taxes? That I get the first paycheck and am so gobsmacked by the deductions that I storm to HR demanding to know what “Fed Withholding” means? Because that’s the only way your scenario makes sense. Of course anyone is going to calculate in taxes when figuring out payment. Anyone that’s seen at least one paycheck will. What? He thought that $15,000 raise was just going to be in an envelope slid under the table? No, the real mistake that can happen is in miscalculating your taxes because you’re moving across tax rates. THAT’S what we’re talking about here. So what did that cost me? Let’s say I’m at 15%. I should net $12,750 after taxes. $750 in my favor. I should take the raise. OH NOES! I’m actually at 25% now. I really net $11,250. What fool hath I been? I should have taken the benefits! Broken down, I made a mistake of $14.42 per week. $14.42? That’s not a “commit seppuku” mistake there. That’s more of a “well, it was pretty damn close to a coinflip either way” type of decision. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/486 "2011-08-11T21:38:45Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Fine, I’ll do it again: > > The car, stress, effort, job satisfaction, job security, and everything else is worth $12,000 **to you**. > > Not to me, not to the car dealership, not to your best friend, not to your boss. TO YOU. THAT’S HOW BAD YOU WANT THE BENEFITS. THAT’S HOW YOU EQUATE BENEFITS AND MONEY. As said upthread: Cash is king. If someone offers me $100 cash or $1000 in money-saving coupons… I’m taking the cash. Even if those coupons are worth $1000 to me, I’d still rather have the cash. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/487 "2011-08-12T04:23:49Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Listen, I don’t think youa re a hard core right wing nutjob. I think you have some misconceptions about taxation. Perhaps your position has refined a bit over the course of this thread (which would be great) but the notion that taxes reduce take home pay and that net pay is not as much of an incentive as gross pay was simply not your point to begin with. Uh, it isn’t now either. I’m not even sure that what you have up there is what your really meant to type. > [@](#): > > No, your belief (which we have been trying to disabuse you of) was that taxes were so high that there wasn’t you didn’t notice quitting your 20K/year job. You started to equivocate and eventually said that you were sure taht teh difference wasn’t $10K. Well I popinted out that you didn’t even have a 50% tax rate, bnever mind a 100% tax rate. No, I didn’t equivocate, I responded to someone else who pulled that $10K out of his butt. And when I asked him where he got that number, he didn’t answer. As I said then, I don’t know what exact difference in net income we have now, but when someone came up with $10K, I said that I couldn’t imagine that I wouldn’t notice the loss of $10K a year. > [@](#): > > Unless you are using a special language where your words mean something different than what they mean to the rest of us. Oh please. I realize that my grasp of the language isn’t perfect but I cannot believe that no one here has ever misunderstood something they have read. > [@](#): > > If you have changed your position or if you overstated your position to begin with, then fine but your original statements indicated that you were being taxed at a rate of at least 50%. It did? Huh. I thought all I said was when I quit working, the lowering of the amount of taxes we paid, and some adjustments I made, meant we didn’t notice much difference. > [@](#): > > And how is Chapter 13 a bailout? “File for bankruptcy, pay pennies on the dollar to settle your debts, go on with life.” > [@](#): > > Chapter 13 has been part of the bankruptcy code since its inception. Apparently only since 1978. > [@](#): > > I guess I was offended by your insinuation that we were rushing to bail out financially irresponsible people. The thing is, there have ALWAYS been financially irresponsible people and the thing that prevented them from brorowing more money than they could afford to repay has ALWAYS been the folks who were lending the money and wanted to get repaid. This broke down and lenders started lending money to anyone who could fog a mirror, and then they actively started selling mortgages to people who had paid off their homes (cash out refinancing). I don’t know why you would be personally offended by me saying that these days we spend a lot of time, money and effort bailing people out who are financially irresponsible. Also, it isn’t like the credit card companies haven’t been sending cards for decades to people who shouldn’t have them. The mortgage thing is recent, but people running up debt they shouldn’t be is nothing new. My first husband did it in the late 70’s, so it’s been going on since at least then, tho back then no one was around to help me pay it all off. > [@](#): > > The consequences of a bankruptcy are fairly severe. It remains on your credit report for 10 years, this influences your ability to buy a home, start a business, get a JOB, and you don’t make it ALL go away under Chapter 13. Chapter 13 is a form of debt consolidation and rehabilitaion, not debt relief, you have to get court approval to take out new credit during teh rehabilitation period. And to be fair the 2005 Bankruptcy law makes it hard to obtain debt relief in nay form if you make more than the median income in your state. These consequences would be severe to you or me, but to those who have spent their lives running up debt and cannot pay it off, the ability to keep the house they have, vehicles to get to work and payment plans that don’t include paying off the whole nut is going to look really nice. The job thing may be more of an issue these days, but before the current economic problems, many of these folks had and kept jobs while going thru bankruptcy and afterward. I know of two from my last job, and my husband worked with one. All were before 2005 tho, so that may be why I am seeing far more ads about it these days. > [@](#): > > You seemed to be attributing it all to taxes. I said in my OP that I had made some adjustments. > [@](#): > > A group of people didn’t all imagine what you said. It wasn’t earthshatteringly offensive, it just seemed to be contrary to the rules of math. If you were in fact saying nothing then fine but you made an observation that most reasonble people would say was linking taxes to no noticable difference from a drop of $20K in your income. Again, this is the Pit - people like to jump on a detail, twist it around until it’s unrecognizable and then repeat it until they have followers. I cannot be held responsible for that, um, habit? > [@quixotic78](#): > > You could say that. It’d be totally wrong and idiotic, but you could say it. I wasn’t evading or making any excuses whatsoever; I was admitting that I did not communicate effectively. I was glib. I misspoke. I was imprecise with my words. The fault is entirely mine. These are all the _opposite_ of an excuse. If that is what you had done, yes. However, other than using the word glib, this isn’t what you did - you completely changed what you had said. > [@](#): > > This is just patently absurd and obviously false. You’re not just moving the goalposts; you’re changing the game from football to tiddlywinks. **Chessic Sense** highlighted differences in daycare, gas, and effort, and said that taxes could _influence_ a decision to quit a job. **In contrast** , you said (emphasis added) > > You didn’t say “Due to differences in daycare, gas, not buying that $3 breakfast burrito on the way to work every day, the disability check I now collect every month, minor modifications in our spending habits, and taxes, we haven’t noticed much of a difference.” Nope, you said “ **Due to the difference in the amount of income tax we pay**.” Are you reading this **Damuri Ajashi**? This is exactly what I meant by people jumping on a detail. So what if **Chessic Sense** specified what adjustments could be made? You even quoted back that I said “adjustments” but you chose to pretend that I only said taxes. > [@](#): > > One wonders, if you’re not noticing a decrease in $20,000 annual income, why you don’t tell your husband to reduce his commitment enough to drop you another $20,000. After all, you’re not _losing_ anything – those rapacious taxes take nearly all of that 20K anyways – and he’d be gaining extra free time. So you should tell him not to work Fridays anymore, right? Snort, even if that was possible, $20,000 isn’t going to drop us another bracket. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/488 "2011-08-12T06:29:48Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > **Anyone** making six figures and up should pay **more** taxes. > > Too fucking bad if you are one of these people and don’t like it. Then give all your money to charity and go beg on the streets if it bugs you that much, you cheap asshole. Will soon be one of those people and no I don’t like it. It boggles my mind why someone who is highly successful is somehow expected to carry more of the burden than others who may not be. How does this make any sense except in some bizarro world? We should all pay 15% of our yearly income and that’s that. Obummer brought this up in a speech yesterday. He stressed that its about being fair. He had the gall to use the word fair regarding overtaxing the rich. ---
**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 12, 2011, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/489 "2011-08-12T06:37:04Z")
When you consider overall tax rate, including all sorts of taxes - sales taxes, gas taxes, income taxes, social security taxes, etc., how much of a percentage of a poor person’s, middle class person’s, moderately wealth person’s, and extremely wealthly person’s income go to taxes? Take your best guess. ---
**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 12, 2011, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/490 "2011-08-12T06:55:08Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > It sounds like you get it, then. You recognize that there are “terms of sanity” and “financial sense” and those are competing pros and cons. When the tax rate goes up, I get less money for the same sanity sacrifice. Is it a surprise that some people are on the margin and just barely breaking even in the sanity-money trade already? > For some reason, every time I bring this up, liberals retort with “You can’t make more money by quitting your job!”, as if that refuted the point at all. :rolleyes: Loss of sanity is not linear with hours worked, and probably goes up a lot faster than the tax rate. Sure you can make up examples where a new bracket would make a difference, but it is unlikely to happen in real life. When I worked 12-13vhours a day I got nothing extra for it (except a crappy free dinner) being salaried, but I don’t think more pay would have helped, and taxes would have had nothing to do with my decision, being in the noise. My wife, being self employed, gets to pay self-employment tax also, but increased taxes at a high bracket has never had anything to do with her decision to take on work. Sure there are plenty of reasons to not work 60 hours a week, but taxes is low on the list. ---
**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 12, 2011, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/491 "2011-08-12T14:18:03Z")
> [@flag\_not\_set](#): > > Here’s the actual data: > > [http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data](http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data) > > Interpret as you see fit. > > 23-to-37 still seems like alot to come from 1. JMHO. It really depends on how much they are making, no? ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/492 "2011-08-12T14:20:32Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, I didn’t equivocate, I responded to someone else who pulled that $10K out of his butt. And when I asked him where he got that number, he didn’t answer. Yeah, I wonder where that number came from" [QUOTE=curlcoat] I did try to guesstimate using the tables here, and it looks like we are paying about $10K less in fed income tax [/quote] ---
**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 12, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/493 "2011-08-12T14:47:30Z")
[QUOTE=curlcoat;14129868Oh please. I realize that my grasp of the language isn’t perfect but I cannot believe that no one here has ever misunderstood something they have read.[/quote] Yeah but a lot of people read your post the same way. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and postulated that you were saving money because of child care costs or something like that and it was made clear to me that it was basically the taxes. You focused on the taxes as the reason you didn’t feel the pinch of losing 20K in income. > [@](#): > > It did? Huh. I thought all I said was when I quit working, the lowering of the amount of taxes we paid, and some adjustments I made, meant we didn’t notice much difference. You focused on the tax part. Once again, here is what you said: > [@](#): > > For example - I had to quit working in 2007 so our annual income dropped by $20K+. **Due to the difference in the amount of income tax we pay** (which does include state income tax), we have noticed almost no difference. > [@](#): > > “File for bankruptcy, pay pennies on the dollar to settle your debts, go on with life.” Perhaps you are using bailout differently than everyone else but the bad debt losses are not covered by taxpayers. The bankruptcy code has worked in pretty much the same way for fucking decades, our nation is in part founded on the concepts underlying the bankruptcy code. EVERYONE knew about the bankruptcy code BEFORE they lent someone money, its why lenders are supposed to be careful who they lend money to. > [@](#): > > Apparently only since 1978. Yeah, thats the point of inception for the modern bankruptcy code. The Bankruptcy Code BEEFORE that was called the Chandler ACT and THAT had a Chapter 13 as well. So I guess if you go back to before the Great Depression, the laws might have been different. What’s your point, tho? That we bailed out these folks in 1978? > [@](#): > > I don’t know why you would be personally offended by me saying that these days we spend a lot of time, money and effort bailing people out who are financially irresponsible. Also, it isn’t like the credit card companies haven’t been sending cards for decades to people who shouldn’t have them. The mortgage thing is recent, but people running up debt they shouldn’t be is nothing new. My first husband did it in the late 70’s, so it’s been going on since at least then, tho back then no one was around to help me pay it all off. Yeah and the credit card companies are taking the risk. They KNOW they risk default. EVERY lender knows that there is a risk of default. You (by and large) had the same rights under the bankruptcy code back then as you have today (its actually a bit less today because of the 2005 law). > [@](#): > > These consequences would be severe to you or me, but to those who have spent their lives running up debt and cannot pay it off, the ability to keep the house they have, vehicles to get to work and payment plans that don’t include paying off the whole nut is going to look really nice. The job thing may be more of an issue these days, but before the current economic problems, many of these folks had and kept jobs while going thru bankruptcy and afterward. I know of two from my last job, and my husband worked with one. All were before 2005 tho, so that may be why I am seeing far more ads about it these days. The bankruptcy laws are less forgiving today than they were in 2004. The reason you see so many ads is because so many people are fucking broke. > [@](#): > > I said in my OP that I had made some adjustments. You focused on taxes. If you wish to recant and say that you were able to get by on less money because you made some adjustments, then fine but you said: > [@](#): > > Due to the difference in the amount of income tax we pay\*\* (which does include state income tax), we have noticed almost no difference > [@](#): > > Again, this is the Pit - people like to jump on a detail, twist it around until it’s unrecognizable and then repeat it until they have followers. I cannot be held responsible for that, um, habit? Or you are trying to change what you said after the fact. Normally people just back off and say, hrmm I guess I should have said X instead of Y. If that is what you had done, yes. However, other than using the word glib, this isn’t what you did - you completely changed what you had said. > [@](#): > > Are you reading this **Damuri Ajashi**? This is exactly what I meant by people jumping on a detail. So what if **Chessic Sense** specified what adjustments could be made? You even quoted back that I said “adjustments” but you chose to pretend that I only said taxes. If you notice, I didn’t jump on you at first. I was trying to make excuses for you and then you made it clear you were focusing on he taxes. ---
**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 12, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/494 "2011-08-12T14:55:05Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > Will soon be one of those people and no I don’t like it. It boggles my mind why someone who is highly successful is somehow expected to carry more of the burden than others who may not be. How does this make any sense except in some bizarro world? We should all pay 15% of our yearly income and that’s that. > > Obummer brought this up in a speech yesterday. He stressed that its about being fair. He had the gall to use the word fair regarding overtaxing the rich. ROFLMAO. You have no idea what the concept of fair means. I’ve been “one of those people” for years and I have seen people come and go at law firms and investment banks alike, most people last a few years. They all think that taxes are too high on the rich unless they lose their job with no real prospects of ever getting the brass ring, then their views suddenly mellow and the conept of progressive taxation becomes more palatable. Your position is not based on what system makes for a fair and just society, your position is based on what will give you the biggest take home pay. Read up on John Rawls and the original position if you want to start thinking about what is fair. He basically says that noone is objective enough to determine what is fair. The poor will think that policies that help them are fair and the rich will think that policies that help them are fair. Fairness can only be determined by someone in the “original position” SOmeone who is effectively in everybody’s shoes. ---
**Author:** ![flag\_not\_set](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@flag\_not\_set](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flag_not_set)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/495 "2011-08-12T15:28:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Fairness can only be determined by someone in the “original position” SOmeone who is effectively in everybody’s shoes. That is an interesting philosophical concept. Too bad it cannot be justified or achieved. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2011, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/496 "2011-08-12T15:38:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > ROFLMAO. You have no idea what the concept of fair means. > > I’ve been “one of those people” for years and I have seen people come and go at law firms and investment banks alike, most people last a few years. They all think that taxes are too high on the rich unless they lose their job with no real prospects of ever getting the brass ring, then their views suddenly mellow and the conept of progressive taxation becomes more palatable. > > Your position is not based on what system makes for a fair and just society, your position is based on what will give you the biggest take home pay. > > Read up on John Rawls and the original position if you want to start thinking about what is fair. He basically says that noone is objective enough to determine what is fair. The poor will think that policies that help them are fair and the rich will think that policies that help them are fair. Fairness can only be determined by someone in the “original position” SOmeone who is effectively in everybody’s shoes. I don’t have to “read up” on anyone. I can think for myself. Funny how only the rich can be derided for wanting their take home pay to be as much as possible. We are all free to donate to charity. We have that freedom. And freedom doesn’t end with the poor and the middle class. The rich are no less American than anyone else. However they are expected to adapt to special rules because of all they have. Sour grapes is what its all about. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/497 "2011-08-13T02:13:31Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > Yeah, I wonder where that number came from" I was talking about post #185, where I asked you where you got the $10+K number that you stated must be the amount we no longer have since I quite working. My much later post, where I guessed we are paying that amount less in only fed tax is a different thing, or do you not understand that we have payroll taxes going to places other than the IRS? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah but a lot of people read your post the same way. Actually, one or two people interpreted it the way they wanted to (as you appear to be below) and all the rest of you are just echoing their mistakes. > [@](#): > > You focused on the tax part. Once again, here is what you said: You failed to include the whole quote for some reason, which included: > [@curlcoat](#): > > I had to quit working in 2007 so our annual income dropped by $20K+. Due to the difference in the amount of income tax we pay (which does include state income tax), we have noticed almost no difference. **I’ve made some adjustments** , but really our lifestyle hasn’t changed that much, Bolding mine. Yes, my major focus is on the lesser amount of tax we paid, but that is not all I said in my OP. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you are using bailout differently than everyone else but the bad debt losses are not covered by taxpayers. Not directly as taxes, but as higher costs. If (me now pulling numbers out of my butt, but at least I admit it) Mastercard loses $1M a year in debts they have to write off, they aren’t going to just absorb that loss, they are going to pass it on to their customers. > [@](#): > > The bankruptcy code has worked in pretty much the same way for fucking decades, our nation is in part founded on the concepts underlying the bankruptcy code. EVERYONE knew about the bankruptcy code BEFORE they lent someone money, its why lenders are supposed to be careful who they lend money to. This has nothing to do with what I said. Yes, the way the government handled the bank bailout I don’t agree with, but that was an (we can only hope) one-off thing and not the ongoing problem of people being completely irresponsible with their money and credit. > [@](#): > > Yeah, thats the point of inception for the modern bankruptcy code. The Bankruptcy Code BEEFORE that was called the Chandler ACT and THAT had a Chapter 13 as well. So I guess if you go back to before the Great Depression, the laws might have been different. What’s your point, tho? That we bailed out these folks in 1978? At this point, I’m not sure I remember. Probably that the changes in 1978 made it easier for people to file bankruptcy but still keep most of their possessions. > [@](#): > > Yeah and the credit card companies are taking the risk. They KNOW they risk default. EVERY lender knows that there is a risk of default. You (by and large) had the same rights under the bankruptcy code back then as you have today (its actually a bit less today because of the 2005 law). How much risk is it when they can just pass on the costs to those who do pay their bills? They can probably write it off on their taxes as well. > [@](#): > > The bankruptcy laws are less forgiving today than they were in 2004. The reason you see so many ads is because so many people are fucking broke. That doesn’t make sense. Why would anyone pay for TV air time to target a group that is broke? > [@](#): > > You focused on taxes. If you wish to recant and say that you were able to get by on less money because you made some adjustments, then fine but you said: > > Or you are trying to change what you said after the fact. Normally people just back off and say, hrmm I guess I should have said X instead of Y. See above. Is it any wonder I keep repeating READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WRITE? Someone else is going to come along, read your posts and think that is all I said. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/498 "2011-08-13T05:32:26Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I was talking about post #185, where I asked you where you got the $10+K number that you stated must be the amount we no longer have since I quite working. My much later post, where I guessed we are paying that amount less in only fed tax is a different thing, or do you not understand that we have payroll taxes going to places other than the IRS? So you are doubling down. Being told that no combination of state income tax, Federal income tax, and payroll tax adds up to a marginal tax rate of 50%, you are now saying that Federal Income tax _alone_ is at a marginal tax rate of 50%. I don’t know if you are insane, stupid, or just trolling. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/499 "2011-08-13T05:40:49Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > So you are doubling down. Being told that no combination of state income tax, Federal income tax, and payroll tax adds up to a marginal tax rate of 50%, you are now saying that Federal Income tax _alone_ is at a marginal tax rate of 50%. I don’t know if you are insane, stupid, or just trolling. Uh, yeah, ok. If you want to bob and weave, you can do it by yourself. I think I already said that this was getting boring once - it’s there again. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/500 "2011-08-13T16:40:20Z")
Can anyone else make a lick of sense out of what **Curlcoat** is saying? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=26)