# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/121 "2011-07-25T17:15:34Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > You’re the one who’s saying that if we raise the top marginal tax rate by 3%, people will wonder if they should bother to work anymore, and I’m the one exaggerating? Perhaps if you would stick with what I actually say and not try to put words in my mouth it would save you having to shout and wave your arms around. What I actually said is continuing to shift the tax burden upwards can be a disincentive for someone to _better themselves_, not “bother to work anymore”. > [@](#): > > The last sentence in my post isn’t an exaggeration. If we raised the top marginal tax rate by 3%, and someone moved up from making $380k per year to $550k per year, their overall tax burden would actually go up by 1%. Are you saying that someone would seriously consider whether it was worth it to put the work in to make $550k vs $380k per year based on the 1% overall higher tax burden? No, I’m saying I can see that someone would seriously consider whether it was worth it to put in the work to make $550K as opposed to $500K. Same for any other time someone ends up in a higher tax bracket due to being rewarded for hard work. > [@](#): > > Speaking of burdens, do you have any idea how burdensome it is to be able to refute someone so clearly and thoroughly - to just wreck them on an intellectual level - and yet never have it sink in, even in the slightest? Undoubtedly you’ll be telling us in a thread in a few weeks about how no one has ever been able to justify progressive taxation, and that a 1% increased tax burden is a strong enough disincentive to make you reconsider whether you want to make an extra $170k per year or not. :rolleyes: God you are being an asshole. You completely miss my point and then when I try to bow out you continue to rant on. I hope I’ve been clear enough for you here, as I probably will not have time to do much else. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/122 "2011-07-25T17:29:26Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, I’m saying I can see that someone would seriously consider whether it was worth it to put in the work to make $550K as opposed to $500K. Same for any other time someone ends up in a higher tax bracket due to being rewarded for hard work. Personally, I think the world would be much better off if fewer people strove to accumulate money well past the point of a comfortable living, allowing more money to go around to everyone else. That’s just me, though. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/123 "2011-07-25T17:36:46Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > I’m glad that you feel free to have such strong opinions about something that you know nothing about. Is that a giggle at the end of your post? > > The fact is you are simply wrong. You and **Senor Beef** seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn’t agree with everything you say. For one thing, I have no strong opinions on this subject merely because it wouldn’t do me any good. For another, there is no way you could know if I am “simply wrong” about my own finances. The facts are these - 1. I stopped working Sept of 2007 2. This resulted in a net loss of income of about $20,000 3. I pay all of our bills except my husbands Amex 4. There has been zero noticeable drop in standard of living here. 5. Which cannot be explained by tax cuts because we don’t qualify for most of them. Now, as I said to **Senor Beef** , I hope this is clear to you because I may not have time to post much more as I am getting on a plane in a few hours to go to Hawaii. > [@elucidator](#): > > Didn’t ask if the “50% pay no Federal Income Tax” was accurate. Asked you to prove the scenario of lavish living you offered. Should I type slower? Would that help? Did you look at the link? Are they saying these folks paid no _more_ taxes on 4/15, or that they got everything back (and sometimes more) that had been withheld from their paychecks? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/124 "2011-07-25T17:42:00Z")
It…wasn’t…about…the…tax…rate. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/125 "2011-07-25T17:46:57Z")
One would think I’ve learned a lesson about dealing with you, but I’ll take a pot shot anyways… > [@curlcoat](#): > > 1. Which cannot be explained by tax cuts because we don’t qualify for most of them. (A) You said above that you don’t do the taxes, so how the hell do you know which “tax cuts” you qualify for? (B) Fucking _everyone_ qualifies for the Bush tax cuts. It was universal, designed that way because it’s still not palatable (although just barely!) for Congress to say, “Let’s pass a tax cut for only the rich.” ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/126 "2011-07-25T17:49:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > “A report filed by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation on April 29 determined that 51 percent of American households owed no federal income tax in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available. In fact, the study found that 30 percent of the nation’s taxing units – individuals, families and various other categories – actually made money off the income tax system.” > > [http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/jul/23/no-headline---ev\_taxes/](http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/jul/23/no-headline---ev_taxes/) From that article: > [@](#): > > The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan think tank, characterized the 51 percent figure as an anomaly owing to the 2009 recession when the number of low-income Americans swelled and Congress approved several temporary tax cuts to spur the sluggish economy, removing millions from the tax rolls. > > In a more typical year, according to the Center, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent > [@](#): > > Sixty percent of non-payers make less than $20,000 a year. ETA: And, as I pointed out in the other thread, those 50% own about 2.5% of the wealth in the country. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/127 "2011-07-25T17:52:26Z")
All of it in the form of big screen tvs, extra cars, fancy homes. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/128 "2011-07-25T17:55:53Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Perhaps if you would stick with what I actually say and not try to put words in my mouth it would save you having to shout and wave your arms around. What I actually said is continuing to shift the tax burden upwards can be a disincentive for someone to _better themselves_, not “bother to work anymore”. What does this even mean? Poor people won’t bother trying to improve their lot in life because they’ll have to pay more taxes? The fact that they’ll still have more money than before doesn’t enter into it? > [@curlcoat](#): > > No, I’m saying I can see that someone would seriously consider whether it was worth it to put in the work to make $550K as opposed to $500K. Same for any other time someone ends up in a higher tax bracket due to being rewarded for hard work. As was pointed out, even if that extra $50k is taxed at a higher rate, that’s still more money than they had before. Whether it’s worth it to that person isn’t for me to say, but complaining that progressive taxes punish people for hard work is clueless on many levels. > [@curlcoat](#): > > :rolleyes: God you are being an asshole. You completely miss my point and then when I try to bow out you continue to rant on. I hope I’ve been clear enough for you here, as I probably will not have time to do much else. There have been many discussions like this in the past. Maybe **SenorBeef** is being a bit harsh on you, personally, but you’re just repeating stuff that’s been said in the past, and it hasn’t gotten any less ridiculous in the repetition. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/129 "2011-07-25T18:03:33Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > As was pointed out, even if that extra $50k is taxed at a higher rate, that’s still more money than they had before. Whether it’s worth it to that person isn’t for me to say, but complaining that progressive taxes punish people for hard work is clueless on many levels. Especially when we consider that this top marginal rate has been **much** higher in the past, with no observable effect on job creation or GDP growth. Hell, it was 90% in the not-too-ancient past. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/130 "2011-07-25T20:24:52Z")
> [@quixotic78](#): > > (A) You said above that you don’t do the taxes, so how the hell do you know which “tax cuts” you qualify for? Oh ferchrissakes, do you think my husband and I don’t talk? > [@](#): > > (B) Fucking _everyone_ qualifies for the Bush tax cuts. It was universal, designed that way because it’s still not palatable (although just barely!) for Congress to say, “Let’s pass a tax cut for only the rich.” Do you have trouble reading or is it just comprehension? Did you see the word “most” in that sentence? The Bush tax cuts are not “most” of the available tax write-offs. > [@kenetic](#): > > What does this even mean? Poor people won’t bother trying to improve their lot in life because they’ll have to pay more taxes? The fact that they’ll still have more money than before doesn’t enter into it? Really out of patience and time for this. Did you actually read what you are responding to? > [@](#): > > As was pointed out, even if that extra $50k is taxed at a higher rate, that’s still more money than they had before. Whether it’s worth it to that person isn’t for me to say, but complaining that progressive taxes punish people for hard work is clueless on many levels. Really? Have you looked at the world recently? There are a _lot_ of people who are happy to live on very little money because they simply have no interest in working for a living. How much of a leap of logic is it to opine that there may be people, maybe even many, who would draw the line at working hard to earn money to send to the government. Remember, it isn’t just income tax that one pays on payroll, so everything goes up. You can’t see the possibility that some people would decide that working overtime/getting more training/commuting further isn’t worth whatever net increase they might end up with? “More money” is not always worth the sacrifice, and everyone has their limits as to what they will do for it. > [@](#): > > There have been many discussions like this in the past. Maybe **SenorBeef** is being a bit harsh on you, personally, but you’re just repeating stuff that’s been said in the past, and it hasn’t gotten any less ridiculous in the repetition. Obviously, I wasn’t involved in those discussions, and to assume that any opinion must be ridiculous simply because you don’t agree with it is juvenile. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/131 "2011-07-25T20:29:10Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Oh ferchrissakes, do you think my husband and I don’t talk? Quite possibly. I find communicating with you pretty unpleasant. > [@](#): > > Do you have trouble reading or is it just comprehension? Did you see the word “most” in that sentence? The Bush tax cuts are not “most” of the available tax write-offs. Channeling Jackie Chiles: Who was talking about tax write-offs? I wasn’t talking about tax write-offs. You weren’t talking about tax write-offs. Show me where you said tax write-offs: > [@](#): > > You and Senor Beef seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn’t agree with everything you say. For one thing, I have no strong opinions on this subject merely because it wouldn’t do me any good. For another, there is no way you could know if I am “simply wrong” about my own finances. The facts are these - > > 1. I stopped working Sept of 2007 > 2. This resulted in a net loss of income of about $20,000 > 3. I pay all of our bills except my husbands Amex > 4. There has been zero noticeable drop in standard of living here. > 5. Which cannot be explained by tax cuts because we don’t qualify for most of them. ---
**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:** [July 25, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/132 "2011-07-25T20:49:35Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Point. > > Now, let’s see how long it takes for **SA** to come in and snidely point out that he was talking about people with TVs who don’t pay income tax and _not_ who are on food stamps like **quixotic** suggested, and therefore don’t we feel stupid, ha ha. Bingo! Food stamps is a completely different issue than income tax. and an entire lifestyle is completely different than simply having a TV. I don’t expect you’ll feel stupid, however. If that was possible, you wouldn’t half the things you do. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/133 "2011-07-25T21:07:04Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Bingo! Food stamps is a completely different issue than income tax. So, if I’m following your logic properly… you think it’s abhorrent (my paraphrase) for people who pay no income tax to own a TV, multiple cars (even if they’re shitty), a two-story house (how that’s a standard of success, I have no idea), and clothes without stains and holes in them… But lord knows you don’t apply that same standard to the subset of people on food stamps, the poorest of the poor! They can have all the TVs and non-beshitted clothing they want! Hell, they can have _three_ story houses! … Does not compute. > [@](#): > > I don’t expect you’ll feel stupid, however. If that was possible, you wouldn’t half the things you do. Is this a known corollary of Gaudere’s Law? People who unjustly call others stupid will make stupid typos? (And you’ve got a two-fer: failure to use the subjunctive, and omission of a word! You’ve hit gold! Now you’re rich, so let me tax you on it.) ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/134 "2011-07-25T21:11:00Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Really out of patience and time for this. Did you actually read what you are responding to? So you didn’t say this?: > [@curlcoat](#): > > This is something that the “damn those people with money, make 'em pay” folks never seem to have an answer for - **Two Many Cats** was the most recent one. Apparently if you don’t have what you want, someone else is supposed to supply it and _right now_ - how about those people over there who have more money than I do? What, they earned it? So what! > [@curlcoat](#): > > Really? Have you looked at the world recently? There are a _lot_ of people who are happy to live on very little money because they simply have no interest in working for a living. How much of a leap of logic is it to opine that there may be people, maybe even many, who would draw the line at working hard to earn money to send to the government. Remember, it isn’t just income tax that one pays on payroll, so everything goes up. You can’t see the possibility that some people would decide that working overtime/getting more training/commuting further isn’t worth whatever net increase they might end up with? “More money” is not always worth the sacrifice, and everyone has their limits as to what they will do for it. Cite for “There are a _lot_ of people who are happy to live on very little money because they simply have no interest in working for a living”? I know a lot of people who don’t prioritize making money and are happy with what they have, but to say “they simply have no interest in working for a living” is a ridiculous stereotype. It’s just a variation on the standard “poor people are lazy” meme, and not even a very original one at that. As for the rest of your comment, I did say “Whether it’s worth it to that person isn’t for me to say”. Did you miss that part? Because if you’d read that I can’t see how this response makes sense. Pointing out other factors that might cause someone not to try for a higher salary is just strengthening my argument and weakening yours. Also, I’m sure it’s been pointed out to you many times, but I guess it needs repeating: “working harder” =/= “making more money”. Luck and opportunity are pretty huge factors. I’m not saying all rich people didn’t work for it, I’m sure a lot of them did, but to simply insist that there’s a consistent and unquestionable 1-1 correspondence between work and income is ridiculously naive. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Obviously, I wasn’t involved in those discussions, and to assume that any opinion must be ridiculous simply because you don’t agree with it is juvenile. No, I’m calling it ridiculous because it’s been shown to be ridiculous many, many times. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/135 "2011-07-25T21:16:34Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Bingo! Food stamps is a completely different issue than income tax. and an entire lifestyle is completely different than simply having a TV. > > I don’t expect you’ll feel stupid, however. If that was possible, you wouldn’t half the things you do. The most amazing thing is you actually seem proud of yourself for being a nitpicky little weasel. ---
**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:** [July 25, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/136 "2011-07-25T21:37:38Z")
Just trying to fit in. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/137 "2011-07-25T21:39:01Z")
His brain keeps hitting the submit button before the autocorrect neuron can do its thing. ---
**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:** [July 25, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/138 "2011-07-25T21:44:10Z")
> [@quixotic78](#): > > So, if I’m following your logic properly… you think it’s abhorrent (my paraphrase) for people who pay no income tax to own a TV, multiple cars (even if they’re shitty), a two-story house (how that’s a standard of success, I have no idea), and clothes without stains and holes in them… But lord knows you don’t apply that same standard to the subset of people on food stamps, the poorest of the poor! They can have all the TVs and non-beshitted clothing they want! Hell, they can have _three_ story houses! Oh, good grief! What I abhor is that our tax-the-rich government has decided that people living what almost anyone would consider to be typical suburban lifestyles are now so impoverished that they no longer required to help support the government. People on food stamps, on the other hand and so far as I know, genuinely are underpriviliged whether they have TV’s or not. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/139 "2011-07-25T21:52:15Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Oh, good grief! What I abhor is that our tax-the-rich government has decided that people living what almost anyone would consider to be typical suburban lifestyles are now so impoverished that they no longer required to help support the government. Did you read the cite I posted above (well, actually someone else posted but I quoted from) about those in the “don’t pay federal income tax” bracket? How it’s really only 35% or so (the recessions made it abnormally high)? How 61% of them make $20k or less? How the majority are either elderly or students? As to what the truly middle-class should pay, I’m with you - repeal the Bush tax cuts now! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2011, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209/140 "2011-07-25T21:54:46Z")
You know who loves food stamps, **Starving**? Cargill. Archer Daniels Midland. General Foods. All the people who are pawns in the plot of the corn plant to take over the world. Ever notice how easily it glides past Pubbies, who you think would hate, hate, hate it? And no, if you check into it, food assistance doesn’t so much go to the utterly impoverished (it does, but not predominantly) as to persons who might become so impoverished but are not as yet. And lately, there are lots and lots of them. If you are like most people, odds are good that someone you know personally is using them. Maybe they don’t tell you. Or, maybe neither of your friends is on food stamps. Whatever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taxing-the-rich/590209.md?page=8)