Since you’ve failed to make good on your “threat” to walk away, care to take a stab at SenorBeef’s question? One sentence summary? Here’s what I propose is your summary (and I’ll even give you two sentences):
That one good with you? (What am I saying, of course it’s good, you haven’t changed anything the whole time).
nvm
No one gives a fuck about your “perception”. The fact is that a $20,000 reduction in income means a reduction of ~$12-15K in take home pay. If you don’t notice that, then more power to you. If you wouldn’t notice another $1000/month missing feel free to send it my way.
And for the record, I’ve never insulted you in this thread, so stop claiming I did.
Lovely example of your inability to understand what you read, since that didn’t happen.
Which question? If it was one of his wild exaggerations, there is a good chance I didn’t even read it.
No idea since I don’t know what the question is.
Then why do you keep on about it? All of this and you finally realize that you misunderstood what I originally said, and that you don’t care about it?
A selection from only one of your posts here - "It’s you who’s being obtuse. You’ve had 40+ posts to make an intelligent argument and have chosen instead to backpedal, move the goalposts, “misinterpret” other people’s comments, and be insulting.
We don’t want to “win”, we want to fight ignorance. You’ve demonstrated the problem with that though, ignorant people don’t want their ignorance fought."
You don’t consider calling me obtuse, claiming I backpedal, move goalposts, purposely misinterpret other people’s comments or that I’m ignorant - none of those are attempts to be insulting?
screw it. lets just go back to the heady days of Ike and tax the rich (in this day and age, we’ll be generous and say…anyone whose personal income is 7 digits or higher,) 81%. Now we do give them generous tax breaks on investments which create jobs IN THE USA, but the lowest overall taxes they can hit is 50%.
When the tax rates are low, business owners actually put less in the business. Everything they move out in profits goes into their pockets . But when taxes are higher, they may as well build the business. that will end up putting more money in their pockets by growing the company. But if they can get rich as hell without growing the company, why should they?
Higher personal income taxes actually encourage businessmen to invest in the company. Lower taxes encourage them to take as much out as they can.
No problem, sweetie. Here’s what I was referring to:
Now, care to take a shot at it, or are we in for more dodging, weaving, and excuses?
If you make 250K in NYC, you are nowhere near rich. Well off, sure, but not rich.
For someone who complains loudly about other people putting words in her mouth, you are pretty quick to put words in other people’s mouths.
Perhaps you missed the part where I cite your own posts back to you.
You have no idea what those ads are for do you?
You should look in the mirror sometime. You tried to get away with saying some bullshit and got called on it. Its pretty simple.
There has been no dodging, weaving or excuses from here - remember the irony? I think I already answered that one but if not…
My point was what I’ve said all along. If taxes are raised, there may be people who find as we did that having a second income (or getting a raise/better job/whatever) may not be worth a long(er) commute, overtime, daycare, etc. Raising taxes may end up being counterproductive.
You said “Perhaps tahts how it works in your versionj of libertopia but a “buyer beware” attitude on everything is probably more harmful to economic activity than a slight increase in taxes on the rich.” in response to another poster talking about the junk mortgages. Did you not mean to suggest that people should make large purchases, such as a house, without any buyer beware attitude?
No. Did you miss the part where you provided your own, incorrect, interpretation of my posts? That is what I didn’t say.
Hiring a company or attorney to help them thru bankruptcy as painlessly as possible.
Whether or not what I initially said was bullshit is immaterial in the wake of what you and 2-3 others have posted since then. You aren’t even addressing what I said initially, and no matter how many times I point that out, and no matter how many times I point out that those of you fixated on exact tax numbers are way off track, you just keep coming back to it.
If you think that my original opinion, that there is most likely a decent number of people out there who may choose to not work or work less in face of higher taxes is bullshit, address that not some other issue you all have made up.
It seems like almost every point you made is invalid:
You stopped working before you knew what the tax affects were, and still don’t know what they are, so I don’t see how tax rates could have influenced your decision.
Tax rates have gone down, not up, so you have made the point that lowering taxes enables people to stop working.
The fact that you do not miss >$10K a year is a clear demonstration that the marginal utility of money decreases with higher income. This is one of the theoretical basises for progressive tax rates.
Are you serious? You’re so evasive and excuse-laden, you make Tony Soprano look like a paragon of honest forthrightness. What do you call this, if not an excuse?
Passing over the connection to taxes for the moment, you’re making one of the most obvious statements ever – people might not want to put in more effort if the return is not commensurate. I suppose I should give you credit for finally managing to say one thing in this thread that isn’t completely wrong and idiotic.
Aaaaand here we go. First of all, Ms. My-Point-Hasn’t-Changed-One-Iota, in your original post on the subject, you made fuckall mention of raising taxes. Regardless, it has been pointed out to you at least a dozen times by at least a half-dozen people that, due to the marginal taxation system in this country, your “point” is mathematically impossible. I suspect your failure to grasp this point is willful.
Well, if nothing else, I guess you’re making people long for the days when Starving Artist was the God of Wrong in this thread. I disagreed with just about everything his said, but at least he’s got some intelligence, if a misguided sort. You’re just basically saying “Nuh-uh” ad nauseum, and throwing around “Learn to read!” (with a delicious total lack of self-awareness) like it’s the newest, most clever insult ever.
People still try to argue with Curlcoat?
Give it up. She will always be “right” and you will always be “wrong”, no matter what you say, what cite you show, or what fact you try to give to her.
" There are a decent number of people who will chose not to work in the face of higher taxes." CURLCOAT actually wrote that and did not delete it in reread. Amazing. If they raise my taxes a little , I will starve, That’ll learn em.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s like it’s a point of pride that everyone disagrees with her. It’s weirdly fascinating.
It’s like the man says: “Some people are so far behind in a race that they actually believe they’re leading.”
What is it with liberals and thinking that every wage earner is in it alone? Quitting your job doesn’t mean you’ll starve if you’re the household’s second wage earner. Quitting working overtime on Saturdays doesn’t mean you’ll quit the M-F 9-5. Quitting driving to that second job and putting the kid in daycare doesn’t mean you’ll quit the main job.
Consider the common case of a father working while the mother decides if it’s worth it to put the toddler in daycare and work an 8-hr shift or if she should just stay home with the kid and save the gas/money/effort.
Can you not see how the tax rate influences that decision? Is that, or is that not, different than “if they raise my taxes a little, I will starve.”?
I’m in this exact position right now – as you say, it’s common – and not once has taxes entered my mind as a factor. It just pales in comparison to all the other factors: daycare, as you mentioned; time with the kids; resulting tiredness; stress; etc.. I suspect that anyone who makes a career decision based solely – or even largely – on taxes is either (a) looking at a six-figure swing in income based on quitting that job or (b) fundamentally misunderstands how taxes work.
If my husband were to quit his job and become a SAHD (I make more and I like my job) we would probably save about 300 dollars in taxes alone. This would be because my taxes would go down. I could claim a lot of things that we are currently unable to claim (since we make too much) and I can claim him as a dependant.
300 dollars is a goodly amount. It could be the make or break point for us if we were willing to give up other things (two cars, yearly vacations).
Now, granted, I am in Canada so that probably makes a pretty big difference.
And this $300 (are we talking per paycheck? Per year? What?) is more than he makes?
Whatever you’re talking about, it isn’t the marginal tax rate on income tax.
Nope, your point was that taxes basically made you losing 20K in income a wash or close enough that you didn’t notice and you were certain that it couldn’t have been a $10K (or 50%) difference.
In the context of the debate you were saying that taxes were so high that 20K in additional income was almost entirely consumed by those taxes.
No, that is not what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting was that there is assymetry of information between a mortgage broker and the average joe looking for a mortgage and that regulations may be appropriate.
It wasn’t an interpretation it was QUOTE:
From Post 367:
When I said “you gave the impression taht your income didn’t go down by an otiable amount”, I was being polite and giving you some room to back away but you insteqad you say that I was misinpterpreting your wordas? I was basically quoting your words.
Not always but sometimes. And in what way is providing access to the bankrptcy courts a bailout. Here is what you said:
"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… "
How in the world is letting people file for bankruptcy equal to a “rush to get people out of their financial holes” The bankruptcy code has been there for a long time and it was part of the reason why LENDERS were careful about who they lent to. There have always been people willign to borrow money they could not afford, the way the credit market works is that the lender underwrite the borrowers and decide who deserves credit and who does not. For a while you had lenders convincing people that they could afford to borrrow money they cold not actually afford.
This is the statement in post 68 that people latched onto
This is my first response to people who were criticizing your statement in post 286:
I think its apparent i was trying to figure out how your statement could make any sense. I do this again in post 289.
Then you denied saying what you said and I pointed out that out in post 292:
That was not your original position. You psoition was not that reasonable people might work less because taxes reduced the incentive enough that they decided the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze. That is econ 101, taxes distort the economy, we know that, I would never have argued against that fact other than to say that all taxes are distortive and affect behaviour. This is NOT what you were saying. You were saying that it distorted the economy so much that losing 20K in income became barely noticable.
Now, perhaps we all misread your statement and you were really trying to say that taxes reduce take home pay (duh) and in some cases it reduces take home pay by enough to make it not worth working, then fine but overall, your take home pay does not go down with more earned income (nor does it remain static) and that is what your posts seemed to be im[plying until people called you on it.