Interesting tax proposal

[UCFWayne]

$2m is not what it used to be. that said, thats still a ton of money and definitely puts you into the rich category. why are people even arguing that?

85 just showed that puts you in the top 10%. that is not subjective.

 

[Cubs79]

$2m is not what it used to be. that said, thats still a ton of money and definitely puts you into the rich category. why are people even arguing that?

85 just showed that puts you in the top 10%. that is not subjective.

Defining the top 10% as rich is subjective.

 

[UCFWayne]

Defining the top 10% as rich is subjective.

did you look at the numbers 85 presented? do you have your own metrics?

$2m vs the average of $260k

pretend everyone here went to usf. please tell us the difference.

now that you have show us the difference, please explain how that number is subjective.

 

[Cubs79]

did you look at the numbers 85 presented? do you have your own metrics?

$2m vs the average of $260k

pretend everyone here went to usf. please tell us the difference.

now that you have show us the difference, please explain how that number is subjective.

Yeah, but look at the average of the top 1% to the bottom of the 10%. The top 1% is over $12 million, which is also significantly higher than $2 million. Again, it is just how you personally define rich, like I said earlier, I define rich as basically being to a point where money is no object to someone. I don't think $2 million that might need to last 15-20 years is that situation. It is certainly a nice sum of money, but it also isn't a situation where you can just purchase whatever you wish without even thinking about it.

 

[UCFWayne]

Yeah, but look at the average of the top 1% to the bottom of the 10%. The top 1% is over $12 million, which is also significantly higher than $2 million. Again, it is just how you personally define rich, like I said earlier, I define rich as basically being to a point where money is no object to someone. I don't think $2 million that might need to last 15-20 years is that situation. It is certainly a nice sum of money, but it also isn't a situation where you can just purchase whatever you wish without even thinking about it.

omg the top 1% is higher than everyone else?!?! i dont know if you have heard the news, but we landed on the moon. also, water... get this... is wet.

you are arguing just to argue. i will agree than $2m in nyc is different than $2m in alabama. that doesnt change the fact for the vast majority of americans, that is what we are going by the average, $2m is rich.

 

[Cubs79]

omg the top 1% is higher than everyone else?!?! i dont know if you have heard the news, but we landed on the moon. also, water... get this... is wet.

you are arguing just to argue. i will agree than $2m in nyc is different than $2m in alabama. that doesnt change the fact for the vast majority of americans, that is what we are going by the average, $2m is rich.

You are the one who addressed me first, so get out of here with "I am just arguing to argue" BS. Sorry my opinion is different than yours but I am sure you will be ok. Have a good day.

 

[sk8knight]

Yeah, but look at the average of the top 1% to the bottom of the 10%. The top 1% is over $12 million, which is also significantly higher than $2 million. Again, it is just how you personally define rich, like I said earlier, I define rich as basically being to a point where money is no object to someone. I don't think $2 million that might need to last 15-20 years is that situation. It is certainly a nice sum of money, but it also isn't a situation where you can just purchase whatever you wish without even thinking about it.

At least top 10% is a clear division for sake of argument. I know people that meet your definition of rich that worry over every purchase even though they don't technically have to. They don't consider themselves in your category even though they are 1%'ers. The problem with "rich" as a categorization (also goes to buy whatever you wish) is that it is absolutely subjective. Your vision of rich will largely revolve around those with more than you have no matter where you stand. It's great for stirring up emotions with wealth envy rhetoric but bad for policy decisions. Hell, most of the people in most of the countries of the world would say that all Americans are rich, something that we know is untrue.

Not to mention the issue of making the standard getting what you "wish" versus getting what you "need." Unless you are talking about the top fraction of the top 1%, people can always find stuff they wish for that they can't afford without thinking.

So let's pick some quantitative data points to define what is rich. If you're talking Top 10% then you're talking about 33 million out of 330 million. To constrain to top 1%, then you're saying 3.3 million people. That seems like an awfully small group of people. Maybe we can say that "rich" is securing your basic needs (including housing, transportation, food, healthcare, education needs for your family, and executing a viable plan for retirement) without having to worry about how you're going to pay for it every month. Because you all keep telling me that most families cannot meet those needs and so I would think that meeting those without thinking about it would make you rich.

 

[Cubs79]

At least top 10% is a clear division for sake of argument. I know people that meet your definition of rich that worry over every purchase even though they don't technically have to. They don't consider themselves in your category even though they are 1%'ers. The problem with "rich" as a categorization (also goes to buy whatever you wish) is that it is absolutely subjective. Your vision of rich will largely revolve around those with more than you have no matter where you stand. It's great for stirring up emotions with wealth envy rhetoric but bad for policy decisions. Hell, most of the people in most of the countries of the world would say that all Americans are rich, something that we know is untrue.

Not to mention the issue of making the standard getting what you "wish" versus getting what you "need." Unless you are talking about the top fraction of the top 1%, people can always find stuff they wish for that they can't afford without thinking.

So let's pick some quantitative data points to define what is rich. If you're talking Top 10% then you're talking about 33 million out of 330 million. To constrain to top 1%, then you're saying 3.3 million people. That seems like an awfully small group of people. Maybe we can say that "rich" is securing your basic needs (including housing, transportation, food, healthcare, education needs for your family, and executing a viable plan for retirement) without having to worry about how you're going to pay for it every month. Because you all keep telling me that most families cannot meet those needs and so I would think that meeting those without thinking about it would make you rich.

Cool, so 1/10 people in this country are rich I guess. And I guess since I can pay my bills every month, can afford food, save for retirement etc etc, then I am rich, by your definition, I guess that's kind of nice to know.

 

[UCFWayne]

Cool, so 1/10 people in this country are rich I guess. And I guess since I can pay my bills every month, can afford food, save for retirement etc etc, then I am rich, by your definition, I guess that's kind of nice to know.

you are in the top 1% in the world.

 

[UCFWayne]

At least top 10% is a clear division for sake of argument. I know people that meet your definition of rich that worry over every purchase even though they don't technically have to. They don't consider themselves in your category even though they are 1%'ers. The problem with "rich" as a categorization (also goes to buy whatever you wish) is that it is absolutely subjective. Your vision of rich will largely revolve around those with more than you have no matter where you stand. It's great for stirring up emotions with wealth envy rhetoric but bad for policy decisions. Hell, most of the people in most of the countries of the world would say that all Americans are rich, something that we know is untrue.

Not to mention the issue of making the standard getting what you "wish" versus getting what you "need." Unless you are talking about the top fraction of the top 1%, people can always find stuff they wish for that they can't afford without thinking.

So let's pick some quantitative data points to define what is rich. If you're talking Top 10% then you're talking about 33 million out of 330 million. To constrain to top 1%, then you're saying 3.3 million people. That seems like an awfully small group of people. Maybe we can say that "rich" is securing your basic needs (including housing, transportation, food, healthcare, education needs for your family, and executing a viable plan for retirement) without having to worry about how you're going to pay for it every month. Because you all keep telling me that most families cannot meet those needs and so I would think that meeting those without thinking about it would make you rich.

this guy just wants to argue based on his own subjective measure of rich. which he will freely change to fit his argument of the moment.

$2m is a lot of money and makes a person in the top 10% of this country. yet he wants to claim that is subjective. hes not worth arguing with.

 

[Crazyhole]

this guy just wants to argue based on his own subjective measure of rich. which he will freely change to fit his argument of the moment.

$2m is a lot of money and makes a person in the top 10% of this country. yet he wants to claim that is subjective. hes not worth arguing with.

I was the one claiming that "rich" is subjective. There isn't a delineation point where above (x) is rich and below (x) isn't so it really is subject to opinion. FWIW, i make the same point about what poor is and get attacked for it from the other side. I think the poverty line is a total joke as I know several people below it that are doing just fine.

 

[Cubs79]

this guy just wants to argue based on his own subjective measure of rich. which he will freely change to fit his argument of the moment.

$2m is a lot of money and makes a person in the top 10% of this country. yet he wants to claim that is subjective. hes not worth arguing with.

You are also arguing based on your own subjective measure of rich.

 

[Cubs79]

you are in the top 1% in the world.

I don't think we were discussing it in world terms, but yes, $2 million would be a lot of money in many parts of the world.

 

[UCFWayne]

You are also arguing based on your own subjective measure of rich.

top 10% i guess is too subjective for you....

 

[Cubs79]

top 10% i guess is too subjective for you....

Saying the top 10% is the threshold of defining "rich", is absolutely subjective and simply your opinion. Like I said earlier, I would define "rich" as being closer to 1%. Regardless, this conversation is beyond pointless, so we will just agree to disagree, you think 1/10 people in the country is rich, and I don't, agree to disagree.

 

[NinjaKnight]

TIL that 1 out of 10 people is "rich" according to our resident idiots 85 and wayne



I love this board

 

[UCFKnight85]

Saying the top 10% is the threshold of defining "rich", is absolutely subjective and simply your opinion. Like I said earlier, I would define "rich" as being closer to 1%. Regardless, this conversation is beyond pointless, so we will just agree to disagree, you think 1/10 people in the country is rich, and I don't, agree to disagree.

If you are financially better than 90% of the rest of the country, how is that not being rich? This is so bizarre that you're arguing this. Answer it this way, if being in the 90th percentile of all wage earners or wealth in this country is not "rich", then what is it? Middle Class? What then would you call people in the 35-75% areas? Poor?

 

[chemmie]

TIL that 1 out of 10 people is "rich" according to our resident idiots 85 and wayne



I love this board

They have no idea how there is a class of people that are beyond just being "rich." These people are so wealthy that they control markets, they control politicians, in some cases they control media, and they control the massive numbers of people who work under them and are often exploited by them which is proven by the enormous and still growing wealth gap.
They think a guy that worked his way up to manager, making $150K a year, is rich.


You want to fix the absurdly growing wealth gap in this country?
Tie worker salaries and minimum wages to corporate profits. Because the way things are now, workers are receiving less and less while the ultra-wealthy and powerful leaders receive more and more.

 

[Cubs79]

If you are financially better than 90% of the rest of the country, how is that not being rich? This is so bizarre that you're arguing this. Answer it this way, if being in the 90th percentile of all wage earners or wealth in this country is not "rich", then what is it? Middle Class? What then would you call people in the 35-75% areas? Poor?

Look at this way, does someone who makes $100k a year (easily top 10%) have more in common with the middle class and someone who makes $50-60k a year, or more in common with someone makes a million or more a year? The answer is obviously they have more in common with someone make middle class wages. So why are you considering them rich instead of upper middle class, when they clearly have more in common with the middle class?

 

[NinjaKnight]

Watch out guys, grandma FC who has been saving her whole life and is 75 years old and managed to scrape together with 2 million in her retirement account is the same as the useless wall street day trader who clears 2 mil a year.

 

[sk8knight]

Look at this way, does someone who makes $100k a year (easily top 10%) have more in common with the middle class and someone who makes $50-60k a year, or more in common with someone makes a million or more a year? The answer is obviously they have more in common with someone make middle class wages. So why are you considering them rich instead of upper middle class, when they clearly have more in common with the middle class?

The household income for top 10% in 2019 was just under $185k. So I wouldn’t put $100k individual income easily in the top 10%

 

[Cubs79]

The household income for top 10% in 2019 was just under $185k. So I wouldn’t put $100k individual income easily in the top 10%

I don't know where you are getting those #s, the following links have it around $116-$118k as the top 10 %, but regardless, for sake of conversation lets say it is $185k, that is still a lot closer to $50-70K than it is to a million or more.
https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/
https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

 

[sk8knight]

https://dqydj.com/household-income-...he_top_10_household_income_percentile_in_2019

 

[Cubs79]

https://dqydj.com/household-income-...he_top_10_household_income_percentile_in_2019

You are looking at households, I was looking at individuals. But, none of it changes my point. $185k (especially if that is 2 incomes) is still a lot closer to $50-100 (to use middle class #s) than it is to several hundred thousand and up. I think middle class is a wide net and I would consider that upper middle class.

 

[sk8knight]

You are looking at households, I was looking at individuals. But, none of it changes my point. $185k (especially if that is 2 incomes) is still a lot closer to $50-100 (to use middle class #s) than it is to several hundred thousand and up. I think middle class is a wide net and I would consider that upper middle class.

Do you even read my posts? I addressed that. Nonetheless, the point is that one man’s rich is another man’s poor. For policy arguments, rather than targeting the “rich” because they are easy targets, shouldn’t we be using a more quantifiable measurement?

 

[Cubs79]

Do you even read my posts? I addressed that. Nonetheless, the point is that one man’s rich is another man’s poor. For policy arguments, rather than targeting the “rich” because they are easy targets, shouldn’t we be using a more quantifiable measurement?

You just posted a link, so other than providing #s not sure what you addressed, but it doesn't matter.

I don't know what you mean about policy arguments. Every tax policy and bill has clear #s and guidelines, they don't say tax the "rich" at a certain rate. The taxable income brackets are pretty well defined.

 

[Crazyhole]

I thought this was worthy of including in this thread. It gives a pretty good demonstration of what the top 10% looks like and how much they pay in taxes

 

[Sir Galahad]

You are looking at households, I was looking at individuals. But, none of it changes my point. $185k (especially if that is 2 incomes) is still a lot closer to $50-100 (to use middle class #s) than it is to several hundred thousand and up. I think middle class is a wide net and I would consider that upper middle class.

I couldn’t disagree more with you and this is psychographic information is part of my daily job. The median household income nationally is around $65,000. The difference between that and $185,000 is $10,000 a month or about $7,000 a month after tax. Considering $65,000 is roughly $4,500 monthly take home, can you imagine what it would be like for that family to have an extra $7,000 a month. That is pure life altering.

 

[sk8knight]

You just posted a link, so other than providing #s not sure what you addressed, but it doesn't matter.

I don't know what you mean about policy arguments. Every tax policy and bill has clear #s and guidelines, they don't say tax the "rich" at a certain rate. The taxable income brackets are pretty well defined.

Before that I acknowledge that it was household income and not individual. But since most households are not equal income, the number still matters. Your political candidates aren’t citing tax brackets with their emotional appeals, they’re saying “tax the rich” and “the rich must pay their fair share.” So, yes, your arbitrary definition of the rich as people who can burn money matters, because there’s not enough of that money to pay for the charity they want to fund and it’s up to the rest of us who you don’t define as rich to pick up the bill.

 

[goodknightfl]

Most people don't retire with 1 mil, not to say anything of 2. Of those already in retirement, many have SS and a pension, usually a few hundred per month, plus Social Security.. The average income for SS is under 1400 per month. On top of that most people over 80 today, the wife didn't work much of the time, she will get 1/2 of husbands SS based on the age she started collecting.

The IRA/401k is still pretty new. Even those who have IRA's and put $$ into them often have times where they can't put money in and even wipe them out trying to survive hard times.. ie sickness, injury or a major economic downturn. look at 2009 people lost their homes, cars, IRA's and personal savings, and often businesses trying to hold on. And 5, 10, and sometimes a lifetime of building wealth disappeared.
I am a normal example of a very soon to be retiree. My house is paid for, My wife and I have IRA's, plus she has a retirement account at work, and if I can hold on 2 more years will retire debt free. Even then we won't have a net worth of 1 mil.

 

[Cubs79]

Before that I acknowledge that it was household income and not individual. But since most households are not equal income, the number still matters. Your political candidates aren’t citing tax brackets with their emotional appeals, they’re saying “tax the rich” and “the rich must pay their fair share.” So, yes, your arbitrary definition of the rich as people who can burn money matters, because there’s not enough of that money to pay for the charity they want to fund and it’s up to the rest of us who you don’t define as rich to pick up the bill.

Bernie Sanders constantly talks about millionaires and billionaires, so he obviously isn't referring to people making $150k as "the rich". Elizabeth Warren wants a 2% tax on net worth, for people worth over $50 million, so again, not exactly talking about the common person who has saved a few million for retirement.

 

[Cubs79]

I couldn’t disagree more with you and this is psychographic information is part of my daily job. The median household income nationally is around $65,000. The difference between that and $185,000 is $10,000 a month or about $7,000 a month after tax. Considering $65,000 is roughly $4,500 monthly take home, can you imagine what it would be like for that family to have an extra $7,000 a month. That is pure life altering.

Nobody is saying it isn't a good income, but when I think of rich I don't think of a good income, I think of millions of dollars. If $185k is rich, then what is a $1 million? $5 million? $100 million? $185k a year is pennies compared to that.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Bernie Sanders constantly talks about millionaires and billionaires, so he obviously isn't referring to people making $150k as "the rich". Elizabeth Warren wants a 2% tax on net worth, for people worth over $50 million, so again, not exactly talking about the common person who has saved a few million for retirement.

He talks about those people, and yet his spending plans would absolutely require massive tax hikes on everyone. Do you see his con job then? Get everyone to hate and detest the "ultra wealthy!", blame them for everyones' problems, then wreck the economy by nationalizing 20% of it and gouge everyone to death with new taxes.

He uses the ultra rich as a decoy for dolts who believe his crap.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Nobody is saying it isn't a good income, but when I think of rich I don't think of a good income, I think of millions of dollars. If $185k is rich, then what is a $1 million? $5 million? $100 million? $185k a year is pennies compared to that.

Honestly dude, I don't think you've ever learned about distribution curves. You don't grasp the concept.

 

[Cubs79]

Honestly dude, I don't think you've ever learned about distribution curves. You don't grasp the concept.

Distribution curves don't define "rich", so despite your best efforts to be insulting, this is a ridiculously dumb take.

Regardless, we can define "rich" differently, it is simply a matter of opinion, so let's just agree to disagree. You think that 10% of the country is rich, and I don't, simple as that, have a good day.

 

[Cubs79]

He talks about those people, and yet his spending plans would absolutely require massive tax hikes on everyone. Do you see his con job then? Get everyone to hate and detest the "ultra wealthy!", blame them for everyones' problems, then wreck the economy by nationalizing 20% of it and gouge everyone to death with new taxes.

He uses the ultra rich as a decoy for dolts who believe his crap.

But his plans wouldn't be for nothing. If your taxes went up, but you got didn't have to pay for medical insurance or bills for instance, you could actually still save money. YOu don't have to agree with Bernie Sanders that is fine, but I was just clarifying his actual positions to sk8, because those things do matter.

 

[UCFKnight85]

But his plans wouldn't be for nothing. If your taxes went up, but you got didn't have to pay for medical insurance or bills for instance, you could actually still save money. YOu don't have to agree with Bernie Sanders that is fine, but I was just clarifying his actual positions to sk8, because those things do matter.

This idea has been debunked already by the latest Emory Economics study. The increase in taxation on a family would NOT be offset or superseded by the savings from eliminating deductibles or premiums. This is the issue- everyone who has credibly looked at this claim has said it's not true but he keeps pushing it anyways.

Not to even mention the massive, widespread destruction of the economy at large that would occur if we actually nationalized the entire health services delivery and insurance industries. We'd suddenly be taxing people a lot more on a lot less income and wealth.

 

[UCFWayne]

If you are financially better than 90% of the rest of the country, how is that not being rich? This is so bizarre that you're arguing this. Answer it this way, if being in the 90th percentile of all wage earners or wealth in this country is not "rich", then what is it? Middle Class? What then would you call people in the 35-75% areas? Poor?

most disingenuous poster in the forum. he constantly changes definitions to meet his arguments.

 

[Cubs79]

most disingenuous poster in the forum. he constantly changes definitions to meet his arguments.

I didn't change any definitions what so ever.

 

[Crazyhole]

This idea has been debunked already by the latest Emory Economics study. The increase in taxation on a family would NOT be offset or superseded by the savings from eliminating deductibles or premiums. This is the issue- everyone who has credibly looked at this claim has said it's not true but he keeps pushing it anyways.

Not to even mention the massive, widespread destruction of the economy at large that would occur if we actually nationalized the entire health services delivery and insurance industries. We'd suddenly be taxing people a lot more on a lot less income and wealth.

The thing that amazes me is that proponents of single payer healthcare ignore respected economists like laffer and Nobel winning economists like Mundell with their proposals. You literally can not add another 10% of gdp to the federal budget without negatively affecting the economy. As much as they try to justify it by saying that it's just a different intermediary in the payment process, in practice it doesnt work that way. It will fall victim to the same pitfalls of all taxation, in that people will find ways to reduce their burden. In a private transaction, people may negotiate to a certain extent but once they have entered into the agreement, the bill is what they pay no questions asked. It's not like when I get my health insurance bill I look for ways to pay less like we do with our taxes.

Until the point where our tax code is simplified to the point where it is flat across the board, people will be incentivized to lower their tax burden. It's as simple as that.