Are the rich paying their 'fair' share?

[Hauldren Collider]

Okay I know this has been covered but it deserves special mention: Have you ever been to Denny's?. Huge plate of pancakes for like, a quarter or something. And it's open 24/7 so if you're blacked out all day from the liquor and smack you can still grab a bite at like, 3:00 AM.

Denny's
Wal-mart

[Dauphin]

Those already holding shares at the introduction of the tax look screwed.

Just a bit. Future pensioners in the UK lost billions when pension funds were made liable to taxes on received dividends in 1997.

[MrFun]

And you live with mom rent-free?

Looks like you're wasting money. I can't imagine the cost of living in Iowa is higher than Philly's which is quite a bit higher than the national average, being a big city and all. You could definitely afford cuts.

I spend a lot of money on gas to get to work, and back home as my job is a half hour from where I live. My own bills that I pay:

car insurance
Internet service
smartphone service plan
renter's insurance

And of course, I buy my own groceries, and gas for my car. Except maybe for new package of socks, underwear, or shoes, there are some years I go through an entire year without buying any new clothes. Rest is leisurely spent and I try to put some into my savings.

[Al B. Sure!]

So, assume I am a prospective investor with $400. In scenario 1, I would get an $80 dividend. In scenario 2, I would look to get a $100 dividend and pay $20 tax, and end up with $80. If my income was only/mostly from dividends, it'd look like I am contributing more in taxes in scenario 2 (20% burden vs 0% burden) when in fact the tax burden is not really falling on me as I am getting the same return on investment.

This is simplistic, but the point I was getting at....

Moreover, there are other issues to consider.

Those already holding shares at the introduction of the tax look screwed.

[rah]

Most volunteer FDs are in areas that have no more than a few fires a year. Where a full time FD isn't economical.
Major cities need full time coverage with higher skill level.
And remember, with almost all full time FDs, due to their shift schedules that are like 3 days on days off, most of them work a second job, usually a trade job, so they can supplement their income quite well. And they have those same job skills when they start collecting their pensions so they can do a lot of under the table jobs.

[giblets]

And that would be... NON-MONETARY COMPENSATION!

So the DOLLAR value a job pays does not SOLELY determine the value of the job!

Now why is it that the city of Philadelphia can't get 2000 people out of a city of 1.5 million to volunteer while much smaller communities can get more volunteers per capita?

The value of the job to the individual? No. That's trivial. The value of that individual's labor to society? I don't see why not.

And I am not an expert on fire safety, so I can't explain why Philadelphia doesn't use volunteers. I see no reason to assume that Philadelphia doesn't have a similar number of would-be volunteers. It's possible that the city doesn't think training and equipping volunteers would be worthwhile. How the **** should I know? What is your point anyway?

[Jon Miller]

Your model is absolutely confused. You have people making money off of consumption. Just because you think you're "fairer" than I am does not entitle you to use words incorrectly.

I don't object to your arguments because they are normatively redistributionist - because they come to the conclusion that wealth should be redistributed; I am a redistributionist as well. I object to them because they are wrong. Krazyhorse's model, which you describe as making the best economic sense, is also the most fair, in that it doesn't "take sides" between two people of equivalent levels of lifetime purchasing power who happen to have different time preferences on their consumption.

Are you incapable of considering my model?

And it is reality, in the housing market for example. They are not wrong. The housing market is just the clearest example.

If you worry so much about the language you can modify my previous post with:
He buys a place for 100$ (+10$ taxes), this is an asset, and not consumption. He then lives in the house and forgoes rent, however, he does not pay taxes on this consumption and hence gains an advantage due to his wealth (as he is not being taxed on his consumption). He still pays a small portion of the tax that the poorer person pays despite having the same level of consumption.

Your 'fairness' ignores that the vast majority of people due not have equivalent levels of lifetime purchasing power (anywhere near equivalent levels) because of the benefits of wealth that are not accounted for in your reasoning. Therefore consumption taxes unfairly penalize the poor.

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

I'd be in a lot worse situation on that income, if I was renting an apartment. I have student loan debts, but ever since graduating with my Masters in 2006, I have been keeping them on forbearance based on economic hardship. Thankfully, before I even finished school, I had them all consolidated and they are locked at an incredibly low interest rate. Nevertheless, my student loans will continue to accrue interest while I'm on forbearance.

But other than that, no, I have no crushing debt - no credit card debt, no car payments (car I own, I paid in full).

And for my depression treatment, I go to a Catholic institution where I pay two dollars per appointment with my counselor, and I pay just twenty-six dollars for each refill for both of my prescriptions. So in regard to medical expenses, I am fortunate to have found out and gain access to these resources.

EDIT: This is a x-post in response to Alby

And you live with mom rent-free?

Looks like you're wasting money. I can't imagine the cost of living in Iowa is higher than Philly's which is quite a bit higher than the national average, being a big city and all. You could definitely afford cuts.

[Al B. Sure!]

Of course, it's possible that some people just like being a fireman. It could be one of those stupid things like wanting to join the military.

And that would be... NON-MONETARY COMPENSATION!

So the DOLLAR value a job pays does not SOLELY determine the value of the job!

Now why is it that the city of Philadelphia can't get 2000 people out of a city of 1.5 million to volunteer while much smaller communities can get more volunteers per capita?

[Jaguar]

If you want to complicate things further, you can rename things. There is no muddled confusion which I am demonstrating, my model is clear and gives a pretty clear conclusion.

Those like yourself to defend the current unfairness and wish to make things even more unfair are the ones who muddle the issue, by either taking a too simple argument (see earlier), or complicating things to such an extant that relevant relationships are unclear.

Still doesn't change the fact that the wealthy have consumption and investments which are available to them and not to that working class/poor which are incredibly advantageous. And that only they can take advantage of.

To not tax the wealthy correspondingly higher for 'extra' that they get (which is most often realized as capital gains) is unfair.

JM
(Once more, I am not saying that taxing capital gains highly makes the best sense, based on arguments from KH (mostly), it is very likely the case that taxing consumption+wealth transfers to the poor/working class makes the best economic sense. I am just pointing out that when you consider what is going on, taxing capital gains is what is fair.)

Your model is absolutely confused. You have people making money off of consumption. Just because you think you're "fairer" than I am does not entitle you to use words incorrectly.

I don't object to your arguments because they are normatively redistributionist - because they come to the conclusion that wealth should be redistributed; I am a redistributionist as well. I object to them because they are wrong. Krazyhorse's model, which you describe as making the best economic sense, is also the most fair, in that it doesn't "take sides" between two people of equivalent levels of lifetime purchasing power who happen to have different time preferences on their consumption.

[giblets]

I had said EITHER people are irrational OR there's non-monetary compensation that people are receiving from volunteering.

One of those seems like a likely explanation than your 'I have no idea'.

You either made a false dichotomy or asserted that helping someone else for no personal gain is irrational . Of course, it's possible that some people just like being a fireman. It could be one of those stupid things like wanting to join the military.

[Al B. Sure!]

nm

[Al B. Sure!]

I have no idea. Maybe Philadelphia is run by Democrats who are beholden to public sector unions. Maybe cities require a more professional fire department than the more rural areas. However, one thing is clear: the existence of charity doesn't prove people are "irrational".

And if you don't request payment for something, you are in fact offering to do it for free. That's what the word means.

I had said EITHER people are irrational OR there's non-monetary compensation that people are receiving from volunteering.

One of those seems like a more likely explanation than your 'I have no idea'.

[giblets]

But people don't do it for free. They volunteer at significant cost to themselves in time, effort, and risk exposure. Why is this?

Why don't the major cities have volunteer departments? Why are there so many people in certain communities willing to do the job for nothing yet the Philly FD pays an average firefighter a salary of $48,000 plus a pension? Are there not ~2000 people willing to do it free in a city of 1.5 million? Per capita, there are more volunteer fire fighters in other communities.

I have no idea. Maybe Philadelphia is run by Democrats who are beholden to public sector unions. Maybe cities require a more professional fire department than the more rural areas. However, one thing is clear: the existence of charity doesn't prove people are "irrational".

And if you don't request payment for something, you are in fact offering to do it for free. That's what the word means.

[MrFun]

I'd be in a lot worse situation on that income, if I was renting an apartment. I have student loan debts, but ever since graduating with my Masters in 2006, I have been keeping them on forbearance based on economic hardship. Thankfully, before I even finished school, I had them all consolidated and they are locked at an incredibly low interest rate. Nevertheless, my student loans will continue to accrue interest while I'm on forbearance.

But other than that, no, I have no crushing debt - no credit card debt, no car payments (car I own, I paid in full).

And for my depression treatment, I go to a Catholic institution where I pay two dollars per appointment with my counselor, and I pay just twenty-six dollars for each refill for both of my prescriptions. So in regard to medical expenses, I am fortunate to have found out and gain access to these resources.

EDIT: This is a x-post in response to Alby