Are the rich paying their 'fair' share?

[regexcellent]

There are plenty of americans who are starving or facing malnutrition.

17.2 million households (so probably 2-3x as many people)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/24/375776/food-insecurity-by-the-numbers/?mobile=nc

JM

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.

[Jon Miller]

My job is considered "full time" even though the company only gives me about 32 hours a week. At $8.50 an hour, I earn just about $13,000 a year. This is before taxes, Social Security, and so on. I have no health benefits through my employer - they do not offer any such plans.

You are under employed like Alby...

JM

[Dauphin]

The tax burden falls on you in either case. The corporate tax came off of corporate income before it was paid as your dividend.

I missed your exact scenario but I'm assuming you're talking about if there's a difference between a corporate tax of 20% with no tax on ordinary income and no corporate tax with a tax on ordinary income.

Nope, I'm talking about dividend tax vs no dividend tax.

[Al B. Sure!]

My job is considered "full time" even though the company only gives me about 32 hours a week. At $8.50 an hour, I earn just about $13,000 a year. This is before taxes, Social Security, and so on. I have no health benefits through my employer - they do not offer any such plans.

Do you have crazy debt? Is housing expensive? Medical costs?

Not seeing how you're 'struggling' on $13K/year with no dependents.

[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.

The tax burden falls on you in either case. The corporate tax came off of corporate income before it was paid as your dividend.

I missed your exact scenario but I'm assuming you're talking about if there's a difference between a corporate tax of 20% with no tax on ordinary income and no corporate tax with a tax on ordinary income.

[Al B. Sure!]

No you idiot, you've shown that firefighters aren't worth much in places where people will happily do it for free. Just like air isn't worth anything, but without it you would die.

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.

[MrFun]

That's horse****. 10% of the population is not starving to death, Jon. The poor are facing an obesity epidemic, not starvation. Think about those numbers for a minute. Do they make any sense at all?

You can go to mcdonald's and get enough calories for a day for like ten dollars. Or less. There's no ****ing way that 30 million people (or 17 million households) live on less than say 30 dollars a day. Plus food stamps. Plus welfare.

My job is considered "full time" even though the company only gives me about 32 hours a week. At $8.50 an hour, I earn just about $13,000 a year. This is before taxes, Social Security, and so on. I have no health benefits through my employer - they do not offer any such plans.

[Dauphin]

If you did a permanent tax on this company alone, it's simple. The share value would go down to $80 to reflect the fact that five shares under the new system are an identical financial instrument to four shares under the old system. Both give you payments of $20 and cost $400.

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.

[giblets]

While I would agree in spirit, we humans have ideas like compassion and mercy that get in the way of reverence for absolute responsibility.

I have compassion for their children which is why I don't object to, say, public funding for their education.

[Al B. Sure!]

This thread is about fairness, not about what is the best utility or what people should do if they were robots/rational actors.

It's not even about what policy should be.

JM

Jon, everyone you're arguing with accepts the absolute rationality of homo economicus.

The problem is there's been mounting evidence that humans do not make rational economic decisions. I don't know that we are rational utility-maximizers.

[giblets]

Volunteer firefighters do not get paid, whether in salary or pension. Yet they provide a valuable, nay absolutely necessary, service to the community.

It's not rational to be a volunteer firefighter. The same job in a major city gets paid fairly well (though there are barriers to entry). In fact, just considering the budget of the Philly Fire Department divided by personnel, each firefighter costs the city $86K/year to train, pay, and equip. Remaining in your own community means that you will be working a necessary and dangerous job for no compensation. That also means these communities get a HUGE discount.

Do Philadelphians value fire protection services more than people in the surrounding suburbs with volunteer departments?

It's not rational yet it happens.

This is because either people are irrational or there's non-monetary compensation in such jobs, which means that simply looking at the dollar amount of a salary is insufficient to determine the value society holds for that position.

No you idiot, you've shown that firefighters aren't worth much in places where people will happily do it for free. Just like air isn't worth anything, but without it you would die.

[MrFun]

I am amazed that he can have a place to live, pay utilities, and get food at 400$ per month.

Most cities I have lived, the minimum rent was about that high.

JM

The job I have right now, pays just one dollar above minimum wage and I cannot afford to live on my own. So, I'm living with my mother in her apartment until I get back on my feet.

[Jon Miller]

This thread is about fairness, not about what is the best utility or what people should do if they were robots/rational actors.

It's not even about what policy should be.

JM

[Jon Miller]

They weren't forced to have dependents. If someone makes a lifestyle choice that eats up half of their income (in spite of being subsidized by the government) it's their own fault.

You know we are humans and not robots, right?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Also Jon, what the hell is the point of "fairness" if it leads to demonstrably worse outcomes?

Because it is good ethically to understand, even if due to 'practicalities' a different decision is made.

JM