Are the rich paying their 'fair' share?

[giblets]

Police are more valuable than actuaries. Firefighters, as well, yet most communities don't even pay firefighters! Must be a very valueless job!

It's not about value. There's other factors that affect pay beyond how 'valuable' or necessary the job done is. For example, how many people could and are willing to do the job. Shifts towards higher-paying professions are not instantaneous, especially when they require a certain educational background and certification.

No, a police man is not more valuable than an actuary unless you think police departments are vastly underfunded.

[Jaguar]

No.

All of history proves you wrong.

It gives you power also. It also enables your brain to function better. http://www.haaretz.com/business/the-...-trap-1.414260

And gives you access to things which have a much much higher value/$ spent than those who do not have wealth.

And you can give it to others, who also (in your messed up world) don't pay taxes on it.

You can't say that 'money is the same for me as for a poor person' when your money allows you to consume and have even more money after consumption than you had to start with while the poor person consumes and the money is gone (and does not have the option to consume the good that you consume).

JM

All of these are directly attributable to my ability to buy things, and nothing more. I don't worry as much or suffer from as much stress because I can eassily afford necessities and wants. I can invest money for retirement. These are outstanding advantages - but all of them come from my ability to exchange money for other things.

[Jon Miller]

Jon, that's equivalent to rent, or return on investment. Lots of durable items provide a return on investment while you're using them.

Basically, you've made up this concept and fixated on it for years now, when you still haven't come up with a single good example of it.

Money is useful because it lets you buy things. That is all.

No.

All of history proves you wrong.

It gives you power also. It also enables your brain to function better. http://www.haaretz.com/business/the-...-trap-1.414260

And gives you access to things which have a much much higher value/$ spent than those who do not have wealth.

And you can give it to others, who also (in your messed up world) don't pay taxes on it.

You can't say that 'money is the same for me as for a poor person' when your money allows you to consume and have even more money after consumption than you had to start with while the poor person consumes and the money is gone (and does not have the option to consume the good that you consume).

JM

[Jaguar]

Oh I know this but I wasn't going to give my opponents an argument to use against me until I had a response.

But since you took the cat out the bag, even if Fairfax residents did pay significantly higher local taxes than Philly residents and that money was used to better fund local police, education, etc. (as was apparently HC's and gribbler's original argument), I doubt it would explain the huge disparity in crime rates.

There are 6600 Philly police officers serving 1.5 million people with an annual budget of $536M.
Fairfax has 1400 officers serving 1 million people with an annual budget of $117M.

And yet, we have 6 times the crime rate. This is because the number of police officers and the PD's budget alone does not explain differences in crime rates. Median household income is a good predictor of crime rates, however.

White people pay a lot - as in, hundreds of thousands of dollars - to avoid living near people like your neighbors.

[Jaguar]

But their houses are worth that much, they can go around and sell them for as much as they paid for them (usually), despite acquiring all the advantages that Alby discussed.

You are just arguing our point, that wealth (particularly, greater amounts of it), give distinct advantages which are not just present/future consumption.

JM

Jon, that's equivalent to rent, or return on investment. Lots of durable items provide a return on investment while you're using them.

Basically, you've made up this concept and fixated on it for years now, when you still haven't come up with a single good example of it.

Money is useful because it lets you buy things. That is all.

[Jon Miller]

Even right now, when I try to be very cheap and eat a lot of meals of 'bread' or 'milk', I still struggle to get my food budget below 6(euros, but cost of living wise they seem to be the same as $ where I lived in the US) a day.

I figure I live on (for everything, including entertainment) 600(euros, but once more, cost of living is higher) a month.

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

To be fair, I only made $5000 last year and my lifestyle is cool except for the risk of crime. I have cable internet, hot water, xbox live subscription, I eat well... And I lived on less than $14 a day.

[Al B. Sure!]

39.8M Americans live below the poverty line which is at $10,890 for 1-person households and $22,350 for 4-person households.

That's precisely $30/day for 1-person households and $60/day for 4-person households.

So yeah. 40M Americans live on less than $30/day.

There's no ****ing way that 30 million people (or 17 million households) live on less than say 30 dollars a day.

No ****ing way? It's actually 40 million Americans, not 30!


Should I laugh or cry at your sense of perspective?

[Al B. Sure!]

There's no ****ing way that 30 million people (or 17 million households) live on less than say 30 dollars a day.

$30 a day is just under $11K/year.

8.64% of households make under $12.5K/year household income.

There are ~114M households in the US.

So around 9.8M households live on less than 34 dollars a day.

Average household size looks to be 2.74 but we don't know if lower income households are smaller or larger.

Still, that would come to ~27M people living on less than 34 dollars a day HOUSEHOLD income.

No ****ing way? Looks very plausible!

[Al B. Sure!]

And peasants actually usually owned their land, if I recall correctly.

Nope. Russian peasants following their emancipation in 1861 were essentially share-croppers and the portion of aristocratic land given to the peasants was distributed by a commune. There were the Stolypin land reforms taken by the Czar's government just before the revolution but the reforms were not effective in getting peasants land.

[Jon Miller]

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.

Are you familiar with malnutrition?

JM

[Jon Miller]

So I am middle class (above the median income), but I had expenses the last year (my girlfriend was unemployed, sick, and at a long distance from me).

I didn't find a job for a long time (despite promising interviews/etc), when I finally found one (after I had become unemployed!), I couldn't start for ~3 months and my moving expenses were high.

If I did not have friends/family to help me survive, I would have been been homeless/starving.

That is the situation for many of the middle class, and all of the poor.

You often times can't wait to make the financially best choice, because otherwise your starve/are homeless/go bankrupt.

I had been looking for jobs in the US. It isn't 'supply/demand' and that jobs in europe are worse than jobs in the US, it is that the right job wasn't available when I was looking (or enough right jobs). (( salary in the US is 15-100% higher than in europe))

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

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

The same demographic that tends to be obese.

I can't speak on rural poor. From my understanding, they do have it pretty bad. I can only speak on urban poor and if kids are starving, it's because of ****ing terrible parents, not because the food isn't there. With WIC, food stamps, cash assistance, an abundance of food banks, free and reduced price school lunch, free summer lunch, and on and on, there's no reason why the urban poor should be going hungry.

Except ****ed up parents.

[Hauldren Collider]

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

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.

[Al B. Sure!]

then the poor will end up revolting.

JM

It's possible if this rhetoric from the Democrats keeps going but nah if we didn't turn commie in the 1920's and 30's, we're not going to turn commie now.

More like the population will use the ballot to support a European-style welfare state.