Are the rich paying their 'fair' share?

[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!]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Jon Miller]

But you get a better exchange rate when you exchange money for goods.

Therefore you should be taxed at a higher rate. In other words, you should get a higher exchange rate when you receive public goods.

JM

[Jaguar]

But you get a better exchange rate when you exchange money for goods.

Prices are exactly the same to me as they are to any other person. Any advantages I have come from things that I purchased previously, or my greater ability to purchase things in the future.

[Jon Miller]

Wrong.

Prices are cheaper for you than they are for people who have less money.

We have given many examples of that in this thread.

If you are wealthy enough, often times things are priced so cheaply that you actually make money on your consumption.

JM

[Jaguar]

You've given a bunch of examples of how you can get advantages once you purchase a seven-figure home.

[rah]

The only incentive for the 1% to pay more in taxes is so the other 99% don't get so pissed that they revolt and take away all their money.

[Jon Miller]

That is the only incentive, and it is true. Especially since they hold the power (due to having the wealth).

But let's talk about what is fair here.

Person A has 110$ and makes 11$ per year.
Person B has 0$ and makes 11$ per year.
Having a place to live costs 10$ per year, or you can buy a place for 100$ a year. It is a nicer place (we ignore), and it increases in value. Let's assign this value, and say that buying a place gives you an additional 10$ in value per year. Let's also consider a 10% consumption tax.

They both make the same, simple world, just one person is wealthy and the other person is not.

In 10 years:
Person A has 110$ + has gotten 100$ in value from his purchase + has an asset that is valued at 200$ = 400$ total of 'present' + 'future' goods and has paid a total of $10 in taxes
Person B has 0$ (he had to consume it all) + 100$ in value from his purchases = 100$ total of 'present' + 'future' goods and has paid a total of $10 in taxes

Does it seem like taxing only consumption fairly taxes the person A relative to person B? And I am even being nice to person A, his investment isn't increasing in value produced in time like is generally the case. This is also ignoring that person A has a nicer place, which person B will never be able to have (for person B to live there per year, it would cost 20$, say, but that would just change it from 4:1 to 5:1).

Your delayed consumption versus non-delayed consumption only works when people start equal. People very much do not do so.

JM

[giblets]

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.

So you could earn minimum wage and save over half of your income? Weren't you claiming earlier that people on $15,000 have very little ability to save their money?