StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) So the other taxes don't count, just because of their classification. Gotcha. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) The top 10% are paying 45% of taxes. 47% pay nothing at all. The system is not progressive. That makes absolute sense to me. lol

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) The top 10% are paying 45% of taxes. 47% pay nothing at all. The system is not progressive. That makes absolute sense to me. You are trying to make a slight-of-hand with the terms and, of course, with the "nothing at all" claim. "Percentage of taxes paid" and "tax rates" are not the same thing. Percentage of taxes paid is a function of both tax rates and income distribution. The P-S paper is talking about total tax progressivity. The article you quoted is talking about total taxes collected. Yet you still intentionally and knowingly used the misleading "47% don't pay any taxes! (of one very specific type of tax, to the exclusion of all other taxes)" line. Of course things won't make sense when you're being intentionally dishonest.

"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)." Gini Index Belgium: 28 Germany: 27 France: 32.7 Sweden: 23 US: 45

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) This flat out shows that more taxes come from the richest taxpayers than anywhere else. The highest brackets are paying a way higher percentage of the taxes in this country. But it still doesn't say anything about the progressiveness of our tax system. You do realize that, right?

I agree that it sucks that the rich pay such a huge portion of the total taxes in this country! This sucks because they control so much of the wealth, e.g. 400 people control more wealth than the bottom 150 million, not because their taxes are too high.

That's not the same thing as the progressiveness of our tax system, though. If anything, given that our system isn't very progressive, it shows that the income gap in this country is significantly larger than in other countries.

I think I'm still missing it. There's 63M government jobs in July and August, but there's 163+97 private jobs in those same months. 63M doesn't represent a majority of the jobs added in those months.

Tangential but P-S had a good paper last year examining how progressive the US tax system really is: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf Turns out, not very, especially compared with historical levels. So much for "punishing success."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) BLS data agrees with me. Page 5 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf July-18 August-45 September-10 That's 63M, but what were those numbers revised from? Isn't that what you need to look at?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) I haven't abandoned anything. You're claiming this guy is so rich his statements about paying more taxes is absurd. I want to know not what he should be taxed, but at what income level you become so absurdly rich that you can no longer complain about having to pay higher taxes. So you still think it's about "business costs" and some actual accounting and financial projections he's done? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) I mean, he said if Obama gets re-elected, and his policies get implemented, I will have no choice, because of the amount of money it's going to cost the business, to let people go and/or drop certain benefits. H Because his closing paragraph makes it clear that he'd be closing up shop because of ideological opposition to raising some of the lowest tax rates ever marginally higher, not because of business costs, which wouldn't make sense anyway because employee costs aren't taxed.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) Yeah, that's not the point here. No one feels sorry for these guys, I certainly don't. The point is that Zuckerburg spent time creating and developing an insanely valuable business and continues to do so. You cannot equate his burdens from work with that of his employees. Uh, his "point" was a big sob story to make you feel sorry for how hard he works, so much harder than everyone else!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:19 PM) And he specifically says I know a lot of you aren't stiffs! So which is it? He is explicitly referring to his own employees, while you claimed he was not. He is telling them that, while they may work hard, he works much, much, much harder, ever toiling away at the business. They have weekends and happy hour and 8-4 jobs, but not he! He is always selflessly working, never taking time off, not even to plan and visit his 90,000 square foot home or use his yacht. Think of the yacht! It sits alone, empty, unused, bobbing in waves like a forgotten bottle tossed to the sea. I know people who have started businesses, and I've seen the tail-end of people who worked literally for days straight without sleep for years in order to succeed. But we're not talking about someone struggling to start a business here, someone begging friends, relatives and banks for a small loan to get his company going. We're talking about a man who started a company decades ago and has made hundreds of millions of dollars off of it. A man who could live comfortably and extravagantly for the rest of his life without a single financial worry for him or the next several generations of his family. The wealthy are not immoral, greedy, selfish bastards cruising on easy street. The middle class are not immoral, greedy, selfish bastards cruising on easy street. The working poor are not immoral, greedy, selfish bastards cruising on easy street. They are all people like you and me; some are immoral, lazy, selfish, greedy, others are moral, hard-working, selfless and caring, and there is no strong correlation between the categories. I don't assume that those above me have some monumentally more difficult job, nor do I assume those below me have it easy. Do I think Zuckerberg has some cushy, easy job? No, I'm sure he works hard. But he also now has many millions of his own to fall back on if he fails. Do you think his job is sufficiently more stressful than the waitress working her second shift worried if she'll make enough in tips to cover the rent check due at the end of the week because her employer only has to pay her $2.15 an hour? If Paris Hilton was the owner of your lawfirm and sent that email, would you be so sympathetic with the concerns expressed? About how hard she's had to work, about how unfair it would be to take anything more from her for the lazy parasites, and that, if they do, she'll fire you all and run off to the tropics?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:07 PM) That's not my question. You seem to think you have (or should have) control over someone's income. So at what income level should you be required to pay 70% to support those below you? And what's the lower threshold for the amount of income you need to NOT make so that you can continue to receive that support? Edit: to put it another way: what's "rich enough" for you? I'm not sure what relevance this has to any of yours or ss2k5's earlier claims (that you both seem to have abandoned?), but P-S lays it out and I see no reason to dispute their findings. 70% or so for the current top tax bracket, whatever that cutoff happens to be. I don't have a specific number for the lower end, but I support a basic income. We're at historically low tax rates and historically high concentrations of wealth and income, yet it still isn't enough. Even one penny more in taxation would be too much, would be "taxing him to death." From P-S:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) I'd know he was talking about the other stiffs in my office. Certainly not ME (*erases web browsing history*). Still though, you're taking his point to an extreme that he clearly isn't expressing. He's sending this to his employees. Why not just call them stiffs if he was referring to them? Because he wasn't. He's referring to the people that suck from the government teet (the "unproductive"). The people that he's now EXPECTED to pay for in the form of higher taxes and fees. Not sure how you're missing that. He spends an entire paragraph talking about the shift in the role of government and entitlements. He is explicitly and repeatedly referring to his own employees. Yes, his role as CEO entails different responsibilities and tasks than the director of HR or the junior accountant. But he's not shouldering some terrible burden because of this difference in responsibilities. 99% of the workforce isn't concerned with state tax filing paperwork that the accountants are., or the new router IT is installing for a new bank of IT phones, etc. etc. He's trying to paint himself as a martyr.

Another in a long line of "choice-for-me-but-not-for-thee," Scott DesJarlais, Pro-Life Republican Congressman And Doctor, Pressured Mistress Patient To Get Abortion

In more Illinois-specific news, what the f*** is wrong with Joe Walsh's brain? http://wonkette.com/486362/americas-favori...cking-out-dress

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 12:19 PM) He's obviously the extreme. So what's your cut off? What is "so rich you're required to pay 90% back to society?" Conversely, what's your threshold? At what point are you not entitled? 50k/year? 100k/year? I'd love to know. Piketty-Saez have some good recommendations. Somewhere around 70% on the top rate is the most effective.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) I don't think it's silly. I don't think it's 100% true, but are you really telling me the cashier at your local McDonald's or Kohl's or something thinks about work after they leave (and not, oh god I have to go back to the s*** hole tomorrow?) They're not concerned with "do we have enough money to cover payroll," "man we gotta sign a new client or i'm going to have to fire someone I really like." That's the point he was trying to make. It's his business and 100% of the responsibility to those employees is on him and the decisions he makes. That's not a concern of 99% of employees in the workforce. Most white-collar jobs these days expect employees to be available after standard work hours. He isn't some lone, noble man, working hard and diligently while the rest loaf about after their 8 hours. His point is a bulls*** framing of himself as a thankless man working harder than his mere employees. This is an email to company employees, which implies white-collar workers e.g. accounting department (an entire department to manage taxes!!!! argh!!!!), human resources, sales, etc. Not exactly your McDonalds cashier-type jobs. You're a lawyer, I assume you work more than 8-5 and think about work or answer emails or prepare briefs even if you're not in the office. Would you appreciate a similarly worded email from a partner in your firm telling you how hard he works while you loaf about as soon as the clock hits 5? Would you actually believe his bulls*** claims that he never has any time off, never enjoys weekends or holidays, no ski trips, no vacations, no time at the bar, no time on the golf course? Further, I think your last two sentences hit on a fundamental misrepresentation of the stakeholders of the company and the "burden" that the CEO bears. 100% of his employees are concerned with the decisions he makes. They are directly impacted by them and more likely in a more significant manner. If the business goes bust, they lose their jobs. If sales quotas aren't met, raises are withheld or employees are let go. If he makes bad investments and squanders the company's funds (while still having millions of his own personal dollars!), they're all f***ed. when a company goes belly-up, many can lose their pensions or retirement plans/investments. Whole communities and towns can fracture and fall apart if the company was the main employer in the area. You can't ignore the very real stake that many people outside of owners/shareholders have in a company.

I weep for the hardships imposed on Mr. Siegel by the Obummer regime: How can he possibly afford even this meager shelter if the top marginal rate is increased to 39.6%???

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Watching my dad open up his own business and 35 years later end up with a pretty good lifestyle, yeah I can agree with that statement. You have to admit that most people see old rich white guy and assume he was just handed everything, that he didn't spend the majority of his career in the lower or middle class before finally hitting it big. Can I just point out how silly it is to claim that once employees punch the clock they don't even think about work anymore?

You asked what's different between his ostensible reasons (costs) and what unions say. It's not "socialist" to point out that, when you read the letter in full, it's clearly not some dispassionate statement of accounting facts, some sort of cost analysis that really does show that some new regulation or tax will mean that he has to cut wages or payroll or both. He concludes by clearly stating that his position, his reaction of shutting down the company would be an ideological one. If that doesn't show his true motivation, even on the cost basis, if you tax his profits more, that doesn't lead to cutting payroll. If that money stays in the company as an employee expense, it won't be subjected to higher taxes. Obama could raise his capital gains, corporate and personal marginal rates to 100% and it won't cost him a dime more to keep his employees' salaries at the same level. It's dishonest, but it's only meant as window dressing for his real complaint. That is in his final paragraph.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Watching my dad open up his own business and 35 years later end up with a pretty good lifestyle, yeah I can agree with that statement. You have to admit that most people see old rich white guy and assume he was just handed everything, that he didn't spend the majority of his career in the lower or middle class before finally hitting it big. for some reason the whole image didn't show: http://www.greatcaricatures.com/articles_g...4_yourself.html

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) SS you realize he didn't tell them "vote for Romney or you're fired" right? I mean, he said if Obama gets re-elected, and his policies get implemented, I will have no choice, because of the amount of money it's going to cost the business, to let people go and/or drop certain benefits. How is that not similar (not the same, but similar) to a union telling it's members that if they don't vote for Obama, Romney's policies will break up the union, take away collective bargaining rights and ultimately leave them without a job or with less pay? I get your point that a CEO has the power to make the happen whereas a union is only speculating it will happen, but it's basically the same type of action - fear mongering to get some votes. In one instance it's acceptable (for decades and decades) but in the other it's not? I covered this already: QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:08 AM) Poor baby, if taxes are raised to the 90's levels and he has to provide health insurance (to his lazy, unproductive workers??), his motivation to work will be destroyed and you'll all be fired. Sure sounds like he's done some serious cost evaluations and not at all like he's pouting like a 2 year old who can't eat all the cookies. Despite some attempts to gloss over his real motivation earlier in the letter, his concluding paragraph gives the game away. This isn't about some marginal rate increases that his accounting staff has looked at and has found that, gosh, we just won't be profitable! It's about being a Randian Ubermensch who will decide to "Go Galt" (lol no he won't really) rather than support the looters and the parasites because if he's forced to provide health insurance for his employees, he won't be able to literally buy anything he wants. Let's not pretend this is some small business struggling just to make ends meet here. This is a business that made its owner a billionaire. It has been plenty profitable for decades, decades when taxes were significantly higher. But if he can't build himself his Versailles because he has to pay for some dumb employees' health care, well, what's the point? Let them sip mojitos on a Caribbean beach. To answer why it isn't similar, let me point out that I'm not saying the two things are not both political speech or that either should be disallowed. But what makes them distinctly different is exactly what you said--he has the ability and the desire to make others suffer through loss of employment if he doesn't get his way. Unions do not have that power, nor do they wish to harm their own membership base.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 11:14 AM) Except for when the federal government steps in and fines him out of business. fines him out of business? what is this new flail even talking about anymore?