When do you consider someone "wealthy" or "rich"?

iceaura said:
And I noted your argument works better from the relationship between the inflation rate and the employment rate. Lord knows why I bothered.

No, they are not.
(Your earlier attempts to claim that I had never studied economics are beginning to arouse a certain suspicion, given the rule of thumb for rightwing trolls and your repeatedly displayed ignorance of basic economics in these posts)

So?
This is your bs, posted right here:

No, it wasn't. Pay attention.


Your fantasy world does not exist, did not exist then, and never has existed.

For the umpteenth time in dealing with your infantile "economics": Not necessarily.

Depends on when, how, and why - for starters, how high they were in the first place and how they got to that level.

If you drive the unemployment rate lower by putting hundreds of thousands of working age adults in jail at a time of high unemployment due to bad tax policy, say, you might get no increase in inflation at all - or even deflation from a decrease in demand.

And inflation might also increase sometimes if you drive the unemployment rate higher. That's what the Republican shitforbrains are all hot and bothered about with the 15$@hr minimum wage, for example - it's supposedly guaranteed to boost inflation and unemployment at the same time, on their planet.

We are reminded that the rise of fascism as the dominant political movement in modern America, and one of its major consequences - the biggest economic crash since the Depression that ushered in WWII - don't count as "factual matters" in the Bandarlog universe.

Looking more closely, the entire W&Cheney administration has all but vanished from the public discussion, along with the Republican Congress that continued its efforts - if one relies on American corporate media, Trump took office in a world made entirely by Obama (and the history of the Republican Party he represents begins in the year 2016).

People wonder why I end up repeating myself on this forum.
Click to expand...
How was your weekend?
 
Seattle said:
Your comprehension skills are a little lacking. I didn't say that those responsible for wrong doing shouldn't be held accountable.

I said that responsible citizens (ones who save money so that they aren't at the mercy of whatever the government does) shouldn't be paying the price of those who weren't responsible in their actions for themselves.

If someone puts money into a mutual fund every month they aren't the ones who should be taxed higher because someone else didn't save every month. They shouldn't be lumped into the "rich" category just because they put some money into a mutual fund.
Click to expand...
god i wish reality was like your ignorant bubble but its not. you know before you say something as ignorant as that last sentence perhaps look at the stats of stock ownership.


If someone puts money into a mutual fund every month they aren't the ones who should be taxed higher because someone else didn't save every month. They shouldn't be lumped into the "rich" category just because they put some money into a mutual fund.
Click to expand...
next time you want to have a woe is me and wonder why people think you are a rightwing asshole this is why. you are not morally superior for getting paid enough to buy stocks, you are just lucky. you are literally to ignorant to have a real conversation with because you are completely out of touch with how the economy functions for the vast majority of people.
 
They shouldn't be lumped into the "rich" category just because they put some money into a mutual fund.
Click to expand...
? If someone has a lot of wealth, they belong in the category "wealthy".
 
It's not so much what they put into a mutual fund, or other capital venture, that makes people rich - it's what they get back out. And that's what is taxed.
 
Jeeves said:
It's not so much what they put into a mutual fund, or other capital venture, that makes people rich - it's what they get back out. And that's what is taxed.
Click to expand...
It sorta is. You can't have $5 million in a 401k and not be considered rich. Even if you never touch it.
 
billvon said:
It sorta is. You can't have $5 million in a 401k and not be considered rich. Even if you never touch it.
Click to expand...
Ownership doesn't require physical contact. What you own, you control. And If you've put $5mil in a retirement fund, you were probably taking quite a nice paycheck home, so, unless you've been living way above your means or giving it away to charity, you're probably rich, even without the 401K. And, of course, if you never touch it, you're either too rich to need it, or dead, and your kids are rich.
 
Seattle said:
Not at the moment.
Click to expand...
It's only "at the moment" situations that can be discussed with any degree of contact with reality.
The ownership of stocks is unlikely to become taxable at any future moment, since it doesn't generate new revenue. Returns, dividends, interest or profit on the stocks is going to be - the owner hopes - income, beyond and above whatever income that person receives for labour, consultation or property rentals. When such income comes in, it will be taxed.
Army godda blow expensive ship up; president godda fly around in luxury jet; senators got campaign promises to pay off.
 
Jeeves said:
It's only "at the moment" situations that can be discussed with any degree of contact with reality.
The ownership of stocks is unlikely to become taxable at any future moment, since it doesn't generate new revenue. Returns, dividends, interest or profit on the stocks is going to be - the owner hopes - income, beyond and above whatever income that person receives for labour, consultation or property rentals. When such income comes in, it will be taxed.
Army godda blow expensive ship up; president godda fly around in luxury jet; senators got campaign promises to pay off.
Click to expand...

How much is the question or rather how much change from the current status. The concept that it needs to be the same as wages is silly. It's not wages. Property taxes are the same as wages nor are corporate taxes.

Ultimately it's whatever the government says it is but incremental change in tax laws is always preferable. Otherwise you just get side effects that aren't generally good policy.
 
Seattle said:
How much is the question or rather how much change from the current status.
Click to expand...
That's a question. I don't know the answer. Do you?
The concept that it needs to be the same as wages is silly.
Click to expand...
Wages, salaries, remuneration, consideration, profit, dividend, capital gains. The words change with $$ amounts and status and method of collection, don't they? No two are the same.Yet they're all the same: money coming in.
Property taxes are [not?] the same as wages [I assume this means income tax deducted at payroll] nor are corporate taxes.
Click to expand...
Why? What about various forms of income requires different levels of taxation?
Ultimately it's whatever the government says it is but incremental change in tax laws is always preferable. Otherwise you just get side effects that aren't generally good policy.
Click to expand...
Analysis? Rationale? Or just hand-me-down wisdom?
 
Last edited:
Jeeves said:
That's a question. I don't know the answer. Do you?

Wages, salaries, remuneration, consideration, profit, dividend, capital gains. The words change with $$ amounts and status and method of collection, don't they? No two are the same.Yet they're all the same: money coming in.

Why? What about various forms of income requires different levels of taxation?

Analysis? Rationale? Or just hand-me-down wisdom?
Click to expand...

Unlike certain members, I'm not going to footnote every post. It's basic economics for one. Must we argue every point, always?

If you suddenly double the capital gains tax above $1 million (for example) people adapt and the ways are not always so efficient or good for the economy.

Raise capital gains taxes on farmers selling land by a few percentage points and they will sell anyway. Double them and they will just take out equity in the form of loans and will not sell, therefore there will be no capital gains taxes paid.

Or they will sell $500k in land one year and $500k in land the following year, avoiding the doubled tax rate. Or they will not make the same kind of capital purchases for fear that the tax rates won't be stable and therefore they can't plan and run a business that way.

The public is sold these ideas by saying it won't apply to you. Do you make $1million a year, no?, then don't worry about it. However if you invest and sell all your investments at retirement age now you may have that coming in for once in your life and now you will be paying 40% in taxes (instead of 20%) and you will still have state capital gains on top of that plus whatever other land transfer taxes, commissions, etc.

The end result is to make it so that it's not economically feasible to invest and take care of yourself. You might as well just do nothing and let the government take care of yourself.

This isn't good public policy except on Sciforums where the prevailing argument is that everyone is poor, can't save or invest and therefore we need to tax those who did invest which is similar to arguing that it makes sense to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. All that happens is that the goose is killed and everyone is worse off.

The reason that many people can live with this sort off (flawed) thinking is that you figure the higher taxes will never apply to you. Selling your house could make it apply if you live in a big enough city but maybe they will have an exemption for your house so then it's OK, right? Why is an exemption for you OK but not for people with different situations? It's not.

Regarding rates and sources of taxable funds. You can argue for a flat rate across the board for property taxes, sales taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate taxes. Good luck. That's not going to happen nor should it really. Simple doesn't mean that's it's the best way to do things. Sometimes it is but in life most things are more complex than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top