Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$75,000 doesn't sound an awful lot to me, actually.

Really dependent on where you live.

Again... I ain't saying it's perfect, but you're awfully dismissive of that chart.

What are we really arguing about.

Spell it out for me.

See my post about top 1% (or less) tier people whining about taxes when in reality often times they wouldn't be saddled with rising taxes if the very companies they controlled actually yknow payed people something they can live on.

The increasement in "Entitlements" in the US is just the private sector shifting the burden of caring for people unto the government in order to increase the bottom line for the highest ranking employee's

 Frazzled wrote:

That gas chugger creates hundreds of jobs. What is your metric for societal benefit? Where is the Bureau of Societal Benefit Metrics?

You really want to argue that the luxury car industry creates more jobs than the non-luxury car industry? Ferrari is worth like 10 billion as a company. Ford is worth nearly 200 billion. In the grand scheme of things, the luxury goods market isn't worth much. it's a small industry run by social elites that caters to social elites. Now I'm fine with that industry existing (Ferarri's are cool) but I'm not going to stand here and pretend that someone buying a watch worth more than I'll make in a decade is really helping the economy as much as the guy making $5 Pokemon wallets.

Most of the money for that watch leaves the hands of one rich guy and goes straight into the hands of another. They have far fewer employees and far less of that money works its way down the totem pole. Buying expensive things costs a lot of money but it doesn't necessarily translate to the trickle down gravy train people like to pretend it is.

It has to be addressed that income disparity DOES need to be addressed by the government unless we want to make whats currently happening in the Ukraine a reality here.

Its not a matter of if people will riot if it gets any worse, its when people will riot for how bad it already is.

 LordofHats wrote:

You're arguing an entire industry is corrupt.

Because it is. Anyone who has failed to realize it at this point just isn't paying attention (and you'd think people would jump on it, ACA and all that).

According to you it is. Opinions are not facts. Sorry.

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

You're arguing an entire industry is corrupt.

Because it is. Anyone who has failed to realize it at this point just isn't paying attention (and you'd think people would jump on it, ACA and all that).

According to you it is. Opinions are not facts. Sorry.

This is the same thing as saying evolution is a lie because its a theory.

Sure its an opinion, but it has a lot of evidence in its favor

 Frazzled wrote:

According to you it is. Opinions are not facts. Sorry.

An industry that plays shell games with patent law, artificial drives up prices every five to six years, bribes doctors to push expensive drugs that are functionally identical to cheaper ones already on the market, and does everything humanly possible to subvert regulations about drug trials is an opinion.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$75,000 doesn't sound an awful lot to me, actually.

Really dependent on where you live.

Again... I ain't saying it's perfect, but you're awfully dismissive of that chart.

What are we really arguing about.

Spell it out for me.

I am dismissive because the chart is essentially a mathematical trick used to justify the current situation on the grounds of "because statistics".

If the top 10% had all of the money, they would pay all of the tax. If the income was more distributed, the proportion of tax paid by the bottom 90% would increase

Why is 75% a good situation for society as a whole? Maybe it's a terrible situation. Maybe the top 10% should pay a lot less tax, or maybe a lot more.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

That gas chugger creates hundreds of jobs. What is your metric for societal benefit? Where is the Bureau of Societal Benefit Metrics?

You really want to argue that the luxury car industry creates more jobs than the non-luxury car industry?

Thats your straw man. I never said anything about the nonluxury market one way or the other. I didn't even say the rich were blowing their wads on luxury cars, just cars. They could be like Elvis and buying fifty cars for his dearest friends.

Ferrari is worth like 10 billion as a company.

no fine Italian models were harmed in the making of this car.

Ford is worth nearly 200 billion. In the grand scheme of things, the luxury goods market isn't worth much.

You're right. It would be relevant if it were... relevant to anything anyone posted.

it's a small industry run by awesome car guys that caters to guys who like awesome cars but aren't manly enough to ride a hog.

Corrected your typo.

Now I'm fine with that industry existing (Ferarri's are cool) but I'm not going to stand here and pretend that someone buying a watch worth more than I'll make in a decade is really helping the economy as much as the guy making $5 Pokemon wallets.

If you weren't Chinese you would. Your example only helps the Chinese.

Most of the money for that watch leaves the hands of one rich guy and goes straight into the hands of another.

Again you don't get math or budgets do you. It goes into the hands of employees then small companies supplying parts, and large companies providing steel and other materials, and guys who built the plant and the tooling, and the local municipality that supplies the power.

They have far fewer employees and far less of that money works its way down the totem pole. Buying expensive things costs a lot of money but it doesn't necessarily translate to the trickle down gravy train people like to pretend it is.

Better than just slandering nurses and doctors which seems to directly appear on the List Of APPROVED SOCIETAL EXPENDITURES.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

"Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco,

That's as far as I got...

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

You're arguing an entire industry is corrupt.

Because it is. Anyone who has failed to realize it at this point just isn't paying attention (and you'd think people would jump on it, ACA and all that).

According to you it is. Opinions are not facts. Sorry.

This is the same thing as saying evolution is a lie because its a theory.

No its saying you're blowing smoke out your ass without backing it up. In essence your moutyh is writing checks your butt can't cash.
Seriously, please never ever be on a jury, unless I am the defendant of course, because my lawyer will play your heart like a fiddle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

According to you it is. Opinions are not facts. Sorry.

An industry that plays shell games with patent law, artificial drives up prices every five to six years, bribes doctors to push expensive drugs that are functionally identical to cheaper ones already on the market, and does everything humanly possible to subvert regulations about drug trials is an opinion.

Again, facts support, else you're just attacking nurses. Evidently you standard for SOECITEL BENEFIT is attacking nurses. Does kicking sand at babies also count under your schema? It has the same benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$75,000 doesn't sound an awful lot to me, actually.

Really dependent on where you live.

Again... I ain't saying it's perfect, but you're awfully dismissive of that chart.

What are we really arguing about.

Spell it out for me.

I am dismissive because the chart is essentially a mathematical trick used to justify the current situation on the grounds of "because statistics".

If the top 10% had all of the money, they would pay all of the tax. If the income was more distributed, the proportion of tax paid by the bottom 90% would increase

Why is 75% a good situation for society as a whole? Maybe it's a terrible situation. Maybe the top 10% should pay a lot less tax, or maybe a lot more.

i think we've established that facts and logic haveno place in this thread.

 Frazzled wrote:

Thats your straw man. I never said anything about the nonluxury market one way or the other. I didn't even say the rich were blowing their wads on luxury cars, just cars. They could be like Elvis and buying fifty cars for his dearest friends.

It's not a straw man. that's my argument from the get go. Luxury goods are not as powerful in the economy as other things, doesn't benefit as many people, and in my opinion all the money spent on them could find better places to be used. EDIT: As if there wasn't room to increase taxes and still have a mountain of cash left over for those luxury goods which people in the multi-millionaire position often have enough money to do.

This is abundantly clear when I first brought it up. If you don't disagree with that, then we're arguing over nothing.

Your example only helps the Chinese.

Chinese people are people too.

Better than just slandering nurses and doctors which seems to directly appear on the List Of APPROVED SOCIETAL EXPENDITURES.

Now you're making a straw man. I never said anything about nurses and doctors do get bribed. I'm not even going to post links use google you'll find plenty of articles on the subject.

The Healthcare industry is corrupt and does a lot of dirt business. Some doctors are more complicit than others (nurses not being the ones to make medical decisions are probably innocent). If they don't want to be called corrupt they can stop being corrupt. Live in your fantasy land if you want but the problems with the medical industrial complex have been well established for nearly 30 years. Its just that no one listens (as made evident here).

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
$75,000 doesn't sound an awful lot to me, actually.

Really dependent on where you live.

Again... I ain't saying it's perfect, but you're awfully dismissive of that chart.

What are we really arguing about.

Spell it out for me.

See my post about top 1% (or less) tier people whining about taxes when in reality often times they wouldn't be saddled with rising taxes if the very companies they controlled actually yknow payed people something they can live on.

O.o

You see... this screams class envy to me. Sorry.

The increasement in "Entitlements" in the US is just the private sector shifting the burden of caring for people unto the government in order to increase the bottom line for the highest ranking employee's

Man... that's jaded as all hell.

It goes in cycles.... always has. Once the employment environment get better, those "increasement" will naturally decrease.

Again you're assuming facts not in evidence. Repeating it ten times only works in the re-education camp. Proof is required.

As to the luxury issue. I never brought it up, but pretty much everything besides food and basic clothing is a luxury. But we'll switch it to Honda. Lets say der uber richer spends 10% of his money on Honda cars, motorcycles, jetskis, and lawn equipment. What if he takes one dollar and throws it at a candy nurse and psits on her. Does that work? After all he's attacking the health care industry. Is he now a saint?

Cars aren't a luxury in the USA.

Given the nature of the modern world calling a Civic a luxury item is kind of disenginuous.

And again, at this point you're only showing ignorance. Literally. Sources on the corruption are so plentiful you can find them in a simple Google search (not even mentioning dozens of books and hundreds of journal articles on the subject, go use JSTOR for an hour) and I'm not going to play that game. Denying that the healthcare industry often engages in fraud and corruption is simply the result of not paying attention, not a righteous stand for truth.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Cars aren't a luxury in the USA.

Remember boys, nobody walks in LA. 2


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
It has to be addressed that income disparity DOES need to be addressed by the government unless we want to make whats currently happening in the Ukraine a reality here.

Its not a matter of if people will riot if it gets any worse, its when people will riot for how bad it already is.

From each and his ability to each and his need eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Given the nature of the modern world calling a Civic a luxury item is kind of disenginuous.

Er...no.

{quote]
And again, at this point you're only showing ignorance. Literally. Sources on the corruption are so plentiful you can find them in a simple Google search (not even mentioning dozens of books and hundreds of journal articles on the subject, go use JSTOR for an hour) and I'm not going to play that game. Denying that the healthcare industry often engages in fraud and corruption is simply the result of not paying attention, not a righteous stand for truth.

 LordofHats wrote:
Given the nature of the modern world calling a Civic a luxury item is kind of disenginuous.

And again, at this point you're only showing ignorance. Literally. Sources on the corruption are so plentiful you can find them in a simple Google search (not even mentioning dozens of books and hundreds of journal articles on the subject, go use JSTOR for an hour) and I'm not going to play that game. Denying that the healthcare industry often engages in fraud and corruption is simply the result of not paying attention, not a righteous stand for truth.

Lord... can I interject something here?

In all walks of life, someone, or some company will try to circumvent the system.

That's a fact of life.

I object to your premise that "the healthcare industry often engages in fraud and corruption " as if it's SOP for the entire industry. Especially in large scale healthcare companies, they spend a gak ton on compliance to reduce fraud, because if they don't (whether it's intended or not) that's the quickest way to get sanctioned by the State/Fed.

You're brush is too wide in this, find a smaller brush please.

 whembly wrote:

The increasement in "Entitlements" in the US is just the private sector shifting the burden of caring for people unto the government in order to increase the bottom line for the highest ranking employee's

Man... that's jaded as all hell.

It goes in cycles.... always has. Once the employment environment get better, those "increasement" will naturally decrease.

It's jaded, but look at McDonalds for the effect in action.

http://consumerist.com/2013/10/16/study-low-paid-fast-food-employees-cost-taxpayers-3-8-billion-a-year/

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I am dismissive because the chart is essentially a mathematical trick used to justify the current situation on the grounds of "because statistics".

You're still dismissive... take that chart, and compare it to the fact that 47% of the lower income scale do NOT pay any excess Federal Taxes (in many case, they'll get a return!).

So... on the one hand, the top 10% pays the vast majority of the taxes...

On the other, the lower 47% don't owe any federal taxes.

Wrap you head around that.

If the top 10% had all of the money, they would pay all of the tax. If the income was more distributed, the proportion of tax paid by the bottom 90% would increase

Why is 75% a good situation for society as a whole? Maybe it's a terrible situation. Maybe the top 10% should pay a lot less tax, or maybe a lot more.

That is a debate we must continually have. I think our current tax code is way too complicated with too many government sponser'ed "losers and winners".

That's why I'd love to have a 3-tier'ed flat rate of some sort. But, I'm likely going to see the Emperor reincarnated in front of me, than THAT to happen.

When the US had the strongest growth in recent history, it had more income equality/greater buying power among the middle class.

And it makes sense.

Give a poor family $100, and what will they spend it on? Food, clothes, bills, toys, furniture, etc.

Give a rich family $100, and what will they spend it on? Some of it might go back into the US, but a large portion ends up sitting there, not doing anything, or is spent on foreign items like luxury Italian cars or homes in the Caribbean.

The best illustration of this is how much money goes back into the economy via something like food stamps, versus something like the Bush Tax cuts, especially once you isolate the $250,000 income and above tax cuts. Food Stamps pump over $1 back into the economy per $1 spent, thanks to money cycling through the economy from person to person. By comparison, the Bush tax cuts added something like $0.30 per $1 spent.

The benefit of a large middle class with a great deal of spending power is obvious. The problem is how do we expand that middle class and pull up the poor while not violating the rights of the wealthy.

Personally, I'm for transferring our tax system to a much more incentive based system as you reach certain wealth thresholds (with a more gradual increase than a sudden jump which makes earning that $1 over the previous tax level unappetizing). For income taxes, eliminate most loopholes above a certain threshold and increase penalties for hiding money. Capital Gains should be folded into regular income, and not taxed at the lower rate. For corporate taxes, a similar sliding increase based on company value makes sense, but include the ability to get tax breaks for full-time jobs with benefits, with the caveat that they don't kick in until a short period of time has passed and only last for the duration of employment or several years, whichever comes first (with the further caveat that replacing one full-time employee with another doesn't trigger the tax cut, a provision designed to keep people from firing employees after the tax benefit has ended in order to hire someone new for a new tax benefit).

For example, if Walmart wants to hire all their employees part time with no benefits, they're going to be paying a high rate of corporate tax with no loopholes. If they instead hire a large chunk of people full-time with benefits, they'll have a lower tax rate.

As for the article in the OP? It's a stupid comparison. The rich aren't in any danger of having their doors knocked down and dragged into the street. The rich clearly know that too, after all, if they had any fear that that might happen, you'd think they'd handle their wealth a little differently. The argument is designed purely to try and make those arguing for steps to lessen inequality look like terrible people.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I am dismissive because the chart is essentially a mathematical trick used to justify the current situation on the grounds of "because statistics".

You're still dismissive... take that chart, and compare it to the fact that 47% of the lower income scale do NOT pay any excess Federal Taxes (in many case, they'll get a return!).

So... on the one hand, the top 10% pays the vast majority of the taxes...

On the other, the lower 47% don't owe any federal taxes.

Wrap you head around that.

That is only the flip side of the same coin. You want the poor to pay more taxes? Get their income to reach the level of paying taxes.

 Alexzandvar wrote:


If you live in America, congratulations you live in more comfort than 99.8% of the world ever will.

That's more like it.

 whembly wrote:


In all walks of life, someone, or some company will try to circumvent the system.

That's a fact of life.

I don't disagree,

I object to your premise that "the healthcare industry often engages in fraud and corruption " as if it's SOP for the entire industry. Especially in large scale healthcare companies, they spend a gak ton on compliance to reduce fraud, because if they don't (whether it's intended or not) that's the quickest way to get sanctioned by the State/Fed.

Clearly the best way to commit fraud is to spend no money on fraud reduction. The Feds will surely be fooled by the sheer audacity

Heard about what the Sisters of Saint Francis (now the Franciscan Alliance) have been doing throughout the Mid-West? Forcing good doctors out of work with trumped up charges ranging from insanity to drug distribution to steal their practices and then get their license repealed so they can never practice again with nice gag orders so they can't talk about it. I know this because its big talk in rural Indiana and Illinois and dozens of small one doctor and family practices were stolen. It never makes big news because their contracts don't allow them to go to the press less they get sued and even if they did, the company that did it to them would just cite their own psychiatrists who declared them all crazy over trivial issues of stress or fraud reports from the (oh look the fraud department) that said they were distributing drugs with... medically valid perscriptions.

And that's just one example. Tiny brushes don't even begin to cover it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:


If you live in America, congratulations you live in more comfort than 99.8% of the world ever will.

That's more like it.

I am uncertain of that claim.

Unless you live in Texas. Its Australia light here. During the summer its so hot the air catches fire. Unless it Houston then it boils.

At least you're spared the drop bears.

 daedalus wrote:
At least you're spared the drop bears.

We have drug cartels. Admittedly not as lethal...

while the so called "1%" are scapegoated by 99%'s who generally do not understand things,


it most certainly isnt like nazi germany....

 Frazzled wrote:

We have drug cartels. Admittedly not as lethal...

But much more entertaining.

I have a simple solution for the whole bloody problem: return income tax levels to what they were during WW2. That would be about 94% tax on incomes above Three million dollars per annum (adjusted for 2013 dollars). They also capped executive pay and controlled prices and wages. Oddly, it worked.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

We have drug cartels. Admittedly not as lethal...

But much more entertaining.

I have a simple solution for the whole bloody problem: return income tax levels to what they were during WW2. That would be about 94% tax on incomes above Three million dollars per annum (adjusted for 2013 dollars). They also capped executive pay and controlled prices and wages. Oddly, it worked.

Works for me. BaronIveagh wins the thread. I'd duck though. Corporate snipers are coming as we speak.