# Candidates differ on defining middle class



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I saw this on the yahoo newspage and didn't bother going further. Once more from the mouth of Utah Jack Phillips " If somebody hands you a paycheck, your working class." Edwards at least should understand this, given his poor boy made good stories. " Halleluja I'm a bum, Halleluja bum again, Halleluja give me a handout and I'll be your friend."


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*A relevant point in the Post*

The article makes a valid point, that middle class incomes vary by region.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Good article agnash. Something from the article that I often attempt to define here:



> People making $200,000 to $350,000, he says, could be considered rich, but they still have to slog to work every day. To be really rich, in Wolff's scholarly judgment, you need not only an income upwards of $350,000 a year -- which happens to be right about the point where today's top marginal income tax rate of 35 percent kicks in -- you also need at least $10 million in accumulated wealth.
> 
> "These are people who can basically live off their wealth and don't have to work. You're talking about the top half of 1 percent," Wolff said.


If you still have to work for a living, you are not "really rich". And he uses the $10 mil of accumulated wealth, just as I always do.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*$8 million*

I remember when I was a lad, the magic number was $8 million, but there have been a few decades of inflation since.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Anyone read the "stimulus" package about to be passed? I am sorry if I am being anal, but when one pays $0.00, it is defnitionally impossible to obtain a rebate greater than $0.00. Of course, I am merely out of sorts as those people shall be getting my money while I am the one getting $0.00.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Anyone read the "stimulus" package about to be passed? I am sorry if I am being anal, but when one pays $0.00, it is defnitionally impossible to obtain a rebate greater than $0.00. Of course, I am merely out of sorts as those people shall be getting my money while I am the one getting $0.00.


I believe that payroll/SS taxes are also on the table for relief, which do affect workers not paying income tax.
At least, that was up for discussion. I have not seen the current version.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Concordia said:


> I believe that payroll/SS taxes are also on the table for relief, which do affect workers not paying income tax.
> At least, that was up for discussion. I have not seen the current version.


Hard for me to get excited over that thought as I will be found unworthy to retain my own money again. That and Obama constantly talking about removing the cap of 97.5k on SS is just rubbing it in.

This "relief" is wrong on two levels:

1) They are giving it to people that will not spend it in such a fashion as to "stimulate" anything but their transportation costs (gasoline) or their credit card debt or their mortgage. It would make much more sense to concentrate on the end of the income spectrum that already has descretionary income. While this might be better economics, it would not play well with the mass of voters or the MSM.

2) Lowering tax rates has a more effective and a permanent and ongoing positive effect on GDP growth. History has shown us this in just Dubya's reign alone. If the goal is actually to positively affect the economy, why not do what empirical evidence suggests? Again, economics get trumped by what will play well with the voters and the MSM.

Maybe I am just having some "sour grapes" as I am not happy those that pay $0.00 get a "rebate" and I get the bill for it.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Quick, everybody, economy appears to be in a spot of trouble! Let's put through a stimulus package that does nothing for the long term and constructively doesn't do much in the short term! Yay, let's look like we're doing something when all we're really doing is increasing deficit spending to further mess up the market!

(ok, that's a little unfair, there are the business write-offs for plant and equipment purchases)


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Maybe I am just having some "sour grapes" as I am not happy those that pay $0.00 get a "rebate" and I get the bill for it.


So, you make more than $75k or are married in a household making more than 150k?

Do you really want a rebate? I think I'd be ashamed to get one in that group (in fact, I'm hoping they don't give them to students since from the sounds of it I would qualify and I know I'm not in need of it). I for one like our roads and understand the need for maintaining a standing army. Do they waste lots of the money too? Sure. Will them giving rebates or cutting the tax rate reduce the waste by a percentage larger than the reduction in their funds? I don't think so.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> So, you make more than $75k or are married in a household making more than 150k?
> 
> Do you really want a rebate? I think I'd be ashamed to get one in that group (in fact, I'm hoping they don't give them to students since from the sounds of it I would qualify and I know I'm not in need of it). I for one like our roads and understand the need for maintaining a standing army. Do they waste lots of the money too? Sure. Will them giving rebates or cutting the tax rate reduce the waste by a percentage larger than the reduction in their funds? I don't think so.


This is where we have a fundamental disagreement in perspective. You think it's the government's money and they're "giving" it to me. I think it was my money first and they took it from me without asking or saying "thank you". :idea:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Mark from Plano said:


> This is where we have a fundamental disagreement in perspective. You think it's the government's money and they're "giving" it to me. I think it was my money first and they took it from me without asking or saying "thank you". :idea:


It's their money once you give it to them. I wouldn't be opposed to Wayfarer's rate decrease in general, I just think they're low enough right now. These rebates are from money they've already spent, and people forget that the government still has to get it's money from somewhere once it has run out.

If we were running surpluses I would say the government should store it for when they need to run a defecit, but I wouldn't be opposed to a modest tax rate decrease (IF the government was running a surplus). I would oppose a refund still.

What I really don't get is how much people complain about taxes, but then they set up their deductions so that at the end of the year they get a refund check.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> It's their money once you give it to them.


I think I'll recommend to my criminal defense attorney friends that they use this argument in their next armed robbery case.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Mark from Plano said:


> I think I'll recommend to my criminal defense attorney friends that they use this argument in their next armed robbery case.


It's not robbery though. You live here; you've agreed to be under this government. You could go to another country, or go live in the wilderness without the benefit of governed society, but you've weighed the costs and benefits and decided that it's better to live under government.

The legal comparison of wanting it back would be suing the guy who made your driveway for the money you paid him to make your driveway.

If you ask me we have the wrong kind of national pride in this country. We have national pride in saying "America is the best," but we take no pride in contributing to the country. Any contribution we make we instead take personal pride in (which is what makes an olympic snowboarded showboat and lose the gold).

Many people who take issue with paying taxes see no problem with Iraq costing $275million/day, but imagine if we started spending $275million/week more than we do now on programs for the homeless (programs meaning housing, job training, secondary adult education, mental institutions).


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> It's not robbery though. You live here; you've agreed to be under this government. You could go to another country, or go live in the wilderness without the benefit of governed society, but you've weighed the costs and benefits and decided that it's better to live under government.


Look, I'm figured you'd recognize that I was yanking your chain a bit, but you seemed to have missed that. However, the squares in this country are getting sick of getting the shaft and then being told they have to like it. I'm not interested in any rebates, but I'm also not particularly interested in being treated as if I don't matter by all the psuedo-populists in Washington.

If you make good decisions, follow the rules and actually succeed at something you are rewarded, in part, by being accused of not carrying your share of the water. I'm sick of it. I'll pay more in taxes this year than I dared hope I'd make in a year when I got out of college. On top of all that I refuse to think of my tax dollars as fulfilling my charity obligations, so I wind up contributing what my conscience requires on top of what's been robbed from me by Washington. Yet I still have to get up and go to work every morning and hope that I can get the kids' college and my retirement funded because the plan is that I DON'T WANT to be on the government dole.

In return our "servants" in Washington want to declare a class a war since they think that's where their votes will come from.

What you hear is not frustration at having to pay taxes. I'm no idiot, I know how roads and bridges get built. What you hear is frustration at the implication that someone else gets the money because they deserve it more than me.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Mark from Plano said:


> Look, I'm figured you'd recognize that I was yanking your chain a bit, but you seemed to have missed that.


No, I got it. For me, this is a way of having fun, and I got the feeling it is for you too. I'm starting to realize not nearly as many people have as much fun as I do arguing about anything related to politics, but that thought still sits in my mind so I tend to assume people find it fun based on the smallest bit of evidence.

I don't think someone else getting money is about deserve, but it's about need. A lot is expected of those who have been given a lot. I'd be curious to hear what percentage of your income is paid in taxes (but I fully expect like 99.9999999999% of the world you view such information as private and would not hold your not sharing it against you) in light of Warren Buffet (and I get that the corporate money has already been taxed blah blah blah I know).


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> No, I got it. For me, this is a way of having fun, and I got the feeling it is for you too. I'm starting to realize not nearly as many people have as much fun as I do arguing about anything related to politics, but that thought still sits in my mind so I tend to assume people find it fun based on the smallest bit of evidence.


Fair enough.



marlinspike said:


> I don't think someone else getting money is about deserve, but it's about need. A lot is expected of those who have been given a lot. I'd be curious to hear what percentage of your income is paid in taxes (but I fully expect like 99.9999999999% of the world you view such information as private and would not hold your not sharing it against you) in light of Warren Buffet.


I honestly don't know the percentage, but I suspect that all-in, federal, state and local it's probably about 40%. You see I'm in the worst possible federal tax position because I still have to work for a living and make a good salary doing it. The tax code and politicians confuse income and wealth. They are not the same thing and never have been.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Basically, I think that it's about limiting government as much as possible. 

Government employees have no incentive to be efficient, so they are not. Also, there is little to check the too human tendency to maximize one's power. In a government employee there is wide range for abuse.

In my home town, they are sheepishly letting a guy out of a life sentence because they got the wrong man. Even though the evidence was available to show the man could not have done it, the prosecutor "accidentlally" did not see this piece of evidence. At least both the DA and defendant were black so there are not accusations of racism.

The less power the government has, the better. The less wealth it controls, the better.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> So, you make more than $75k or are married in a household making more than 150k?
> 
> Do you really want a rebate? I think I'd be ashamed to get one in that group (in fact, I'm hoping they don't give them to students since from the sounds of it I would qualify and I know I'm not in need of it). I for one like our roads and understand the need for maintaining a standing army. Do they waste lots of the money too? Sure. Will them giving rebates or cutting the tax rate reduce the waste by a percentage larger than the reduction in their funds? I don't think so.


It is not a question of "want", it is a question of what is right. To try and insult my intelligence and tell me someone that pays no federal taxes is getting a "rebate" is wrong. What is also wrong is that people are not being treated equally, based on income. Doing the damn thing in the first place is also wrong, but if it is happening, I want "my fair share" :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I don't think someone else getting money is about deserve, but it's about need. *A lot is expected of those who have been given a lot.*


When can I expect UPS to drop off these gifts?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> When can I expect UPS to drop off these gifts?


You object to my use of the word "given," I take it? Well, I say "given" because I believe in my religion. I suppose to make it secular I should say "a lot is expected of those who have a lot."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I suppose to make it secular I should say "a lot is expected of those who have a lot."


Why? By what right? What is the moral basis for this? Why is "a lot" expected from someone that drives himself endlessly but nothing is expected from a bum, a slacker, or someone of moderate success?

I just do not get it.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Why? By what right? What is the moral basis for this? Why is "a lot" expected from someone that drives himself endlessly but nothing is expected from a bum, a slacker, or someone of moderate success?
> 
> I just do not get it.


Naked came I out of my mother's womb.

Much of what comes out of your life depends on what you were born into. Sure there are rags to riches stories, but there's a reason we know those stories: they're rare. If you're born to a deadbeat dad and an uneducated mother, it is unlikely that you will achieve anything. Why should the same be expected of that person as the person who was born to rich parents with graduate degrees?

Some people think that working hard is all it takes and that everybody is given a fair shake. That's just not true (see NBER working paper "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination").

It's the moral basis of "there but for the grace of God go I."


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> You object to my use of the word "given," I take it? Well, I say "given" because I believe in my religion. I suppose to make it secular I should say "*a lot is expected of those who have a lot*."


By whom is this "lot" expected from said population? You're dabbling in a sort of socialist Christianity that I'm afraid I don't understand. Suppose you're statement is true. Should the coercive power of government be the agent by which this obligation is fulfilled? By the way, how is that "lot" enumerated; money, time or some other means?

You're argument is flawed. It is flawed at the core. Whether secular or religious in its justification, 100 years of failed socialist policies stand in your way.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Naked came I out of my mother's womb.
> 
> Much of what comes out of your life depends on what you were born into. Sure there are rags to riches stories, but there's a reason we know those stories: they're rare. If you're born to a deadbeat dad and an uneducated mother, it is unlikely that you will achieve anything. Why should the same be expected of that person as the person who was born to rich parents with graduate degrees?
> 
> ...


So if you are a rags to riches story, all bets are off then? This obligation you refuse to define or explain will not exist?

Oh, and if your name is getting in the way of you getting a good job...change it or use a different formulation on your resume. For instance, I know some with the first name of "Melvin". He never uses it, he uses his middle name "Douglas". He did this change 30 years ago as he felt "Melvin" gave off negative connotations. Guess what Marlin? White people have baggage too. *yawn* to the race card being played.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> By whom is this "lot" expected from said population? You're dabbling in a sort of socialist Christianity that I'm afraid I don't understand. Suppose you're statement is true. Should the coercive power of government be the agent by which this obligation is fulfilled? By the way, how is that "lot" enumerated; money, time or some other means?
> 
> You're argument is flawed. It is flawed at the core. Whether secular or religious in its justification, 100 years of failed socialist policies stand in your way.


Yeah, you know me, I'm always being a missionary for Christianity (if anybody on this board knew me, they'd find this very funny). I think there is a bare minimum that each person has a natural right to, and I don't think it's socialist to say so. Now, the government has to pay for roads, courts, buildings, a military, employee salaries, &c., and I think it should also pay to ensure that no person falls below that minimum.

Ignoring that last obligation, the government needs to pay for those obligations. There is a wide variety of people they can pull that money from. The government could take food out of the mouths of the poor. The government can take that third or fourth car out of the garage of the middle and upper-middle classes. The government can take money out of the bank accounts of the upper-class (I use class here to refer to money, not class). It wouldn't be right to make the upper class bear that entire burden when there are other groups that have excess money, but I also don't think it would be right to take food out of the mouths of the poor. Why? Because the poor who don't have nough to take care of themselves shouldn't have to pay to take care of the public good.

Now, I realize a lot of the programs the government puts in place target more than those who are hungry and not fed. I don't think the government should operate at that level of income redistribution. However, I do think that one of purposes of government is to protect the people, and that includes protection from the cold and from starvation (according to our own government, 35 million people suffered "food insecurity" in 2005).

On that last obligatoin, the people SHOULD fulfill it, but for now they won't. However, look at how far society has come over the last few centuries where taking care of the poor and the insane is concerned. One day, the government may not have to do anything for that obligation to be fulfilled (see the work the Golden Triangle Business Improvement District has done in DC. DC businesses have also gotten together and put together their funds to make a homeless shelter). Unfortunately, for the time being much of the burden must be born by the government and in turn by those who can afford to bear it. Maybe some are being forced; however, I would hope that most would realize that by paying taxes they're doing a great service to their country.

A quotation comes to mind here: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."

Everybody can point out how the other's philosophy is flawed (like the surge of homeless in DC and the continuing presence of homeless crazy people in DC after Reagan kicked them out of the asylum).

Look, I'm not saying everybody has to take a Jesuit's vow of poverty. You can enjoy the nicer things in life and still pay the current tax rates.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> So if you are a rags to riches story, all bets are off then? This obligation you refuse to define or explain will not exist?
> 
> Oh, and if your name is getting in the way of you getting a good job...change it or use a different formulation on your resume. For instance, I know some with the first name of "Melvin". He never uses it, he uses his middle name "Douglas". He did this change 30 years ago as he felt "Melvin" gave off negative connotations. Guess what Marlin? White people have baggage too. *yawn* to the race card being played.


My intent was not to play the race card, but to show how petty things can impact what a person can achieve. Yeah, white people have baggage too. Southern accents, being old, having been in jail, and many other things all can impact your potential for monetary gain, often without good reason. Heck, I've heard people ask for a specific age and/or gender. This is why you should expect less from those who have less; you don't know what that person has been through and why he is where he is, but as far as you know, his life may have been harder than yours.

If you are a rag to riches story, I hope you didn't forget where you came from.

Look, sure, sometimes things don't work out for everybody, but you have to do the best you can. You have to do something.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> *This is why you should expect less from those who have less;*


Ah, the most damaging liberal mantra of all. The gentle discrimination of low expectations. I am amazed people still think like this.



marlinspike said:


> If you are a rag to riches story, I hope you didn't forget where you came from.


Dodging the question. Is this what they teach you in l-school? Your above formulation seemed to exempt rags to riches stories from your still unexplained obligation. Does being a rags to riches person leave you with this silly obligation or does it not? And just FYI, anyone that fits this bill *NEVER* forgets where they come from.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Dodging the question. Is this what they teach you in l-school? Your above formulation seemed to exempt rags to riches stories from your still unexplained obligation. Does being a rags to riches person leave you with this silly obligation or does it not? And just FYI, anyone that fits this bill *NEVER* forgets where they come from.


I didn't dodge the question, read the line that was below the one you quoted.

BTW, on expectations - quite frankly I don't expect anything from anybody, all most people will do is let you down. I refer solely to the amount one should be expected to pay into a fund to provide for the collective good.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I didn't dodge the question, read the line that was below the one you quoted.


I looked at it. What does it mean? I can read it about five different ways. So straight answer, please instruct the witness to answer "yes" or "no" Your Honour. Does being a "rags to riches" story exempt you from this proposed obligation or not?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I looked at it. What does it mean? I can read it about five different ways. So straight answer, please instruct the witness to answer "yes" or "no" Your Honour. Does being a "rags to riches" story exempt you from this proposed obligation or not?


No it does not. I never intended to imply it does. BTW, I've seen more than a few people (preachers at that) who surely forgot where they came from...either that or they think that gives them the right to exploit those who are where they were.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> No it does not. I never intended to imply it does.


So then why did you mention them in this context?



marlinspike said:


> Much of what comes out of your life depends on what you were born into. Sure there are rags to riches stories, but there's a reason we know those stories: they're rare. If you're born to a deadbeat dad and an uneducated mother, it is unlikely that you will achieve anything. Why should the same be expected of that person as the person who was born to rich parents with graduate degrees?


So we have a person, according to you, that is unlikely to achieve anything. You say we cannot expect much out of them. Yet if miraculously this person does turn into a success, you are saying that "a lot" is still expected from them? You have done nothing but make excuses for them. You are trying to have it both ways. You have played the race card (yeah, yeah, you did not mean to do that, right). You have done everything except explain the burden you want to place on successful people. I mean, you adequately explained why you expect squat from so many people, people like me, I am surprised you cannot as clearly formulate why anyone that succeeds suddenly has this obligation.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> So we have a person, according to you, that is unlikely to achieve anything. You say we cannot expect much out of them. Yet if miraculously this person does turn into a success, you are saying that "a lot" is still expected from them?


If you ask me, you said the magic word right there: miraculously, i.e. miracle. If you want secular reasoning, I'll have to think...I'll edit this post in a couple of minutes. What my reason WAS was that there is no other way to work it, but obviously that's not satisfactory.

EDIT: OK, see, you cannot expect much out of them, but they beat the odds and now they have a lot. Now they can afford to give it, so they are expected to (actually, I guess this was my original reasoning until you said it's problematic based on my own argument to do this...I don't actually see how it's problematic). What you expect of a given person is not static, it has to change with that person. It's like how you can't bring up past crimes to show a propensity to commit crime in a defendant (yes, I realize there are other ways to get it in and so at the end of the day this bar hardly matters as far some judges are concerned). Every time you meet a man you have to judge him as he stands, not as he stood.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> If you ask me, you said the magic word right there: miraculously, i.e. miracle. If you want secular reasoning, I'll have to think...I'll edit this post in a couple of minutes.


I used that word to describe your characterization of the situation. Not my characterization. I thought that was clear. And hey...just answer the questions?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Oh, and out of curiosity, "secular reasoning"? You mean, "Because god said so" can be "reasoning"?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh, and out of curiosity, "secular reasoning"? You mean, "Because god said so" can be "reasoning"?


Well, at the end of the day, the judges embraced by those who don't like tiered taxation are the ones who will note we are a country founded in religion, even if we are one that is against having one official religion. City on a hill and all that. It's not reasoning for in court, but it's one way to think of policy.

Furthermore, it doesn't have to be because God said so. It could be because everybody knows that nobody gets anywhere totally on their own. For instance, if we operated in a dictatorship that said to kill all people who play bagpipes because that is a sign of education, you would end up dead. There are a thousand and one things that had to occur for the one thing of monetary success to occur. Many of those things (a money based economy, as opposed to a barter based economy, for instance) are the reuslt of government.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I used that word to describe your characterization of the situation. Not my characterization. I thought that was clear. And hey...just answer the questions?


Did I make a false statement? Did you not say the words I said you said? It depends on what the definition of is is.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So not a straight answer coming any time soon? I mean, you made all these claims, but not a single answer. Other than of course, we have to expect less from so many people.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> So not a straight answer coming any time soon? I mean, you made all these claims, but not a single answer. Other than of course, we have to expect less from so many people.


What's the unanswered question?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> What's the unanswered question?


I have repeated it several times. Do I need to expect less from you?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I have repeated it several times. Do I need to expect less from you?


Maybe. I think I know what the question is, but I also think I answered it in post 32, so I must be mistaken as to the question.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> What you expect of a given person is not static, it has to change with that person.


You are to be applauded. The perfect non-answer. Bravo.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> You are to be applauded. The perfect non-answer. Bravo.


I don't see how that is a non-answer. That's the reason why you can expect little of a person at one point in his life and then expect more from him later. Maybe you really should expect less from me, because I am at a total loss as to how that is a non-answer.

If it really is the perfect non-answer, I should to go into politics.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I don't see how that is a non-answer. That's the reason why you can expect little of a person at one point in his life and then expect more from him later. Maybe you really should expect less from me, because I am at a total loss as to how that is a non-answer.
> 
> If it really is the perfect non-answer, I need to go into politics.


You have created, after much dissecting and prodding by me of course, a scenario where no matter what happens, there are no set standards. While it is the perfect liberal scenario, it is the antithesis of solid reasoning. And you still have yet to even attempt to explain why this obligation exists.

Carry on without me.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> You have played the race card (yeah, yeah, you did not mean to do that, right).


Why would I play the race card? I'm not in the position to have white guilt, nor am I in a position to benefit from affirmative action.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> And you still have yet to even attempt to explain why this obligation exists.


I thought I had. I said that there are certain minimum levels that are a part of a persons basket of natural rights and that it is the duty of government to provide for these rights.

However, if you are unwilling to accept that as a natural right, you must at least accept that government has the duty to provide a military and a system of courts, no? Well, government has to pay for those somehow. That somehow is taxation. It would be wrong to tax those who would lose the essentials of life in order to provide the nonessential benefits of government.

It's funny. Everybody who has met me in person thinks I'm some sort of Reaganite, but everybody who has communicated with me on the internet thinks I'm some sort of pinko.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

No matter which way you fall on this issue, it's correct that money given "back" to people who didn't pay taxes or have them refunded because of low income or receiving multiple credits is not a "tax rebate".

It's a monetary gift.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> So, you make more than $75k or are married in a household making more than 150k?
> 
> Do you really want a rebate? I think I'd be ashamed to get one in that group (in fact, I'm hoping they don't give them to students since from the sounds of it I would qualify and I know I'm not in need of it). I for one like our roads and understand the need for maintaining a standing army. Do they waste lots of the money too? Sure. Will them giving rebates or cutting the tax rate reduce the waste by a percentage larger than the reduction in their funds? I don't think so.


...........


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

There's been a lot of talk about right vs. wrong in this thread, and certainly the administration and congressional leadership will sell the bill on those terms. But as a practical reality, the aim is to goose spending and stave off serious recession. Everyone involved has a friend who needs rewarding and there are different theories about which segment will consume most, or most productively. That's all there is to it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> It's not robbery though. You live here; you've agreed to be under this government. You could go to another country, or go live in the wilderness without the benefit of governed society, but you've weighed the costs and benefits and decided that it's better to live under government.
> 
> The legal comparison of wanting it back would be suing the guy who made your driveway for the money you paid him to make your driveway.
> 
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

VS said:


> No matter which way you fall on this issue, it's correct that money given "back" to people who didn't pay taxes or have them refunded because of low income or receiving multiple credits is not a "tax rebate".
> 
> It's a monetary gift.


It's legal plunder.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

I hadn't read that before. It's interesting, but I think this observation, "But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others," is the reason the non-parties to law making need what he calls lawful plunder on their side. I don't think government can possibly impart real justice, and so instead it has to participate in a sort of balancing act. Nobody plunders would be nice, but it is also an impossibility.

Now, having said that, it's not really my view, but it would be if I accepted everything he has to say about the role of government and the state of natural man.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

From ksinc's article:



> Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
> *
> But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.*


QFT.

All hail those that tell us we are shackled solely through the dint of our ability to work harder than others and to the degree or our ability to produce. A more evil bastardization of the social contract I cannot think of.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> I hadn't read that before. It's interesting, but I think this observation, "But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others," is the reason the non-parties to law making need what he calls lawful plunder on their side. I don't think government can possibly impart real justice, and so instead it has to participate in a sort of balancing act. Nobody plunders would be nice, but it is also an impossibility.
> 
> Now, having said that, it's not really my view, but it would be if I accepted everything he has to say about the role of government and the state of natural man.


Yes, it is interesting. I particularly enjoy how accurately he predicted the U.S. Civil War and our current welfare state and litigous society - paraphrased "relief; the poor man's plunder."

I have to admit I'm not quite sure what to think of someone that has rather condescendingly expressed their studied view of "basic economics" that has not read Bastiat's work before. I'm glad I could help expose you to it. One can't digest too much of it. I think you would enjoy listening to the audio version:

Have you read Henry Hazlit's Economics in One Lesson? Here's two parts in audio format:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Yes, it is interesting. I particularly enjoy how accurately he predicted the U.S. Civil War and our current welfare state and litigous society - paraphrased "relief; the poor man's plunder."
> 
> I have to admit I'm not quite sure what to think of someone that has rather condescendingly expressed their studied view of "basic economics" that has not read Bastiat's work before. I'm glad I could help expose you to it. One can't digest too much of it. I think you would enjoy listening to the audio version:
> 
> Have you read Henry Hazlit's Economics in One Lesson? Here's two parts in audio format:


Well, I never said I was an economics genius, I just rudely told others that they are not (the rudeness is at the very least in part for humor value, I only direct it towards people who I think have shown that they don't mind it).

A young Lincoln (28 years old) predicted the Civil War in his speech at the Young Men's Lyceum. de Tocqueville did as well in Democracy in America. IIRC there were earlier predictors as well, but I can't think of the names.

I had read Hazlitt's book, but it was on a flight, so to be honest retention was not high.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Well, I never said I was an economics genius, I just rudely told others that they are not (the rudeness is at the very least in part for humor value, I only direct it towards people who I think have shown that they don't mind it).


Well, you do not have to be an economic genius to understand and accept some of the very basic of economic principles. Oddly enough though, it seems like most of what you present runs contrary to these basic principles. As obviously what I say does not seem to have the ring of truth, common sense, or generally accepted knowledge to you, I would give you this link:






Please pay special attention to point #4, a point we have already ended up on different sides of. I think this guy's humour actually mirrors what you hold to be true


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Please pay special attention to point #4, a point we have already ended up on different sides of.


I don't say that people don't respond to incentives. I just disagree with you about how much of a disincentive the current tiered tax system would be minus the loopholes.

He is funny though.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I don't say that people don't respond to incentives. I just disagree with you about how much of a disincentive the current tiered tax system would be minus the loopholes.
> 
> He is funny though.


Loop holes? Could you let me in on those? I mean, you have more than I do.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

I have more what than you do?

Anyways, they aren't actual loopholes because they're put in on purpose, but they act like loopholes. For instance, split up your company with multiple partners so that each partner is able to pass the 80% and 50% tests so you can cheat the corporate tax brackets.

Or, own a business? Employ your kid! Now just pay him a hefty salary, have him open up his own IRA. If your kid is under 18 that money won't be taxed for SS either. Hey, while you're at it, name your spouse as partner and she can open up an IRA too, and she own't have to work and you can just pay her money you would have paid yourself. Technically they have to work and you have to pay fair market value, but who is there who can prove different?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> I have more what than you do?
> 
> Anyways, they aren't actual loopholes because they're put in on purpose, but they act like loopholes. For instance, split up your company with multiple partners so that each partner is able to pass the 80% and 50% tests so you can cheat the corporate tax brackets.
> 
> Or, own a business? Employ your kid! Now just pay him a hefty salary, have him open up his own IRA. If your kid is under 18 that money won't be taxed for SS either. Hey, while you're at it, name your spouse as partner and she can open up an IRA too, and she own't have to work and you can just pay her money you would have paid yourself. Technically they have to work and you have to pay fair market value, but who is there who can prove different?


As usual, you mix and conflate to attempt to make sense. These have nothing to do with personal income tax for a wage earner.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> As usual, you mix and conflate to attempt to make sense. These have nothing to do with personal income tax for a wage earner.


The second one does affect the personal income of a business owner.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> The second one does affect the personal income of a business owner.


Exactly.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Or, own a business? Employ your kid! Now just pay him a hefty salary, have him open up his own IRA. If your kid is under 18 that money won't be taxed for SS either. Hey, while you're at it, name your spouse as partner and she can open up an IRA too, and she own't have to work and you can just pay her money you would have paid yourself. Technically they have to work and you have to pay fair market value, but who is there who can prove different?





marlinspike said:


> The second one does affect the personal income of a business owner.


The SEP-IRA contribution limit cannot exceed 25% of the employee's compensation reported as wages on the employee's W-2. All owners must report W-2 income in order to contribute.

The SEP-IRA benefit is an incentive to take W-2 wages paying BOTH social security and personal income taxes.

The income and expenses of a Sub-S corporation are passed-through to the owners. Owners are taxed on the income of the corporation whether or not they actually receive a distribution. The income is taxed when it is earned by the corporation, and not when it is distributed to the shareholder.

Would it be foolish of me to ask if you are either a CPA or a business owner?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Well, I never said I was an economics genius, I just rudely told others that they are not (the rudeness is at the very least in part for humor value, I only direct it towards people who I think have shown that they don't mind it).
> 
> A young Lincoln (28 years old) predicted the Civil War in his speech at the Young Men's Lyceum. de Tocqueville did as well in Democracy in America. IIRC there were earlier predictors as well, but I can't think of the names.
> 
> I had read Hazlitt's book, but it was on a flight, so to be honest retention was not high.


Uh, Beavis, Alexis de Toqueville predicted a civil war BETWEEN blacks and whites IN THE SOUTH. A prediction which DID NOT come true.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Uh, Beavis, Alexis de Toqueville predicted a civil war BETWEEN blacks and whites IN THE SOUTH. A prediction which DID NOT come true.


Nat Turner? Either way, he predicted racial slavery as a aspect of our society that would culminate in war. My point though is that there were many who realized that slavery would lead to a violent clash, so that one isn't exactly a unique prediction. Jefferson did as well, but I refrained from saying it (and should still) because I can't remember in which of his writings he did so.

As to the CPA/Business owner...never on the former, not really on the latter (ran a business, but it wasn't classified as such that I was the business owner). I believe the phrase is "Jack of all trades, master of none." For instance, I have 5 languages on tap (well one isn't used outside the Vatican, and they use a different form), though I only speak 2 well enough to put them on a resume. I've dabbled in many things.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> As to the CPA/Business owner...never on the former, not really on the latter (ran a business, but it wasn't classified as such that I was the business owner). I believe the phrase is "Jack of all trades, master of none." For instance, I have 5 languages on tap (well one isn't used outside the Vatican, and they use a different form), though I only speak 2 well enough to put them on a resume. I've dabbled in many things.


In lieu of your comment about specificity, I should probably warn you that the IRS takes that whole "classified as such" pretty seriously. Particularly so when it comes to a functional understanding of the tax benefits of a closely held corporation. 

Well, at least you have that MBA, right Jack?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Nat Turner? Either way, he predicted racial slavery as a aspect of our society that would culminate in war. My point though is that there were many who realized that slavery would lead to a violent clash, so that one isn't exactly a unique prediction. Jefferson did as well, but I refrained from saying it (and should still) because I can't remember in which of his writings he did so.
> 
> As to the CPA/Business owner...never on the former, not really on the latter (ran a business, but it wasn't classified as such that I was the business owner). I believe the phrase is "Jack of all trades, master of none." For instance, I have 5 languages on tap (well one isn't used outside the Vatican, and they use a different form), though I only speak 2 well enough to put them on a resume. I've dabbled in many things.


Do not forget to mention the fact you are a law student, former high ranking HR executive...and all this by the age of 20!


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Do not forget to mention the fact you are a law student, former high ranking HR executive...and all this by the age of 20!


Ha, high ranking HR exec. Not exactly an executive, and the high-ranking was an anomaly (spot opened up got filed, opened up again soon after in the middle of a busy time, rather than try to find someone quickly and have to train them they just bumped me up). And I'm 22 

I've been a bus driver too. Some of us work during college.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

ksinc said:


> In lieu of your comment about specificity, I should probably warn you that the IRS takes that whole "classified as such" pretty seriously. Particularly so when it comes to a functional understanding of the tax benefits of a closely held corporation.
> 
> Well, at least you have that MBA, right Jack?


It was all on the up and up. I didn't feel like dealing with the hassle of actually owning a business, somebody else owned a business but didn't feel like working any more, fate had us meet. I actually ran the show, but he did all the paperwork and was the "owner" (there wasn't much in the way of business assets to own...it was photography). I'd say the IRS got more money than they would have otherwise, especially since I was buying my own photo gear but not deducting it.

Beavis, now Jack. If you get my name on the next guess I'll give up my claim to the queen's child.*

*I actually make no claim to the queen's child, so I have no claim to give up.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Ha, high ranking HR exec. Not exactly an executive, and the high-ranking was an anomaly (spot opened up got filed, opened up again soon after in the middle of a busy time, rather than try to find someone quickly and have to train them they just bumped me up). And I'm 22
> 
> I've been a bus driver too. Some of us work during college.


Hmm, you were 20 about a month ago when I said you were 21 as you claimed to start your undergrad at 17. Do I detect fuzzy math?

And who waits until college to start working? Piker.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Hmm, you were 20 about a month ago when I said you were 21 as you claimed to start your undergrad at 17. Do I detect fuzzy math?
> 
> And who waits until college to start working? Piker.


I was 21 through most of Decemeber. This is now January. I am now 22. About a month ago, you said I was 20 and I said I was 21. I did start undergrad at 17.

I didn't say anything about waiting until college to start working, but you express skepticism about my work experience. You would be right to be skeptical if my being employed had been limited to high school and summers.

And why are you directing a British insult at me? Too good for American insults (though apparently that's also a Midwesterner insult that I've never heard an American use)?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> And why are you directing a British insult at me? Too good for American insults (though apparently that's also a Midwesterner insult that I've never heard an American use)?


But I am not American. Not my fault if you cannot keep up. :devil:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> But I am not American. Not my fault if you cannot keep up. :devil:


So, are you using it in the British sense or in the Mid-west sense?

Danged immigration problem...:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> So, are you using it in the British sense or in the Mid-west sense?
> 
> Danged immigration problem...:icon_smile_wink:


Using it in the sense relative to me :devil:

The way I use it usually connotes someone who does things half-arsed or generally fails to meet expectations. A slacker. A lazy worker, one who is just worried about punching the clock. To my knowledge, that is the common use in NA. UK of course are Irish gypsies.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> The way I use it usually connotes someone who does things half-arsed or generally fails to meet expectations. A slacker. A lazy worker, one who is just worried about punching the clock. To my knowledge, that is the common use in NA.


According to a quick google search, it's a mid-west thing. I have only heard it from Englishmen, but the only people I know from the mid-west are from Chicago.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> According to a quick google search, it's a mid-west thing. I have only heard it from Englishmen, but the only people I know from the mid-west are from Chicago.


Never heard the term here in St. Louis or Illinois. The only time I have actually heard it used was in the movie _Snatch_ with Brad Pitt playing an Irish gypsy. We do use the term hoosiers, but that refers more to white trash.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Never heard the term here in St. Louis or Illinois. The only time I have actually heard it used was in the movie _Snatch_ with Brad Pitt playing an Irish gypsy. We do use the term hoosiers, but that refers more to white trash.


In Snatch (and the term that is actually used) the word was Pikey, but I have heard Englishmen use Piker in its place.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> It was all on the up and up. I didn't feel like dealing with the hassle of actually owning a business, somebody else owned a business but didn't feel like working any more, fate had us meet. I actually ran the show, but he did all the paperwork and was the "owner" (there wasn't much in the way of business assets to own...it was photography). I'd say the IRS got more money than they would have otherwise, especially since I was buying my own photo gear but not deducting it.
> 
> Beavis, now Jack. If you get my name on the next guess I'll give up my claim to the queen's child.*
> 
> *I actually make no claim to the queen's child, so I have no claim to give up.


Jack as in 'Jack of all Trades'.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Jack as in 'Jack of all Trades'.


"I'm all right, Jack. The hell with you, though."

As tiresome as slap-fights can be, I'm rather enjoying this one.


----------

