(10-06-2014 01:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  2) Lots of middle class also don't itemize, so they too would not be part of the study.

And the ones that do tend to be the ones with lots of deductions, including charitable ones. Selection bias at work.

(10-06-2014 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's easier to dismiss others when you just broadly mischaracterize their beliefs into something that no rational person would believe, isn't it? The problem is, just because that's how it works in your head doesn't mean that's how it works in reality.

Or as you have so capably demonstrated in this thread, their words.

(10-06-2014 01:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 01:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That's an inherently flawed analogy. The fisherman who is working doesn't get to keep the fish, he gets to keep whatever wage he has earned for catching the fish for his employer.

You're being deliberately argumentative.

Does he not get something of value for his work? Does he not get the gratifying feeling of having earned it?

Hopefully, yes. But that's not the reality for every job, which is sort of the point I'm trying to make.

bull****.

Slavery was outlawed a long time ago.

Yes, there have been no recent cases of employers forcing employees to work off the clock, most certainly not with the largest employer outside of the federal government.

That's not legal, either.

Still happened though, so it's hard to act like it's not pertinent to this discussion.

(10-06-2014 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Still happened though, so it's hard to act like it's not pertinent to this discussion.

Are they the exception or the rule?

A Fair Tax might but a Flat Tax certainly would

I would be in favor of a flat tax.

(10-06-2014 11:22 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What if those rich people are investing in businesses that create jobs?

Does that really mean they're less caring?

Yes, yes it does.

Why?

(10-06-2014 10:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:31 AM)bevotex Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Nice Job Socratic.

I need to find the article I reead a month ago though that showed what a family that made 30,000 paid in taxes vs. a guy who made a million. The percent of each was insane. I'll find the article. Again, I'll add, nice retort but in the end. The little guy is paying a much higher percentage of his wage than the bigger guy.

Fairtax legislation would fix that

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would

(10-06-2014 01:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Still happened though, so it's hard to act like it's not pertinent to this discussion.

Sure it is, since it's already been demonstrated that nobody who doesn't itemize (and any slaves or otherwise poor people wouldn't generally itemize) are even reported (despite the apparent claim).

So yeah, slaves and even poor people and their 'generosity' isn't in evidence here at all.

(10-06-2014 03:43 PM)bevotex Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:31 AM)bevotex Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Nice Job Socratic.

I need to find the article I reead a month ago though that showed what a family that made 30,000 paid in taxes vs. a guy who made a million. The percent of each was insane. I'll find the article. Again, I'll add, nice retort but in the end. The little guy is paying a much higher percentage of his wage than the bigger guy.

Fairtax legislation would fix that

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would

The Fair Tax resolution

(10-06-2014 09:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I need to find the article I reead a month ago though that showed what a family that made 30,000 paid in taxes vs. a guy who made a million. The percent of each was insane. I'll find the article. Again, I'll add, nice retort but in the end. The little guy is paying a much higher percentage of his wage than the bigger guy.

Sure... and I can find thousands of families who made $30,000 and had NEGATIVE tax burdens and millionaires who paid the max and STILL gave to charity.

There are always exceptions to 'rules' and that is why having our rule book be as think as it is (some 50,000 pages) is so silly.... and it DOES cause things like this to happen.

If you don't think fairtax would solve this, you don't understand fairtax... or you'd play fast and loose with numbers...

Generally speaking and using simple numbers, assuming a 10% fairtax... the fairtax would give a $3,000 prefund to the family making 30,000 and then charge them $3,000 in taxes. You MIGHT argue that the family is paying $3,000 on $33,000 of income, but the reality is that they are paying nothing on $30,000... because the prefund doesn't exist without the tax, and vice versa. Alternatively, the millionaire who only spent 200,000 would pay $20,000 in tax on his $1mm in income, but he couldn't spend the other 800k and would instead have to use it to create jobs... which if you were trying to make a point you would argue was only a 2% tax rate versus the poor families 9% rate, but that isn't the reality. The definition of 'spending' would really keep the wealthy person from being able to shelter that much income, and at SOME point, they'd still have to pay taxes on it making their REAL rate 10%... meanwhile, the poor family really paid nothing.

The simplest solution is to follow the examples of Europe and combine income taxes WITH what is essentially a consumption tax.

(10-05-2014 11:41 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  and Memphis is the second most generous city in America.

Quote:Among the 50 largest cities, Salt Lake City had the most generous residents, giving away 5.4 percent of their incomes. It was followed by Memphis, Tennessee; Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, and Nashville, Tennessee...

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/nat...-in-giving

In the past 4 years i have lived in 3 of the top 5 cities. Woohoo!

Nothing new here. Sociologists have known for years and years the poor and middle class give more % wise, and the elderly give the most % wise.

(10-06-2014 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I need to find the article I reead a month ago though that showed what a family that made 30,000 paid in taxes vs. a guy who made a million. The percent of each was insane. I'll find the article. Again, I'll add, nice retort but in the end. The little guy is paying a much higher percentage of his wage than the bigger guy.

Sure... and I can find thousands of families who made $30,000 and had NEGATIVE tax burdens and millionaires who paid the max and STILL gave to charity.

There are always exceptions to 'rules' and that is why having our rule book be as think as it is (some 50,000 pages) is so silly.... and it DOES cause things like this to happen.

If you don't think fairtax would solve this, you don't understand fairtax... or you'd play fast and loose with numbers...

Generally speaking and using simple numbers, assuming a 10% fairtax... the fairtax would give a $3,000 prefund to the family making 30,000 and then charge them $3,000 in taxes. You MIGHT argue that the family is paying $3,000 on $33,000 of income, but the reality is that they are paying nothing on $30,000... because the prefund doesn't exist without the tax, and vice versa. Alternatively, the millionaire who only spent 200,000 would pay $20,000 in tax on his $1mm in income, but he couldn't spend the other 800k and would instead have to use it to create jobs... which if you were trying to make a point you would argue was only a 2% tax rate versus the poor families 9% rate, but that isn't the reality. The definition of 'spending' would really keep the wealthy person from being able to shelter that much income, and at SOME point, they'd still have to pay taxes on it making their REAL rate 10%... meanwhile, the poor family really paid nothing.

The simplest solution is to follow the examples of Europe and combine income taxes WITH what is essentially a consumption tax.

This.

(10-06-2014 05:47 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Nothing new here. Sociologists have known for years and years the poor and middle class give more % wise, and the elderly give the most % wise.

Seems to be just a math issue to me. I mean giving a small amount based on a smaller relative income gives a bigger percentage that someone giving a whole lot more but with a very large income.

(10-06-2014 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:51 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Okay, so let's back it up a step. Which is ultimately more beneficial to others?

That wholly depends on the specific circumstances of each job/charity.

Give a man a fish...

And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

Silly goose. We sent our textile mills off long ago.

(10-06-2014 07:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What if those rich people are investing in businesses that create jobs?

Does that really mean they're less caring?

I'd venture to say that those jobs are just a byproduct of the investment and mostly not even considered by many investors. Not saying that they don't care about people, but I'm sure that they don't wake up on the morning of their investment thinking about all the jobs it will create.

But, to me, caring or not caring doesn't matter. As long as the money gets to where it needs to be and the results are good, the intention shouldn't matter to anyone. Sometimes caring too much leads to inefficient results.

(10-07-2014 08:50 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What if those rich people are investing in businesses that create jobs?

Does that really mean they're less caring?

I'd venture to say that those jobs are just a byproduct of the investment and mostly not even considered by many investors. Not saying that they don't care about people, but I'm sure that they don't wake up on the morning of their investment thinking about all the jobs it will create.

But, to me, caring or not caring doesn't matter. As long as the money gets to where it needs to be and the results are good, the intention shouldn't matter to anyone. Sometimes caring too much leads to inefficient results.

Indirect caring is still caring.

(10-07-2014 08:39 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 05:47 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Nothing new here. Sociologists have known for years and years the poor and middle class give more % wise, and the elderly give the most % wise.

Seems to be just a math issue to me. I mean giving a small amount based on a smaller relative income gives a bigger percentage that someone giving a whole lot more but with a very large income.

Nope, not a math issue at all. A facts issue.

1) if you didn't itemize, you weren't considered. Poor people (and most middle class) don't itemize. Any claims that this says ANYTHING about the poor and middle class in ANY way is factually untrue.

2) For those that DO itemize, it measures only AGI... which means it measures essentially 'salary'. Anyone who takes any meaningful amount of their income as something other than 'salary' will be misrepresented and anyone who gifts things other than cash will as well (which the wealthy often do).

Those are just the fallacies as I can tell them from a quick glance and they are significant.

As I said, this has been 'rigged' to present a predictable outcome. Don't buy into it.