Check this chart of top marginal taxes for decades

[Soggy in NOLA]

The idea that you seem offended that people are having less of their personal property confscated, speaks volumes.

 

[editec]

Just one thing slightly tangential to this debate.

The value of money over time.

Now some of you are telling us that 1929 dollars are worth (x) 2010 dollars?

FYI a silver dime used to be worth ten cents, folks. That was in my lifetime. Ten cents bought one two candy bars.

A silver dime with virtually no numismatic value today goes for about 300 cents today.

Of course pennies aren't really real anymore, either, so comparing values is always risky.


My guess is that the dollar has about 3% of the puchasing power it had in about 1960.

That means that a 1960 $400,000 taxable income, probably had about the same purchasing power as a $12,000,000 income today.

My conclusion?

Taxes, relative to puchasing power of our incomes has gone up tremendously for most of us, and gone down tremendously on the upper tiers of incomes.

So at least one debate probably worthy of our attention is this...

How do we define a truly high income?

My suggestion is we do so, not in numerical terms, but as a percentage of median family income.

We're informed that the median family income is in the neighborhood of $55,000 annually.

How many times that annual media salary does one have to make to qualify as RICH, according to the way you folks think?

Ten times that median salary?

Or shall we use some other benchmark?

How about the median salary of individuals? 75% of all American workers make less than $75,000 per year, for example.

Income distribution

Of those individuals with income who were older than 25 years of age, over 42% had incomes below $25,000 while the top 10% had incomes exceeding $82,500 a year. The distribution of income among individuals differs substantially from household incomes as 42% of all households had two or more income earners. As a result 20.5% of households have six figure incomes, even though only 6.24% of Americans had incomes exceeding $100,000. The following chart shows the income distribution among all 211,832,000 individuals aged 15 or higher as recorded by the United States Census Bureau.

One can find that kind of data here



My question is basically this...

How are we defining RICH?

My proposal is that we define RICH as those whose family income is TEN TIMES that of the MEDIAN family income.

That's an annual about $550,000 a year, FYI.

 

[DiamondDave]

Just one thing slightly tangential to this debate.

The value of money over time.

Now some of you are telling us that 1929 dollars are worth (x) 2010 dollars?

FYI a silver dime used to be worth ten cents, folks. That was in my lifetime. Ten cents bought one two candy bars.

A silver dime with virtually no numismatic value today goes for about 300 cents today.

Of course pennies aren't really real anymore, either, so comparing values is always risky.


My guess is that the dollar has about 3% of the puchasing power it had in about 1960.

That means that a 1960 $400,000 taxable income, probably had about the same purchasing power as a $12,000,000 income today.

My conclusion?

Taxes, relative to puchasing power of our incomes has gone up tremendously for most of us, and gone down tremendously on the upper tiers of incomes.

So at least one debate probably worthy of our attention is this...

How do we define a truly high income?

My suggestion is we do so, not in numerical terms, but as a percentage of median family income.

We're informed that the median family income is in the neighborhood of $55,000 annually.

How many times that annual media salary does one have to make to qualify as RICH, according to the way you folks think?

Ten times that median salary?

Or shall we use some other benchmark?

How about the median salary of individuals? 75% of all American workers make less than $75,000 per year, for example.

Income distribution

Of those individuals with income who were older than 25 years of age, over 42% had incomes below $25,000 while the top 10% had incomes exceeding $82,500 a year. The distribution of income among individuals differs substantially from household incomes as 42% of all households had two or more income earners. As a result 20.5% of households have six figure incomes, even though only 6.24% of Americans had incomes exceeding $100,000. The following chart shows the income distribution among all 211,832,000 individuals aged 15 or higher as recorded by the United States Census Bureau.

One can find that kind of data here



My question is basically this...

How are we defining RICH?

My proposal is that we define RICH as those whose family income is TEN TIMES that of the MEDIAN family income.

That's an annual about $550,000 a year, FYI.

My question to you is this...

What does it matter to you if someone is rich?

Are rich deserving of unequal treatment by the government?

And we could ask the same question of you that we have been asking to the likes of TM, so that you can officially state it one way or another... Do you in fact support unequal treatment facilitated by our governmental system?

 

[WillowTree]

Even if it was proven by God himself that taxes should be that high, government does not have anymore right to my money than Jesse James did others, I would have no incentive to even work if 90% of what I labored for was taken from me.

Then you dont like this democray and you can go elswhere

I love this Republic but government should not have that kind of power, why do you trust government so much, I can ask others why they trust corporations so much, why trust anything where power is so concentrated.

Central planning is a failed system, just ask the USSR.

cause her sorry ass don't pay taxes. anybody who paid taxes ain't actually gonna agree they should pay MORE taxes.. see?

 

[8537]

My question to you is this...

What does it matter to you if someone is rich?

Are rich deserving of unequal treatment by the government?

The rich gain the most benefit from protections that our government provides. It's not unequal treatment if the benefit is unequal.

 

[DiamondDave]

My question to you is this...

What does it matter to you if someone is rich?

Are rich deserving of unequal treatment by the government?

The rich gain the most benefit from protections that our government provides. It's not unequal treatment if the benefit is unequal.

No... each citizen derives the same benefit from what the government is supposed to provide... our protection as a country, our laws and law enforcement, our protection of our freedoms, etc

What each citizen does with the freedoms we are provided, by their choices, actions, investments, etc is not a worry to you or to the government.... success or failure it is and should be irrelevant to our government.. and it is no business of yours whether someone is rich... and you should not be entitled to the fruits of another's labors, just because you want it, while using the government as a vehicle for your class warfare vengeance fantasies

the government is not Robin Hood, nor should it be

 

[lizzie]

The rich gain the most benefit from protections that our government provides.

How so?

 

[DiamondDave]

The rich gain the most benefit from protections that our government provides.

How so?

You will get the typical misguided answer from the lefties about the companies of the rich using the court system more, or the roads more, etc...

They confuse what people do with the freedoms they are afforded and what the government actually provides for the citizenry

 

[8537]

No... each citizen derives the same benefit from what the government is supposed to provide... our protection as a country, our laws and law enforcement, our protection of our freedoms, etc

Try telling that to an insurance company that charges more for a Lamborghini than a Chevy Chevette. The wealthy derive the most benefit and therefore pay the highest cost.

 

[8537]

The rich gain the most benefit from protections that our government provides.

How so?

The protection of intellectual and private property rights is a far larger benefit to those that own the means of production than those that don't.

 

[johnrocks]

My question to you is this...

What does it matter to you if someone is rich?

Are rich deserving of unequal treatment by the government?

The rich gain the most benefit from protections that our government provides. It's not unequal treatment if the benefit is unequal.

That seems kinda broad but we make decisions in life and those decisions create consequences, why should a poor man who stayed in school,studied while his peers were drinking,smoking dope and chasing girls, went to College for 4-12 years to make something of himself, sacrificing good times,family and God only knows what else, be penalized while the man who QUIT school in the 10th grade, gets rewarded with the fruits of his labor?

 

[lizzie]

The rich gain the most benefit from protections that our government provides.

How so?

The protection of intellectual and private property rights is a far larger benefit to those that own the means of production than those that don't.

Which protection/ benefit is available to the rich that is not equally available to the poor?

 

[DiamondDave]

The rich gain the most benefit from protections that our government provides.

How so?

The protection of intellectual and private property rights is a far larger benefit to those that own the means of production than those that don't.

So you would be against protection of intellectual and private property rights because people can benefit from what they have amassed from their efforts, choices, etc?

What a person does with a freedom should be of no concern to you.. only the fact that you have the exact same freedom should matter.. whether or not you do anything with it is nobody else's business

 

[DiamondDave]

No... each citizen derives the same benefit from what the government is supposed to provide... our protection as a country, our laws and law enforcement, our protection of our freedoms, etc

Try telling that to an insurance company that charges more for a Lamborghini than a Chevy Chevette. The wealthy derive the most benefit and therefore pay the highest cost.

Insurance is a product... your freedoms afforded by the government are not

You would actually have a point if an EQUAL product's price were different for you just because of an arbitrary situation... like you being charged $1 for a gallon of milk because you earn 20K a year, and me being charged $5 for a gallon of milk because I make 100K a year

We as citizens have equal access to the protections and freedoms afforded by the government... but unfortunately out big government power addicts have morphed out system into more and more of a nanny state, making people believe they are actually entitled to have their personal wants and needs taken care of by a income tax system that only half pay in to

 

[johnrocks]

I've thanked Diamond Dave more than I did my Ex Wife, no wonder she left my ass

Keep up the good fight Diamond!

 

[Mr Natural]

The rich gain the most benefit from protections that our government provides.

How so?

Well let's say the unthinkable happens and ragheads or some other hostile force detonates a powerful nuclear device in midtown Manhattan rendering the entire island unusable for decades and throwing the financial system of the entire world into absolute chaos.

Who has lost more, the billionaire living in the multi-million dollar townhouse that's been in his family for generations and complete with priceless, irreplaceable art treasures and momentos or the guy living under the West Side Highway overpass in a piano crate?

 

[8537]

How so?

The protection of intellectual and private property rights is a far larger benefit to those that own the means of production than those that don't.

Which protection/ benefit is available to the rich that is not equally available to the poor?

Protection of the private and intellectual property related to the owned means of production. You don't have to buy car insurance for cars you don't own.

 

[8537]

How so?

The protection of intellectual and private property rights is a far larger benefit to those that own the means of production than those that don't.

So you would be against protection of intellectual and private property rights because people can benefit from what they have amassed from their efforts, choices, etc?

how you get from the statement that the wealthy have more to protect to "you would be against protection of intellectual property...yada...yada..." I haven't got a clue.

What a person does with a freedom should be of no concern to you.. only the fact that you have the exact same freedom should matter.. whether or not you do anything with it is nobody else's business

indeed, I don't care what people do with their freedoms. I DO care if I am forced to pay a disproportionate amount to protect anothers freedoms.

 

[DiamondDave]

The protection of intellectual and private property rights is a far larger benefit to those that own the means of production than those that don't.

Which protection/ benefit is available to the rich that is not equally available to the poor?

Protection of the private and intellectual property related to the owned means of production. You don't have to buy car insurance for cars you don't own.

And you have the same right/protection of your intellectual and private property as well...

Again.. you apparently have severe jealousy over those that have earned more, and want to use the government as some sort of tool to equalize outcome... which is inherently against the freedoms this country was founded upon

 

[lizzie]

The protection of intellectual and private property rights is a far larger benefit to those that own the means of production than those that don't.

Which protection/ benefit is available to the rich that is not equally available to the poor?

Protection of the private and intellectual property related to the owned means of production. You don't have to buy car insurance for cars you don't own.

Note the term available in my question. Just because someone makes more money and has more assets than another does not mean that he has more protection guaranteed by government.