COVID-19 numbers

[Deleted User 310]

Get a roommate. Get a shittier apartment. Spend bar money and cell service money on a training program and get a better job. Then provide some supplemental government funds and programs to help those for whom it is impossible.

My goodness. You're so out of touch with people below your income class. Spoken like a true white male living in the suburbs somewhere.

You're also out of touch with WHO the ones rushing to reopen were in many cases.

[PhDhawk]

So, we have a republican controlled executive, the republicans have a majority in the Senate, the Supreme Court is considered majority conservative, the majority of state governors are republican.

So, if most of the positions of power and policy and decision making are republican, how is it that democrats are using the virus to steal the election?

I won't argue that the virus hasn't been politicized, or that politicians are using the virus for political gain....but the numbers would suggest that the republican party being in more positions of power would be at an advantage here, or at least in a position to stop the dems from using the virus to dupe american and steal an election.

[jfish26]

Get a roommate. Get a shittier apartment. Spend bar money and cell service money on a training program and get a better job. Then provide some supplemental government funds and programs to help those for whom it is impossible.

My goodness. You're so out of touch with people below your income class. Spoken like a true white male living in the suburbs somewhere.

You're also out of touch with WHO the ones rushing to reopen were in many cases.

I know there's a lot of folks who will draw a direct line (f they distinguish at all) between social programs and socialism, but the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", personal-responsibility thing would be much more realistic were our entire economic and social scheme not oriented toward accumulation of wealth at the highest levels. I'm talking levels well-beyond even three vacation home, private-jet-chartering lifestyles.

[Walrus]

A lot of people define socialism in different ways, or in some cases, incorrectly. Some define it as the "redistribution of any tax dollars", while others define as spending tax dollars on certain things they don't agree with. If one defines it the former, I am very much pro redistribution of tax money for certain things (police, fire fighters, health care, libraries, etc.). I am also for an unemployment safety net, however, our current system allows so many lazy people to take advantage of it.

[twocoach]

Get a roommate. Get a shittier apartment. Spend bar money and cell service money on a training program and get a better job. Then provide some supplemental government funds and programs to help those for whom it is impossible.

My goodness. You're so out of touch with people below your income class. Spoken like a true white male living in the suburbs somewhere.

You're also out of touch with WHO the ones rushing to reopen were in many cases.

I agree that my ability to maintain self discipline and to be financially responsible towards my larger goals even as the power company and phone company were shutting off service to my apartment was in the minority for others working at that pay scale at that point in my life.

When I was putting myself through college at 30 with a wife, a baby and a mortgage while only having enough time to work part time so I could change careers, I was glad I had learned those skills earlier in my life or I would not have been able to do it.

But like I said, most of the rest of the folks I worked with at that time seemed to always find beer money, go to the beach money, go out for tacos money etc.... They laughed at me when I constantly said I couldn't afford to go out, couldn't afford to drive up to NYC to see some band play, couldnt afford to run down to the beach to party.

Sure, there exceptions to the rule but as a rule we are a lazy nation with little self control, patience or self discipline. Instant gratification and self i dulgent satisfaction is expensive both in the short term and the long term.

[PhDhawk]

A lot of people define socialism in different ways, or in some cases, incorrectly. Some define it as the "redistribution of any tax dollars", while others define as spending tax dollars on certain things they don't agree with. If one defines it the former, I am very much pro redistribution of tax money for certain things (police, fire fighters, health care, libraries, etc.). I am also for an unemployment safety net, however, our current system allows so many lazy people to take advantage of it.

Goo goo g'joob

[twocoach]

A lot of people define socialism in different ways, or in some cases, incorrectly. Some define it as the "redistribution of any tax dollars", while others define as spending tax dollars on certain things they don't agree with. If one defines it the former, I am very much pro redistribution of tax money for certain things (police, fire fighters, health care, libraries, etc.). I am also for an unemployment safety net, however, our current system allows so many lazy people to take advantage of it.

The stats seem to not support the claim of "so many lazy people". That's largely a made up thing to juatify not supporting government funded programs.

And instead of burning it the fuck down, we could hire US citizens to manage and police it better to strip those truly taking advantage of the system off the bank roll. A good auditor for each state's programs could easily pay for it's own salary and then some by putting in well thought out procedures.

[PhDhawk]

Get a roommate. Get a shittier apartment. Spend bar money and cell service money on a training program and get a better job. Then provide some supplemental government funds and programs to help those for whom it is impossible.

My goodness. You're so out of touch with people below your income class. Spoken like a true white male living in the suburbs somewhere.

You're also out of touch with WHO the ones rushing to reopen were in many cases.

I know there's a lot of folks who will draw a direct line (f they distinguish at all) between social programs and socialism, but the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", personal-responsibility thing would be much more realistic were our entire economic and social scheme not oriented toward accumulation of wealth at the highest levels. I'm talking levels well-beyond even three vacation home, private-jet-chartering lifestyles.

I think this is an important point that is missed by almost everyone during these types of discussions.

[CrimsonNBlue]

This thread today, Jesus.

[twocoach]

My goodness. You're so out of touch with people below your income class. Spoken like a true white male living in the suburbs somewhere.

You're also out of touch with WHO the ones rushing to reopen were in many cases.

I know there's a lot of folks who will draw a direct line (f they distinguish at all) between social programs and socialism, but the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", personal-responsibility thing would be much more realistic were our entire economic and social scheme not oriented toward accumulation of wealth at the highest levels. I'm talking levels well-beyond even three vacation home, private-jet-chartering lifestyles.

I think this is an important point that is missed by almost everyone during these types of discussions.

Agreed. There are some truly unfathomable levels of wealth out there in this nation. 1% of their net worth could fund a mind biggling array of wonderful social programs to bring those at the bottom of the ladder up a few rungs.

[twocoach]

This thread today, Jesus.

It's all good. Just chatting.

[Walrus]

This thread today, Jesus.

lol

[jfish26]

My goodness. You're so out of touch with people below your income class. Spoken like a true white male living in the suburbs somewhere.

You're also out of touch with WHO the ones rushing to reopen were in many cases.

I know there's a lot of folks who will draw a direct line (f they distinguish at all) between social programs and socialism, but the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", personal-responsibility thing would be much more realistic were our entire economic and social scheme not oriented toward accumulation of wealth at the highest levels. I'm talking levels well-beyond even three vacation home, private-jet-chartering lifestyles.

I think this is an important point that is missed by almost everyone during these types of discussions.

Yes. I think part of it is psychological - people with net worths of, like, $10-50mm sort of enjoy perceiving themselves as being among the super-wealthy.

They're not, but they'll argue against a wealth tax as if they are.

A wealth tax of 1% of net worth over $50mm would not change anyone's lifestyle one little bit. Nor would it disincentivize anyone from trying to make that kind of money to begin with.

[twocoach]

I know there's a lot of folks who will draw a direct line (f they distinguish at all) between social programs and socialism, but the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", personal-responsibility thing would be much more realistic were our entire economic and social scheme not oriented toward accumulation of wealth at the highest levels. I'm talking levels well-beyond even three vacation home, private-jet-chartering lifestyles.

I think this is an important point that is missed by almost everyone during these types of discussions.

Yes. I think part of it is psychological - people with net worths of, like, $10-50mm sort of enjoy perceiving themselves as being among the super-wealthy.

They're not, but they'll argue against a wealth tax as if they are.

A wealth tax of 1% of net worth over $50mm would not change anyone's lifestyle one little bit. Nor would it disincentivize anyone from trying to make that kind of money to begin with.

Agree 100%.

[PhDhawk]

I know there's a lot of folks who will draw a direct line (f they distinguish at all) between social programs and socialism, but the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", personal-responsibility thing would be much more realistic were our entire economic and social scheme not oriented toward accumulation of wealth at the highest levels. I'm talking levels well-beyond even three vacation home, private-jet-chartering lifestyles.

I think this is an important point that is missed by almost everyone during these types of discussions.

Yes. I think part of it is psychological - people with net worths of, like, $10-50mm sort of enjoy perceiving themselves as being among the super-wealthy.

They're not, but they'll argue against a wealth tax as if they are.

A wealth tax of 1% of net worth over $50mm would not change anyone's lifestyle one little bit. Nor would it disincentivize anyone from trying to make that kind of money to begin with.

Right. And in many ways we understood it better back in the day.

In 1916, there were 14 tax brackets, and more importantly, the highest bracket started at $2 million dollars, which in today's money is $47 million.

Today, with 7 tax brackets, the highest bracket starts around $500,000 this means that someone making say $650,000 is taxed at the same percentage as someone making $60,000,000. I'm not advocating bringing back 70% income taxes or anything. But how does it make sense that the guy making $540,000 can pay 13% points higher taxes than a guy making $90,000, or 25% points higher than a guy making $45,000, but the guy making 10X or 20X or 30X more than $540,000 has no additional burden? If we're going to have a progressive tax, why cap it out at a salary that is upper-middle class and not something that's truly wealthy.

Oh, and we gotta find a way to tax someone like Warren Buffet more than just his $100,000 annual salary. I don't want crazy high taxes on someone who has their money in investments but give me a fucking break, if a guy is worth $75 billion dollars his income tax burden ought to be more than $24,000.

I'm not a socialist, and I'm not someone who likes redistribution of wealth, and as you said I don't want to de-incentivise anyone, but geezus, we have some fucked up things when it comes to who pays what share of our collective tax burden.

[jfish26]

I think this is an important point that is missed by almost everyone during these types of discussions.

Yes. I think part of it is psychological - people with net worths of, like, $10-50mm sort of enjoy perceiving themselves as being among the super-wealthy.

They're not, but they'll argue against a wealth tax as if they are.

A wealth tax of 1% of net worth over $50mm would not change anyone's lifestyle one little bit. Nor would it disincentivize anyone from trying to make that kind of money to begin with.

Right. And in many ways we understood it better back in the day.

In 1916, there were 14 tax brackets, and more importantly, the highest bracket started at $2 million dollars, which in today's money is $47 million.

Today, with 7 tax brackets, the highest bracket starts around $500,000 this means that someone making say $650,000 is taxed at the same percentage as someone making $60,000,000. I'm not advocating bringing back 70% income taxes or anything. But how does it make sense that the guy making $540,000 can pay 13% points higher taxes than a guy making $90,000, or 25% points higher than a guy making $45,000, but the guy making 10X or 20X or 30X more than $540,000 has no additional burden? If we're going to have a progressive tax, why cap it out at a salary that is upper-middle class and not something that's truly wealthy.

Oh, and we gotta find a way to tax someone like Warren Buffet more than just his $100,000 annual salary. I don't want crazy high taxes on someone who has their money in investments but give me a fucking break, if a guy is worth $75 billion dollars his income tax burden ought to be more than $24,000.

I'm not a socialist, and I'm not someone who likes redistribution of wealth, and as you said I don't want to de-incentivise anyone, but geezus, we have some fucked up things when it comes to who pays what share of our collective tax burden.

Yep - it's not socialism (in my book, anyway) to think the wealth distribution is entirely fucked up, and that you could help a lot of the issues faced by the much of the left side of the curve, by asking more (but yet, an immaterial amount) from the farthest right side of it.

[Deleted User 310]

In 1916, there were 14 tax brackets, and more importantly, the highest bracket started at $2 million dollars, which in today's money is $47 million.

Today, with 7 tax brackets, the highest bracket starts around $500,000 this means that someone making say $650,000 is taxed at the same percentage as someone making $60,000,000. I'm not advocating bringing back 70% income taxes or anything. But how does it make sense that the guy making $540,000 can pay 13% points higher taxes than a guy making $90,000, or 25% points higher than a guy making $45,000, but the guy making 10X or 20X or 30X more than $540,000 has no additional burden? If we're going to have a progressive tax, why cap it out at a salary that is upper-middle class and not something that's truly wealthy.

Oh, and we gotta find a way to tax someone like Warren Buffet more than just his $100,000 annual salary. I don't want crazy high taxes on someone who has their money in investments but give me a fucking break, if a guy is worth $75 billion dollars his income tax burden ought to be more than $24,000.

I'm not a socialist, and I'm not someone who likes redistribution of wealth, and as you said I don't want to de-incentivise anyone, but geezus, we have some fucked up things when it comes to who pays what share of our collective tax burden.

POTD.

100% agree.

[ousdahl]

you know what this country really needs, is to occupy Wall Street.

[twocoach]

In 1916, there were 14 tax brackets, and more importantly, the highest bracket started at $2 million dollars, which in today's money is $47 million.

Today, with 7 tax brackets, the highest bracket starts around $500,000 this means that someone making say $650,000 is taxed at the same percentage as someone making $60,000,000. I'm not advocating bringing back 70% income taxes or anything. But how does it make sense that the guy making $540,000 can pay 13% points higher taxes than a guy making $90,000, or 25% points higher than a guy making $45,000, but the guy making 10X or 20X or 30X more than $540,000 has no additional burden? If we're going to have a progressive tax, why cap it out at a salary that is upper-middle class and not something that's truly wealthy.

Oh, and we gotta find a way to tax someone like Warren Buffet more than just his $100,000 annual salary. I don't want crazy high taxes on someone who has their money in investments but give me a fucking break, if a guy is worth $75 billion dollars his income tax burden ought to be more than $24,000.

I'm not a socialist, and I'm not someone who likes redistribution of wealth, and as you said I don't want to de-incentivise anyone, but geezus, we have some fucked up things when it comes to who pays what share of our collective tax burden.

POTD.

100% agree.

But when someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders says it, it's "socialism".

[zsn]

Oh, and we gotta find a way to tax someone like Warren Buffet more than just his $100,000 annual salary. I don't want crazy high taxes on someone who has their money in investments but give me a fucking break, if a guy is worth $75 billion dollars his income tax burden ought to be more than $24,000.

I'm not a socialist, and I'm not someone who likes redistribution of wealth, and as you said I don't want to de-incentivise anyone, but geezus, we have some fucked up things when it comes to who pays what share of our collective tax burden.

Actually you are looking at the wrong end of the regressive tax burden. The biggest culprit is the Social Security employee contribution. With a cap at around $133k someone making $266k is paying 3% of his/her income whereas someone making $26k pays 6%. For the latter that $1500+ is worth a lot more than the $8k for the former.

If you want to make the tax system fairer that's the place to start. Exempt the first $30k (or $25k), raise the full 6% amount to $200k and then start a gradual phaseout to $500k, 1% for each $50k.

I do agree that we have to ensure that the gaming of the system by lowering salary and paying "other income" is stopped.