Go, Economy!

[Yoshi]

This is a much further reaching, institutional problem then you seem to be appreciating. It's the result of the influence of money in our political system for decades and decades.

The issue isn't just the rich not paying their taxes, it's the rich making the rules (both in the form of regulation and deregulation).

Even the stock market is fucked, because the people making money on it do so by taking advantage of volatility. A stable market isn't good for them, because they make their money by flipping stocks in a fast-paced environment, which basically means skimming money out of the economy. That's what a lot of these people are doing in one way or another. The same for wheeling and dealing in derivatives.

We need to make it harder for people to make money "the wrong way" (broadly speaking, making money by having money), rather than the "right way" by creating value. How we do that is a pretty huge discussion, and it's not the kind of thing we're going to fix right away.

Indeed. I'm more talking about a starting point and specifically the tax piece, since that is actually discussable without massive dissertations.

[Diff-chan]

That reminds me of a question I was going to ask. When we see median incomes reported, what is the population? Does that include anyone filing taxes, i.e. even part time high school kids? Does it include everyone counted in the census, i.e. infants?

Yea, I think it just includes tax filers.

This is just a hobbyhorse of mine, I'm tired of the "<stupidly huge amount of income> is not a lot of money in <really nice place>" point because it's not true. Usually it's $250k/NYC. Except that $250k in NYC means you are earning more than 9 out of every 10 people you walk past. It's hard to live a $500k lifestyle on $250k, but that's it.

[Bojack]

I want a number. Even your definition is completely open to everyone's interpretation of "basically whatever you want."

This thread proves that not everyone knows the difference over and over again. Hell, you just proved it.

You can't put a number on it. Or if you want, fine. 100k/year anywhere but you'll just argue against it.

[Yoshi]

Diff already did a better job of it than that.

[Anthony]

I think median does not include high schoolers if they are dependents.

[Bojack]

Diff already did a better job of it than that.

He did but it's still a dumb definition anyways. For disclosure, I think the poverty line on the other end is equally arbitrary and dumb. The rich want to make themselves look as poor as possible to avoid taxes. The poor want to look poor as possible so they can qualify for more. I feel the government would be well suited using a simple math curve that gives lots of benefits if you're super poor and then gradually phases them out as your income increases rather than having a cut off line or bullshit tax brackets. Then after you've exhausted your benefits through increase in income the curve gradually becomes a progressive curve for your tax rate.

So the rich have to deal with a proper progressive tax structure and no one is screwed by tax bracket shit or loss of needed security benefits if their income is too high for benefits but no where near enough to be comfortable or have actual security. Doubtful we'll ever see something like this in our life.

[Yoshi]

Setting loop holes aside, how the fuck is 42% not progressive? It's not proper for sure, but not for the reason you mean.

[Bojack]

Setting loop holes aside, how the fuck is 42% not progressive? It's not proper for sure, but not for the reason you mean.

It is progressive, the degree of progressiveness is debatable tho' and it could very well be that gov. decides that 42% is a good point to set the top rate (something I'm not opposed to). Still doesn't change tax bracket garbage. I don't claim to know what the best tax caps are. I just think we need the smooth curves rather than steps.

[Diff-chan]

Setting loop holes aside, how the fuck is 42% not progressive? It's not proper for sure, but not for the reason you mean.

Progressive is a relative term.

If I am paying 42% and Mitt Romney is paying 42% it isn't progressive.

If I am paying 42% and Mitt Romney is paying 20% it is regressive.

From what I understand our system ends up being mildly progressive, but not as much as the tax table says it is.

[Joust Williams]

I thought progressive merely meant that the % of tax on each higher tranche of money went up. So a% on the first x, a+b% on the next x, etc

Or at least the more you make, the higher the lump tax rate

So, without political connotations