|
Blackchamber posted:Percentage of income, not total amount of taxes paid. Back to the example given earlier, if a person paid $1000 bucks a year on cigarettes and only made 20k, that would hit them harder than a guy who smokes the same amount payes the same in taxes (1k) but makes 80k. I know you said percentage. It's why I said what I said. A guy that only makes 20k and spends 1k, verse a guy that makes 100k and spends 10k. Wealthier people spend a much larger amount AND percentage on sales tax, and then there is luxury tax as well.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
goodness posted:I know you said percentage. It's why I said what I said. See how mixed up you are, you can't even tell I wasn't the original guy making the statement you were replying to. Next you changed the amounts to suit your argument. Why is the rich guy suddenly paying 10k on cigarette taxes? Suddenly he has to have 10 times the taxes on the same pack of cigs? Oh thats right, to skew the percentages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Blackchamber posted:See how mixed up you are, you can't even tell I wasn't the original guy making the statement you were replying to. Phone posting so I didn't notice oops. Anyway, it's not about cigarettes. It is about sales tax. The rich guy is going spend way more on fancy food then the poor spends on his, same with almost everything else. The percentages spent probably scale evenly until you get to the really wealthy. Even with cigarettes, rich dudes are going to be smoking cigars and nice cigarettes, wasting half or whole cigs or even packs, etc. Not a pack of marlboros and sucking every last puff you can down to the filter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
goodness posted:Phone posting so I didn't notice oops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:First off, most cigarette taxes are flat, per-pack taxes, not based on the price of the cigarettes. Second, poor people spend a waaaaaaayyyyyyy higher percentage of their income than middle-class or even mildly rich people do, to say nothing of the incredibly tiny percentage of their income the very wealthy spend. This is, like, econ 101 poo poo. I think you are wayyyyyyyy over exaggerating how people manage their money. Most people can't save to save their life and gladly take out suicide loans/mortgages to live the dream. How do you have so much confidence in Americans when you walk around town and see how people act. (I am just talking about poor vs middle class). The really wealthy make so much that it tanks the percentage.) goodness fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Goodness I want you to tell us what percentage of income each of the different brackets spend of sales taxes. Edit: As in not just making figures up out of nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
goodness posted:Phone posting so I didn't notice oops. Well obviously rich guy is going to be buying expensive things and paying taxes on them. Also, obviously we cant compare apples to oranges, so we're comparing things they would likely have in common and seeing what percentage of their income it is. Cigarettes is a pretty good example in my opinion because I work with a ton of guys who all make well over 150k a year (your last example was 100k) and they aren't smoking cigars in the back of the building and lighting them with 100 dollar bills, I see them buying marlboros. (Not my boss though, he smokes newports) Blackchamber fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Aug 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Blackchamber posted:Well obviously rich guy is going to be buying expensive things and paying taxes on them. If you want to make it about cigarettes so much, then why don't you discuss the bigger problem. Why do so many poor people smoke cigarettes and ruin their lives/savings even further. Work on fixing the personal problems that out people in the situation where minimum wage is not enough. If you use tobacco you are even dumber than a lot of my posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Maybe because even poor people need a vice to cope with their lovely lives? I see plenty of bums on the street picking up cigarette butts to re-burn and I never think to myself 'well poo poo, last thing this guy needs is a cigarette!'. Are you making the argument that these people wouldn't be poor if they only stopped smoking? Lets change it then. Gas. Both Joe 6-pack (of beer not abs) and Mr Worthmore the 3rd have cars with the same size tank, and by some miracle they drive the same amount of miles (one guy commutes the other joy rides) and Mr Worthmore the 3rd just throws his visa black at the full service gas monkey who feels like hes screwing the rich by giving them poo poo octane gas that isnt right for the car which is the same as Joes... lets just say they are even across the board. Joe can't use the bus or bike because his job requires he visit job sites but they wont give him a company car, etc so you can't gripe about the poors owning vehicles is stupid, yada yada... They both pay California's gas tax on .30 on the gallon and thats 360.00 bucks a year. Joe is paying 1.6% of his income on fuel tax yearly (20k) and Worthmore is only paying 0.36% of his income (100k).
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Blackchamber posted:Maybe because even poor people need a vice to cope with their lovely lives? I see plenty of bums on the street picking up cigarette butts to re-burn and I never think to myself 'well poo poo, last thing this guy needs is a cigarette!'. Are you making the argument that these people wouldn't be poor if they only stopped smoking? (You are confused and think I don't understand how the percentage works. I get it) And that all goes out the window if you know how cars work and that rich people like to buy multiple, expensive gas-chuggers that need premium gasoline. Making up an imaginary scenario that isn't logical does not help the point. What if rich and poor spent the same amount of money on things? What if? That's not reality. goodness fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Please answer my question, goodness. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
goodness posted:And that all goes out the window if you know how cars work and that rich people like to buy multiple, expensive gas-chuggers that need premium gasoline. Making up an imaginary scenario that isn't logical does not help the point. goodness posted:even dumber than a lot of my posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Blackchamber posted:I see what you mean now about your posts. What did you want my response to be? "Good job for creating a what if scenario that is not reflective of the problem we are discussing or reality?" Yes, if someone spends 1k of 10k that is a bigger percent than 1k of 100k.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
goodness posted:(You are confused and think I don't understand how the percentage works. I get it) Do they? Can you back that up? Because it doesn't matter how rich you are, you can only be driving one car at any given moment. The issue, which you are obstinately refusing to attempt to parse, is that cost of living does not scale directly with income. There are only so many basic needs to meet. Rich people, even those who live fairly extravagantly, can do so on a much lower percentage of their income than the poor, who by the nature of being poor are already spending the vast majority of their income to Not Die. This problem does not scale like you think it scales, and your inability to understand that has you under some serious confusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Do they? Can you back that up? I did exaggerate how evenly they scale a bit but they do scale and it's not as horribly uneven as you think it is which adds a little to your confusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
goodness posted:I did exaggerate how evenly they scale a bit but they do scale and it's not as horribly uneven as you think it is which adds a little to your confusion. Please back this claim up with actual research. The numbers are out there, I promise. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
I'm speechless that I'm seeing someone basically arguing that sales taxes are harder on rich people. Never seen that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
beejay posted:I'm speechless that I'm seeing someone basically arguing that sales taxes are harder on rich people. Never seen that. You misread then as I didn't say harder, just talking about percentages spent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
goodness posted:You misread then as I didn't say harder, just talking about percentages spent. All data I've ever seen supports the claim that poorer people spend a higher percentage of their income on sales tax. Eg: here's a graph found through a quick Google: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
You were supposed to let goodness find that on his own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:You were supposed to let goodness find that on his own. I actually looked that up after I saw the original post that I replied to. It does not disprove what I am saying. I already admitted that I exaggerated the scaling and it is not perfectly even, but pretty drat close. If 1-3% breaks you then stop smoking cigarettes/whatever stupid vice that wastes money you can't afford to spend. Edit: a pack of cigarettes 3 days a week costs someone minimum 5000$. That is greater than the couple thousand those 1-3% make between brackets. So yeah, a poor person smoking is literally breaking them fiscally and physically. goodness fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
goodness posted:Edit: a pack of cigarettes 3 days a week costs someone minimum 5000$. That is greater than the couple thousand those 1-3% make between brackets. So yeah, a poor person smoking is literally breaking them fiscally and physically. Where the hell are you buying cigarettes for $32 a pack? [$5000 / 52 weeks = 96.15 / 3 packs per week = 32.05]
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Where the hell are you buying cigarettes for $32 a pack? You got me on that, thought it looked a little large. Moving houses the last week so my brain is a little tired. Ultimately it ends up being a much higher cost though because of health issues. Let's say 2000$ for 4-5 packs a week which is lower than the average of ~20 cigs/day. That is still a significant amount for a low income family and enough to break their budget. goodness fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
If only all the poor people would stop smoking, they wouldn't be poor anymore. Give this man a nobel prize, or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
So..this latest line started with this post..Khizan posted:And those comsumption taxes like fuel taxes and sales taxes hit the poor much harder than they do the rich, because poor people spend a much [b[larger percentage[/b] of their income on these things. So basically he's saying that larger percentage of income spent on sales taxes = harder hit by those taxes. To which Goodness responded with this.. goodness posted:They spend a larger percentage on those things? If you don't have money then you aren't driving around going to concerts, eating out at restaurants, and blowing cash. I would say the middle class and mid upper pay a much larger percentage on those. Someone in a trailer is not paying sales taxes on $5k-10k vacations. Goodness is not arguing with how Khizan is defining "harder", Goodness is arguing that given this definition Khizan is wrong. goodness posted:I know you said percentage. It's why I said what I said. Still going with the original definition apparently, also the claim that the wealthy spend a larger percentage of their incomes on sales tax. beejay posted:I'm speechless that I'm seeing someone basically arguing that sales taxes are harder on rich people. Never seen that. Beejay apparently also agrees with this definition.. goodness posted:You misread then as I didn't say harder, just talking about percentages spent. Goodness, you never once argued the definition of "harder" so any claim that the wealthy spend a larger percentage of their incomes is the same thing as claiming that sales taxes are harder on the rich. You are equivocating. And that still doesn't matter, because the chart directly contradicts your claims anyway. Put up some contrary data, define what you mean by 'harder' or move on. Buried alive fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
I stopped reading at page 4, but facinating thread. My dealer buddy is stoked about the minimum wage increase. A good 50% of his clientele is on minimum wage and their purchasing power will go up. In responce, his plan is to increase the price of his OG from 10$ a gram to 12$ a gram, but his minimum wage clients will still be able to buy more weed than before. He'll say its a different, slightly higher quality bud, but it isnt. Also my other friend, who dealt to make rent as a second job is planning on leaving the game as soon as he can make rent off clean money. His customers will go to other dealers, like my first friend, where they will find a more reliable supply. Economics is easy for drugs
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
goodness is a TCC poster with the memory of a goldfish so it's not much use doing anything besides trying to point his dumb rear end in the right direction
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:So..this latest line started with this post.. Finally finished moving and wiped out, I'll get a reply typed up tomorrow! Necc0 posted:goodness is a TCC poster with the memory of a goldfish so it's not much use doing anything besides trying to point his dumb rear end in the right direction You take the right path, I'll take the weird one. We both end up the same place. See you in the dirt  goodness fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
goodness posted:I actually looked that up after I saw the original post that I replied to. It does not disprove what I am saying. I already admitted that I exaggerated the scaling and it is not perfectly even, but pretty drat close. If 1-3% breaks you then stop smoking cigarettes/whatever stupid vice that wastes money you can't afford to spend. That graph directly disproves your claim that poor people spend a higher percentage of their income on sales tax than the rich. When you suggest that poor people consume less to avoid sales tax, you're acknowledging that sales taxes impact poor people's consumption choices more than rich people's, which also directly contradicts you claim that sales tax impact the rich more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
goodness posted:Can anyone link some articles that try to explain how a higher minimum wage can work in the US? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/costco-ceo-minimum-wage-craig-jelinek_n_2818060.html http://www.wsj.com/articles/costco-q2-profit-beats-forecasts-boosted-by-tax-benefit-1425545440 Sorry if there isn't enough observational science.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Ausmund posted:Let's see what Craig Jelinek, CEO of #2 retailer Costco has to say: Yeah I'm gonna jump on this just because I want to be fair. Those two articles aren't related (the second needs you to subscribe to even read the whole thing) and its lovely to put them together like this. Article 1: We have always paid our employees more than minimum! Article 2: Profits have surged 29%! (based on lower gas costs, which is stated in the title of the article) But lets say even for the sake of arguing, that you wanted to link the two things (I dont mean paying employees more equals lower gas costs) that paying more than minimum wage has caused Costco to increase its profits, it wouldn't be cause and effect because as the CEO said they have ALWAYS have paid their employees more, and the devils advocate could have said 'well they were posting losses in 2014, and they were paying more than min wage so it proves higher wages ruins businesses!'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Stupid lazy dumb poors. Any smart person knows that working 7 days a week isn't cutting it. You gotta work at least 10 days a week and maybe throw in some college too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Blackchamber posted:Yeah I'm gonna jump on this just because I want to be fair. I know the article is primarily about lower gas costs, but it's the most up-to-date info I could find on Costco.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
Ausmund posted:I'm not saying paying more than minimum wage is the direct cause of increasing profits, I'm saying that it doesn't make a business fail and it can still be extremely successful if managed competently. This notion that increasing minimum wage will ruin businesses is crap, and Costco proves it. It's not going to ruin urban area retail chains, no. What it is going to ruin is small businesses out in rural Kentucky where the median income doesn't even reach 200% of the poverty line.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Xequecal posted:It's not going to ruin urban area retail chains, no. What it is going to ruin is small businesses out in rural Kentucky where the median income doesn't even reach 200% of the poverty line. We had this exact same debate in the UK when the minimum wage was introduced. It didn't ruin all small businesses. There's a moral question here: if your livelihood depends on you paying other people less money than they need to survive, should you be in business at all? But the real question is one of implementation: having regional minimum wages seems like it'd be more sensitive to the needs of rural versus urban communities, and sensitive implementation would mitigate the problems you're talking about re. putting small rural businesses out of business. That, or they'd just get around it with day rates and cash-in-hand like they do here. But anything larger than a mom 'n' pop store deserves to go bankrupt if its business model depends on exploiting its workers. This wouldn't be a problem if people had paid attention in Fordist management class.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:We had this exact same debate in the UK when the minimum wage was introduced. It didn't ruin all small businesses. And although the UK nat min wage is "alright", it's completely inappropriate for living costs in a city like London (which is why there's so much talk about the 'living wage'). So I can see why a very decent federal min wage for 300+ million people is bound to start running into some pretty big hitches when prosperity and wages are nowhere near even across the board.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
Jeza posted:And although the UK nat min wage is "alright", it's completely inappropriate for living costs in a city like London (which is why there's so much talk about the 'living wage'). So I can see why a very decent federal min wage for 300+ million people is bound to start running into some pretty big hitches when prosperity and wages are nowhere near even across the board. Which is why setting different rates for different regions (ideally reflecting local living costs) but with federal oversight (to make sure hard-right legislatures don't push a minimum of $0.01 or something) makes more sense than a single federal minimum wage. I don't know if it's possible to implement that in the USA through the federal government, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:But anything larger than a mom 'n' pop store deserves to go bankrupt if its business model depends on exploiting its workers. This wouldn't be a problem if people had paid attention in Fordist management class. I'm sure the people who lose their jobs in this scenario would be eternally grateful for your "help."
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I'm sure the people who lose their jobs in this scenario would be eternally grateful for your "help." In a healthy economy, other businesses will move into the vacuum left by the businesses which couldn't afford or were unwilling to pay minimum wage. Having an unlivable minimum wage masks the problems with both the welfare system and the market by putting a band-aid on a gaping laceration and blaming individuals for systematic problems. Minimum wages are generally phased in over several financial years in advance to give businesses time to reconfigure themselves for the shift. The only businesses which would go under are those which depend on paying sub-living wages to make a profit. People who work for these businesses at present should be better provided for by the welfare system in the case of unemployment. I'm saying people should be paid enough to survive: I'm not sure why that should be controversial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
Purple Prince posted:I'm saying people should be paid enough to survive: I'm not sure why that should be controversial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 16:16
|
|