$250,000 a year isn't rich!

[phk]

99% Percentile, in reference to the Wall Street protesters is at $600k.

[phk]

It is perfectly fair. Now we are going to subsidize those in desirable living locations? CoL is demand based. You guys are a trip.

I was thinking this too. The 'tax cut' is akin to a subsidy and would create a positive feedback loop increasing demand and increasing COL.... which would result in decreasing tax rates....

[phk]

The way to fix the cost of living issues in certain areas, if that is a problem in the first place, would be to impose almost punitive taxes on people living there.

Imposing a local city tax (this as a higher FICA could do), higher property taxes, higher sales taxes, higher sin taxes, etc.

[phk]

So screw over people even more? Excellent idea!

Less than your amazing idea!

2 fundamental truths

1.) If you want less of something, you tax it.
2.) If you want more of something, you subsidize it.

2 more fundamental truths

1.) If you want less of something, it becomes cheaper.
2.) If you want more of something, it becomes more expensive.

Btw, I'm not assuming that cost of living is a problem in the first place. If you live in an area that is in-demand than you should be paying higher, it's called the law of demand.

[phk]

So screw over people even more? Excellent idea!

Less than your amazing idea!

2 fundamental truths

1.) If you want less of something, you tax it.
2.) If you want more of something, you subsidize it.

I already mentioned that it wasn't practical, and one of the reasons for the high cost of housing in California is due to the brilliant Prop 13 pushed by you Republicans. It saved grandma and enriched a whole bunch of other people at the same time while screwing over younger generations.

Your idea would squeeze people who don't make so much money in these areas even more. Do you think service jobs would just disappear in these areas overnight? You think if you raise taxes, they would just leave immediately?

And would these taxes be rescinded if the cost of living does go down? Your idea makes no sense whatsoever. At least I can own up to it that mine wasn't practical, if only sounding good and "fair" in theory.

I never presented any new idea/proposal here.

Btw I mentioned increasing property taxes, so isn't that de facto ending prop 13?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That too... bgwah was telling me how Seattle recently allowed for higher story apartments to be constructed. Rich NIMBY's.

[phk]

The cost of living might be a bit "unfair", but there are certain cultural, economic, social premiums and amenities that come with those desirable areas that those that live elsewhere do not. Family friend whose a Dermatologist operates two practices. One in Manhatten and one in Fresno, while he could easily afford a mansion in Fresno (he actually makes more money in Fresno) there is something to having the UN walking distance or tons of fine dining options or Broadway shows or Wall Street.

[phk]

$250k salary isn't rich. Just a highly paid worker.

[phk]

$250k salary isn't rich. Just a highly paid worker.

That is a very reasonable structural definition that shows the observational astuteness of a Marxist.  Are you one, phk?

That said, there would be no harm in destroying this class of 'house n***o' along with massah.  Just pile them in the ditch, there's room.  Or, sorry, maybe we're just on this subject in reference to tax rates?

Not sure opie. But here's a question for you.

I could consider a person with $180k of non-labor income to be "more rich" than the salaried doctor at $250k. Would you agree?

To me rich means having a non-labor income high enough that you don't need a job to work. What economists refer to as the substitution effect. I made a thread about it earlier.

[phk]

But anywhere from 54% to 67% (people who've said they've owned stocks) of American households own stocks and it's primarily used by people for retirement and funding skool.

[phk]

But anywhere from 54% to 67% (people who've said they've owned stocks) of American households own stocks and it's primarily used by people for retirement and funding skool.

For the average working schmo the bulk of the stocks they own for "retirement and funding skool (sic)" are in tax sheltered accounts (ie 401k, IRAs, 529 plans etc).

But, but...

That's true too.

[phk]

I'd like to raise an issue which I'm not sure has been discussed since I have not looked through the whole thread.  The tax on dividends and capital gains is a paltry 15%.  And I think that is where a lot of wealthy folks are getting off easier than they should -- the low tax rates on investment income disproportionately favors them.

It seems fundamentally wrong to me that making money for doing work is taxed at a higher rate than doing nothing and accumulating money.

Investments is not "doing nothing", for people who actually work in the field.

[phk]

I'd like to raise an issue which I'm not sure has been discussed since I have not looked through the whole thread.  The tax on dividends and capital gains is a paltry 15%.  And I think that is where a lot of wealthy folks are getting off easier than they should -- the low tax rates on investment income disproportionately favors them.

It seems fundamentally wrong to me that making money for doing work is taxed at a higher rate than doing nothing and accumulating money

Investments is not "doing nothing", for people who actually work in the field.

Good. They should be taxed as earned income then.

And people who work for I-Banks,  VCs, etc are.