quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Just how much income is to much?
I have 2 non-social security retirements (yes I worked for them). Was forced to retire at 55 because of medical reasons, but didn’t apply for social security until 65 (as required by the government - yes there was a law stating it). My social security was reduced because retired military are penalized (another law - it is considered double dipping). The VA said I made to much money (before my social security based upon my 2 retirements) which was about $34,000 a year. With social security it is now up to about $38,000 a year. I still have to pay income taxes on my retirements plus social security. $1800 - Fed $400 - State and $1800 Sales tax This does not include other taxes and fees paid for like fuel, medical devices, etc.
I hear that we should tax the rich and not the poor. Poverty guidelines ( https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/22/2015-01120/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines#t-1 ) indicate that we make to much money to be considered in poverty, so we take tent vacations (within 23 miles of my home). Travel up to 300 miles each direction for some specialized medical care because the closer facility (Mayo Clinic - 150 miles) won’t take us because we have been in a vehicle accident.
Some people make millions of dollars. Pay people to do things for them. Pay taxes on those employees, income, sales, etc. Yet we want them to pay more. I don’t really understand why?
They want those people to pay for us in the lower income level brackets. According to the tax foundation (http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2012#table1) the top 1% pay’s 23% of the total Federal Income Tax while the bottom 50% pay more like 2%. Add to that the additional taxes and the percentage goes up.
Income inequity seems to me to be defined by taking the total amount of income made by women and divide by the total number of women vs the total amount of income made by men and divide by the total number of men. This is done without regard to job description. I don’t believe it is a true picture.

Should there be a limit on how much a person should make?

quote:

Should income equality mean that everyone makes exactly the same amount of money?

quote:

So where am I going? I don’t know. I am looking for answers outside the main stream. What say you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

FR
On a scale from 1-10 I doubt there are too many here that would have a comparable anarchist lean as muah. Caveat: Anarchist in the sense of every case should run through a court [individual] not the present day 'one shoe fits all' statutory mob based system [democracy] that always and without fail reverts to rubber stamp extortion. So on this topic I depart from my typical position out here. how much is enough or too much or not enough can be difficult to assess.

That said I have given this some but no where near a comprehensive review.

On the bottom side it seems as thought one with 'reasonable' prudence should be able to pay for their expenses with enough left over to enjoy life while simultaneously saving for retirement.

The middle is wide and varied.

Now the top.
While we all like to dream where the sky is the limit as a driving force, on the other hand there is a point like everything else of no return.

I would place that point somewhere around when a person has enough to retire without working the rest of their lives that is sufficient.

Once that point is reached money no longer is required to insure the necessities of life but converts and transforms into obtaining power and the ability to control.

This is possibly the only instance you will ever see me cheer for a cap.
History will show that certain entities (so I am including corporations) have the ability to buy nations and their armies. (power, political-military and otherwise)
History has shown how power has destroyed our cultures in exchange for one shoe fits all democracies. (which is not to claim there is no legitimate use for them under certain circumstances, just not the way the world power structure *Mob rule of law*) is set up today.

The target group is rightfully the 1% and especially the .1% ers with enough wealth to feed 1/3 of the world for the duration of their normal lives.

To sum up, once necessity is met with reasonable recreational time and a nice fat retirement I have no problem with enforced caps, not only to insure a balance in 'power' between individuals and groups alike but it also would greatly reduce the inflation we are subjected to that is robbing us under the table in the present system. [Keeping in mind that the more money the ludicrous wealthy make the higher it drives inflation and the more I am robbed under the table since it is a closed loop system]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Damn those Christian values plaguing our country!

Luke 21
The Widow's Two Mites
1 And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, 2 and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. 3 So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; 4 for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Damn those Christian values plaguing our country!

Luke 21
The Widow's Two Mites
1 And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, 2 and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. 3 So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; 4 for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."

Damn you JVoV. Stop being sensible. How can I hate on you when you keep doing that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Sorry. All of the other methods of trolling were taken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

If we are talking about some moral value...yes, there is a point where income is simply too much. Say $1 trillion/hr. might be, I say...might be too much. You never know in America.

The problem with income inequality isn't just the final figure, it is how one arrives at that figure, and how much it is taxed by society. For example as I've written before. Why is it that someone gets up at 11 am hits the back 9 and makes say $1 million in one year on capital gains and did pay 15%, now 20% in federal tax, while a Surgeon performs a life-saving skill and also open up a specialty office and makes a $1 million a year yet pays what 39% ? Why ?

Ok the investor has about $800,000 left over and the Dr has about $600,000 left over. Now the investor has $200,000 MORE he can re-invest than the Dr. Why ?

It results in what is called the wealth factor and one egregious example is Bloomberg had $3 billion (net worth) that was invested and 'earned' income and all of the while serving in a real job as mayor of NY for 12 years (making a good salary and paying about 35-39% federal tax) during which those $3 billion had accumulated or risen to $33 billion in investment 'earnings' and paid capital gains ($6.6 billion less in taxes) on much of it from a resulting much lower federal tax...increasing his wealth factor yet even more and for 12 years, and which continues today.

(the Koch bros. went from a combined net worth 2013 of $72 billion to $85 billion 2014 by 'earning' $13 billion in one year, taxed at substantially less then their highest salaried staff, why ?)

So the question becomes academic in as much as we know the answer is impractical...of no use. Apparently, no amount is 'too much income' but rather...how much should it be taxed ?

I say much higher, paying back society for its basic civil expenses in creating an economic environment where one can make ANY billion$.

Oh and just the wall street bonuses for 2014...bonuses ONLY amounted to twice as much, that's twice as much as ALL of the money earned at minimum wage in America. Yes, you read that right that's in addition to the 80 richest people in the world being as wealthy as the combined wealth of 3.6 Trillion of the world's poorest people.

So clearly, NO amount if money is...too much.

Oh and as for the OP and taxes you pay ? You could say it is because of the taxes...other don't pay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

If we are talking about some moral value...yes, there is a point where income is simply too much. Say $1 trillion/hr. might be, I say...might be too much. You never know in America.

The problem with income inequality isn't just the final figure, it is how one arrives at that figure, and how much it is taxed by society. For example as I've written before. Why is it that someone gets up at 11 am hits the back 9 and makes say $1 million in one year on capital gains and did pay 15%, now 20% in federal tax, while a Surgeon performs a life-saving skill and also open up a specialty office and makes a $1 million a year yet pays what 39% ? Why ?

Ok the investor has about $800,000 left over and the Dr has about $600,000 left over. Now the investor has $200,000 MORE he can re-invest than the Dr. Why ?

It results in what is called the wealth factor and one egregious example is Bloomberg had $3 billion (net worth) that was invested and 'earned' income and all of the while serving in a real job as mayor of NY for 12 years (making a good salary and paying about 35-39% federal tax) during which those $3 billion had accumulated or risen to $33 billion in investment 'earnings' and paid capital gains ($6.6 billion less in taxes) on much of it from a resulting much lower federal tax...increasing his wealth factor yet even more and for 12 years, and which continues today.

(the Koch bros. went from a combined net worth 2013 of $72 billion to $85 billion 2014 by 'earning' $13 billion in one year, taxed at substantially less then their highest salaried staff, why ?)

So the question becomes academic in as much as we know the answer is impractical...of no use. Apparently, no amount is 'too much income' but rather...how much should it be taxed ?

I say much higher, paying back society for its basic civil expenses in creating an economic environment where one can make ANY billion$.

Oh and just the wall street bonuses for 2014...bonuses ONLY amounted to twice as much, that's twice as much as ALL of the money earned at minimum wage in America. Yes, you read that right that's in addition to the 80 richest people in the world being as wealthy as the combined wealth of 3.6 Trillion of the world's poorest people.

So clearly, NO amount if money is...too much.

Oh and as for the OP and taxes you pay ? You could say it is because of the taxes...other don't pay.

Oh fucking...opps sorry for using a word that might be "bad" for sensitive ears. So, on the other hand there might be a minimum wage too high. Like, a trillion dollars an hour? Go ahead comment. Let's see where this goes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Damn those Christian values plaguing our country!

Luke 21
The Widow's Two Mites
1 And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, 2 and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. 3 So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; 4 for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."

Damn you JVoV. Stop being sensible. How can I hate on you when you keep doing that?

Sorry. All of the other methods of trolling were taken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

If we are talking about some moral value...yes, there is a point where income is simply too much. Say $1 trillion/hr. might be, I say...might be too much. You never know in America.

The problem with income inequality isn't just the final figure, it is how one arrives at that figure, and how much it is taxed by society. For example as I've written before. Why is it that someone gets up at 11 am hits the back 9 and makes say $1 million in one year on capital gains and did pay 15%, now 20% in federal tax, while a Surgeon performs a life-saving skill and also open up a specialty office and makes a $1 million a year yet pays what 39% ? Why ?

Ok the investor has about $800,000 left over and the Dr has about $600,000 left over. Now the investor has $200,000 MORE he can re-invest than the Dr. Why ?

It results in what is called the wealth factor and one egregious example is Bloomberg had $3 billion (net worth) that was invested and 'earned' income and all of the while serving in a real job as mayor of NY for 12 years (making a good salary and paying about 35-39% federal tax) during which those $3 billion had accumulated or risen to $33 billion in investment 'earnings' and paid capital gains ($6.6 billion less in taxes) on much of it from a resulting much lower federal tax...increasing his wealth factor yet even more and for 12 years, and which continues today.

(the Koch bros. went from a combined net worth 2013 of $72 billion to $85 billion 2014 by 'earning' $13 billion in one year, taxed at substantially less then their highest salaried staff, why ?)

So the question becomes academic in as much as we know the answer is impractical...of no use. Apparently, no amount is 'too much income' but rather...how much should it be taxed ?

I say much higher, paying back society for its basic civil expenses in creating an economic environment where one can make ANY billion$.

Oh and just the wall street bonuses for 2014...bonuses ONLY amounted to twice as much, that's twice as much as ALL of the money earned at minimum wage in America. Yes, you read that right that's in addition to the 80 richest people in the world being as wealthy as the combined wealth of 3.6 Trillion of the world's poorest people.

So clearly, NO amount if money is...too much.

Oh and as for the OP and taxes you pay ? You could say it is because of the taxes...other don't pay.

Oh fucking...opps sorry for using a word that might be "bad" for sensitive ears. So, on the other hand there might be a minimum wage too high. Like, a trillion dollars an hour? Go ahead comment. Let's see where this goes.

Well I am sure there is a minimum wage too high but an experiment as untried as one in search of an income too high. However, even though admittedly it did take a few paragraphs, I did reply to the OP as written and you could start another OP.

I regard a minimum wage as simply a floor under which no worker should be forced to go given what's easily one morally justified and politically rationalized by the fact that there is no ceiling against which upper incomes are to be limited.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

Not only do Liberals want to confiscate money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't, but they rest on the "They didn't earn it, so they shouldn't get to keep it" argument to support a higher "death" tax. Talk about hypocrisy! They want to confiscate more money via the estate tax because the heirs "didn't earn it," to help distribute more to those who didn't earn it.

It's a fucking shell game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

Not only do Liberals want to confiscate money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't, but they rest on the "They didn't earn it, so they shouldn't get to keep it" argument to support a higher "death" tax. Talk about hypocrisy! They want to confiscate more money via the estate tax because the heirs "didn't earn it," to help distribute more to those who didn't earn it.
It's a fucking shell game.

If they shouldn't have money because "they didn't earn it" how do you explain giving it out in welfare to people who did even less to "earn" it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

If we are talking about some moral value...yes, there is a point where income is simply too much. Say $1 trillion/hr. might be, I say...might be too much. You never know in America.

The problem with income inequality isn't just the final figure, it is how one arrives at that figure, and how much it is taxed by society. For example as I've written before. Why is it that someone gets up at 11 am hits the back 9 and makes say $1 million in one year on capital gains and did pay 15%, now 20% in federal tax, while a Surgeon performs a life-saving skill and also open up a specialty office and makes a $1 million a year yet pays what 39% ? Why ?

Ok the investor has about $800,000 left over and the Dr has about $600,000 left over. Now the investor has $200,000 MORE he can re-invest than the Dr. Why ?

It results in what is called the wealth factor and one egregious example is Bloomberg had $3 billion (net worth) that was invested and 'earned' income and all of the while serving in a real job as mayor of NY for 12 years (making a good salary and paying about 35-39% federal tax) during which those $3 billion had accumulated or risen to $33 billion in investment 'earnings' and paid capital gains ($6.6 billion less in taxes) on much of it from a resulting much lower federal tax...increasing his wealth factor yet even more and for 12 years, and which continues today.

(the Koch bros. went from a combined net worth 2013 of $72 billion to $85 billion 2014 by 'earning' $13 billion in one year, taxed at substantially less then their highest salaried staff, why ?)

So the question becomes academic in as much as we know the answer is impractical...of no use. Apparently, no amount is 'too much income' but rather...how much should it be taxed ?

I say much higher, paying back society for its basic civil expenses in creating an economic environment where one can make ANY billion$.

Oh and just the wall street bonuses for 2014...bonuses ONLY amounted to twice as much, that's twice as much as ALL of the money earned at minimum wage in America. Yes, you read that right that's in addition to the 80 richest people in the world being as wealthy as the combined wealth of 3.6 Trillion of the world's poorest people.

So clearly, NO amount if money is...too much.

Oh and as for the OP and taxes you pay ? You could say it is because of the taxes...other don't pay.

Oh fucking...opps sorry for using a word that might be "bad" for sensitive ears. So, on the other hand there might be a minimum wage too high. Like, a trillion dollars an hour? Go ahead comment. Let's see where this goes.

Well I am sure there is a minimum wage too high but an experiment as untried as one in search of an income too high. However, even though admittedly it did take a few paragraphs, I did reply to the OP as written and you could start another OP.

I regard a minimum wage as simply a floor under which no worker should be forced to go given what's easily one morally justified and politically rationalized by the fact that there is no ceiling against which upper incomes are to be limited.

Here's how to morally raise minimum wages.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/seeded-with-tax-cuts-kansas-harvests-the-benefits-1431729743

I don't consider making a government so,powerful that it can grind any person under its heel and then have that government take things from one group, keep a substantial portion of the confiscated stuff to feed itself and then dispose of the rest so that it can buy votes to stay in power moral.

I recall a guy when I was young. He went in to the local barber shop and made a deal with the barber. The kid would clean up, sweep up hair and the barber gave him enough to buy chips and soda. As I recall he liked BBQ potato chips. In your immoral world that couldn't happen. The barber would be subject to civil penalties for violating minimum wage laws and the kid would be taught that initiative to earn things he wanted was illigal. Just can't see the morality.

I remember the absolute first time I was given a raise to above the minimum wage. It was a nickel an hour raise. I was pretty darned pleased and proud of the hard work I put in to get it. I was living out on my own. I had roommates to survive. Minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage and learning hard work will raise you in life is a good thing. Teaching people they will be taken care of by the government and not having initiative was okay, as long as they owed allegence to government, is just an evil thing.