43% of US households to owe no federal income tax in 2013 - Polidicks

Yeah I like a lot of anarchist ideas but the idea that rich people earn none of their income is ridiculous. There are plenty of rich people who have earned their living, including people I know. Obviously they have done so in the context of a flawed system that leaves most people out of decent living, but it does not mean they did not work hard for what they got. Granted, it is hard to see the rich who earned their lot behind those who earn from inheritance and scheming in banks. [editline]2nd September 2013[/editline] Also, when it comes to taxing, I do not care how they got their money: their high incomes and large capital estates are all that is needed for them to require further taxation. I am glad 43% of the people do not pay Federal income taxes. You could get the same amount of money taxing those 43% as adding a couple income brackets to the highest earners' taxes.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42054956]Except the economy is growing lol.[/QUOTE] Production increasing != economy growing. Refer to my previous post.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42055102]Okay, then you can go to a technical school and get your Cisco and Microsoft certifications and make 60k+ a year doing networking and IT. There are plenty of opportunities out there. Tell me how I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] there are plenty of opportunites for people that grew up in middle to upper class families*

[QUOTE=person11;42056465]Yeah I like a lot of anarchist ideas but the idea that rich people earn none of their income is ridiculous. There are plenty of rich people who have earned their living, including people I know. Obviously they have done so in the context of a flawed system that leaves most people out of decent living, but it does not mean they did not work hard for what they got. Granted, it is hard to see the rich who earned their lot behind those who earn from inheritance and scheming in banks. [editline]2nd September 2013[/editline] Also, when it comes to taxing, I do not care how they got their money: their high incomes and large capital estates are all that is needed for them to require further taxation. I am glad 43% of the people do not pay Federal income taxes. You could get the same amount of money taxing those 43% as adding a couple income brackets to the highest earners' taxes.[/QUOTE] the idea that the rich don't earn "a dime" is an exaggeration, but to say that they have earned their wealth is completely wrong. would you say the work of a ceo or investor is as hard as the work of a miner, for example?

[QUOTE=person11;42056465]Yeah I like a lot of anarchist ideas but the idea that rich people earn none of their income is ridiculous. There are plenty of rich people who have earned their living, including people I know. Obviously they have done so in the context of a flawed system that leaves most people out of decent living, but it does not mean they did not work hard for what they got.[/QUOTE] It isn't that they have earned nothing, but more of they haven't worked really any harder than their peers.

Good point. The way society is set up now values intellectual work over physical work. The logic (that I do not know I agree with at all) is that it takes more out of a person to learn than to be physically strong. Therefore, jobs that involve making decisions based on intellect, even without physical work, are valued more than physical labor. If we debate that point, it becomes the standard anarchism vs capitalism debate, though.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056641]the idea that the rich don't earn "a dime" is an exaggeration, but to say that they have earned their wealth is completely wrong. would you say the work of a ceo or investor is as hard as the work of a miner, for example?[/QUOTE] Well yeah. The difficulty some people have these days is they look at people and decide that their work is worth X, independent of what other people think. The reality is more that the reason CEOs make this much money, is not just because they live a highly stressful job with relationship and family problems (Mr Burns was the archetype of this, but he was constantly depressed, lonely, and mentally unbalanced). Not many people have the ability to make mentally challenging decisions that CEOs do on a daily basis, with the stress that the job requires filtering out a great deal of the population. You could possibly decide their wages or even if such a title should exist, but I think it's better just to left them operate as they are whilst taxing slightly more of their income than other people. Once you start restricting people from doing certain jobs, based on somewhat arbitrary feeling that "this work carries this wage", the endeavor is usually doomed to fail.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42057856]Well yeah. The difficulty some people have these days is they look at people and decide that their work is worth X, independent of what other people think. The reality is more that the reason CEOs make this much money, is not just because they live a highly stressful job with relationship and family problems (Mr Burns was the archetype of this, but he was constantly depressed, lonely, and mentally unbalanced). Not many people have the ability to make mentally challenging decisions that CEOs do on a daily basis, with the stress that the job requires filtering out a great deal of the population. You could possibly decide their wages or even if such a title should exist, but I think it's better just to left them operate as they are whilst taxing slightly more of their income than other people. Once you start restricting people from doing certain jobs, based on somewhat arbitrary feeling that "this work carries this wage", the endeavor is usually doomed to fail.[/QUOTE] this is a problem inherent to any economic system that values work through a wage system, though. ceo's are already "valued" through their payments, so why would discussing how society and economics values these people be wrong?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42056641]would you say the work of a ceo or investor is as hard as the work of a miner, for example?[/QUOTE] Yes, multiple times harder.

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;42058994]Yes, multiple times harder.[/QUOTE] While CEOs do handle a lot of the business, they don't handle it all themselves, they hire assistants, mangers and other underlings to control sections of the company, the CEO just has to ensure these guys are doing their job, which is a much easier task than managing everything. They get to sit in offices trawling through reports and calling other CEOs for business. Miners get fucked up by the work involved in mining, doing a physically draining task for long shifts every day, to earn just about enough money to survive. They are both hard, but in totally different ways, the miners have I worse inherently due to their income being so low in comparison, while risking their personal safety constantly.

[QUOTE=Gatsby;42055624]I dont know that many homeless people with a laptop and internet connection.[/QUOTE] I don't know how they do things where you're from, but in the little town I live in, there are these things called libraries that offer free internet access with minimal hassle.

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;42058994]Yes, multiple times harder.[/QUOTE] tell that to the countless dead miners.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42060302]tell that to the countless dead miners.[/QUOTE] What does the mortality rate of a profession have any indication on how difficult the job is? It's the skill set that is required for you to develop to adequately perform your job that makes your job difficult.

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;42060669]What does the mortality rate of a profession have any indication on how difficult the job is? It's the skill set that is required for you to develop to adequately perform your job that makes your job difficult.[/QUOTE] i would say any job that requires facing death on a daily basis is, by nature, more difficult than a job that doesn't.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42060696]i would say any job that requires facing death on a daily basis is, by nature, more difficult than a job that doesn't.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but dangerous does not necessarily imply difficult.

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;42060757]I'm sorry but dangerous does not necessarily imply difficult.[/QUOTE] dangerous is equal to difficult. [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] would you rather go sit at a desk all day and make hard decisions or go work in the mines for the same pay?

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;42060669]What does the mortality rate of a profession have any indication on how difficult the job is? It's the skill set that is required for you to develop to adequately perform your job that makes your job difficult.[/QUOTE] Would you take a minimum wage job if there was a high risk you'd have lung damage later in life or possibly even lose a limb and/or die?

[QUOTE=matt000024;42060860]Would you take a minimum wage job if there was a high risk you'd have lung damage later in life or possibly even lose a limb and/or die?[/QUOTE] Difficulty is literally defined as requiring much skill to acquire. So what you guys are saying is being a fisherman is more difficult than being a rocket scientist. Being a fisherman is obviously more dangerous, but it is not more difficult. Dangerous does not imply difficult.

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;42060887]Difficulty is literally defined as requiring much skill to acquire. So what you guys are saying is being a fisherman is more difficult than being a rocket scientist. Being a fisherman is obviously more dangerous, but it is not more difficult. Dangerous does not imply difficult.[/QUOTE] if you want to be a pedant: difficult: 1. needing much [b]effort[/b] or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand.

Just looked up several lists for the Top 10 Most Dangerous and Top 10 Most Difficult jobs. Oh wait, there are 0 similarities at all.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42061007]if you want to be a pedant: difficult: 1. needing much [B]effort[/B] or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand.[/QUOTE] effort=/= dangerous. Are you trying to tell me that people like my boss, who worked from the ripe age of 14 in a fish market and came to become a successful restaurant owner, didn't earn their wages? You vastly overestimate how many CEOs do very little work.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42061037]effort=/= dangerous.[/quote] going to a physically demanding job that could kill you at any moment doesn't take effort? [quote]Are you trying to tell me that people like my boss, who worked from the ripe age of 14 in a fish market and came to become a successful restaurant owner, didn't earn their wages? You vastly overestimate how many CEOs do very little work.[/QUOTE] i'm saying that their work is, by nature, not worth what it is valued at today. i think it is fucked up when someone can become rich doing desk work while someone who toils away on jobs that demand their entire body are dirt poor by comparison.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42054927] You don't see pharmacists and nurses and engineers complaining about not having any money, do you?[/QUOTE] Actually there are plenty. There are quite a few people in fields such as this that have trouble finding work or whose pay is not as high as it should be for the demands placed upon them. You really should not have used nurses as an example, many of them work extreme hours and dont get a good salary. Your argument is that if you are not lazy then you will be fine, but there are plenty of people who work hard their entire life only to be hit with financial hardship; whether it be from medical issues, being laid off (yes even hard workers and people with good educations can lose their job), unexpected expenses, etc. Look at all our veterans who come back from overseas and cant find work, do you really believe it is because of a poor work ethic?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42061075]going to a physically demanding job that could kill you at any moment doesn't take effort? i'm saying that their work is, by nature, not worth what it is valued at today. i think it is fucked up when someone can become rich doing desk work while someone who toils away on jobs that demand their entire body are dirt poor by comparison.[/QUOTE] You can have a desk job that's just as dangerous as being a miner. Also the economy you are advocating would mean no one would have any reason to advance themselves. [editline]2nd September 2013[/editline] Hell why would anyone want to be a manager of skilled labor if it paid less?

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42061102] Hell why would anyone want to be a manager of skilled labor if it paid less?[/QUOTE] because it's less physically demanding than the labor?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42061148]because it's less physically demanding than the labor?[/QUOTE] Yes but generally in order to get those managerial positions you have to have worked in the lower skilled job before. For example, you obviously can't be a head chef without having been a line cook. Should the head chef get paid less?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42061075]i'm saying that their work is, by nature, not worth what it is valued at today. i think it is fucked up when someone can become rich doing desk work while someone who toils away on jobs that demand their entire body are dirt poor by comparison.[/QUOTE] I work in nightfill (finishing after midnight), so I do four hour-straight shifts with no breaks stocking shelves, and often I am doing so with heavy products (such as boxes of drinks). It is exhausting work, and I can't be slack because we need to make sure we stock everything so we have time to make the shelves look presentable. I make a few dollars under $20 an hour but honestly I can accept that. It is a job that needs to be done but it does not have too much value to it, in terms of my contribution to the company I am fairly minimal. Many of those desk jobs are very important. Occupations such as management accounting are very important for all firms and the workload is high. Analysing specific debits and credits, composing general journals from that data, transferring that data to ledgers and creating trial balances may seem awfully simple but I am missing loads of steps from the process, and even those things I mentioned are time consuming and mentally exhausting. Yet accountants allow for firms to track all of their cash flows (and indeed go that step further and record accounting on the accrual basis) and allow the firms to make decisions that are the most efficient and allow for the best outcomes. It's definitely not like being a miner in a third world country, but it is an extremely valuable position and provides a massive contribution to the firm.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42061175]Yes but generally in order to get those managerial positions you have to have worked in the lower skilled job before. For example, you obviously can't be a head chef without having been a line cook. Should the head chef get paid less?[/QUOTE] a better question is, should the head chef be paid over 1,000 times what the line cook is paid? [editline]3rd September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Antdawg;42061211]I work in nightfill (finishing after midnight), so I do four hour-straight shifts with no breaks stocking shelves, and often I am doing so with heavy products (such as boxes of drinks). It is exhausting work, and I can't be slack because we need to make sure we stock everything so we have time to make the shelves look presentable. I make a few dollars under $20 an hour but honestly I can accept that. It is a job that needs to be done but it does not have too much value to it, in terms of my contribution to the company I am fairly minimal. Many of those desk jobs are very important. Occupations such as management accounting are very important for all firms and the workload is high. Analysing specific debits and credits, composing general journals from that data, transferring that data to ledgers and creating trial balances may seem awfully simple but I am missing loads of steps from the process, and even those things I mentioned are time consuming and mentally exhausting. Yet accountants allow for firms to track all of their cash flows (and indeed go that step further and record accounting on the accrual basis) and allow the firms to make decisions that are the most efficient and allow for the best outcomes. It's definitely not like being a miner in a third world country, but it is an extremely valuable position and provides a massive contribution to the firm.[/QUOTE] and these accountants and managers are still very very poor compared to the executives.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42061148]because it's less physically demanding than the labor?[/QUOTE] Less physically demanding, but far more mentally demanding. Also, depending on the workplace managers usually work far more hours than normal employees.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42061214]a better question is, should the head chef be paid over 1,000 times what the line cook is paid?[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Are you saying people who have worked the lower parts of the job ladder should gradually get paid less as they advance? [editline]2nd September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42061214] and these accountants and managers are still very very poor compared to the executives.[/QUOTE] Those executives also do more work then those accountants. You seriously don't know much about business do you?