Bay Area families making $117,000 a year are now qualified as Low Income

State tax? Social security? Medicare?

Great arithmetic though. You still comfortable taking a tenth of their income on federal income tax alone while they're up for low income housing?

Newsflash: I do not support the current US tax code. It is not even remotely progressive enough to my way of thinking.

On the other hand, unlike you, I'm not going to lie about the actual numbers just to try and push my agenda.

You should have this fight with those on the right who actually believe the working and lower-middle classes do not currently pay enough in taxes and are just "takers".
 
Basic, widely known, uncontroversial facts throw you off. Plus, a clear implication of your bizarre comments about inflation is that supply and demand and bargaining power are irrelevant to labor compensation.

For starters the value of money shifts at a faster rate than wages do, which stick. But I love how you're bringing science into this, like you know anything about it. Think you do? Here you go. With any given experiment, what kind of hypothesis do you start with?
 
Last edited:
Newsflash: I do not support the current US tax code. It is not even remotely progressive enough to my way of thinking.

So you'd actually rather see people making $117,000 pay less in taxes, yes?
 
For starters the value of money shifts at a faster rate than wages do, which stick. So it actually does.

Think harder about what you're trying to say and then re-read what you typed before hitting "post reply." Also, your error on hours worked is purely factual.
 
The value of our currency has been almost completely fucked out of its original value since 1913, and it's depreciation has accelerated in the more recent years. Where a one working parent household with a family of four was comfortable a generation ago, two parents working full time can barely meet the same standard now.
The value of currency has definitely shifted, but standard of living has too. I mean we're using the word "standard" here when most people are baffled that I don't have a TV. "Standard" like 2 generations ago ago was not a smart phone, a big screen TV, air conditioning, internet. Shit, I'm 35 and just in my lifetime we had AOL and a landline. The cost of living has certainly risen, but so had the quality of living.
 
The value of currency has definitely shifted, but standard of living has too. I mean we're using the word "standard" here when most people are baffled that I don't have a TV. "Standard" like 2 generations ago ago was not a smart phone, a big screen TV, air conditioning, internet. Shit, I'm 35 and just in my lifetime we had AOL and a landline. The cost of living has certainly risen, but so had the quality of living.

Yes, by virtue of innovation.
 
The value of currency has definitely shifted, but standard of living has too. I mean we're using the word "standard" here when most people are baffled that I don't have a TV. "Standard" like 2 generations ago ago was not a smart phone, a big screen TV, air conditioning, internet. Shit, I'm 35 and just in my lifetime we had AOL and a landline. The cost of living has certainly risen, but so had the quality of living.

Yeah, that's what I was saying about how real wage increases don't begin to describe the improvement in living standards. But poor Greoric thinks that if there had been no inflation since 1913, someone making $20K a year today would be making the equivalent of $500K a year. That's what happens when people fail to realize that every transaction has two sides and that the economy is goods and services.
 
So you'd actually rather see people making $117,000 pay less in taxes, yes?

Relative to those making 5 or 10 times that much, yes.

But not in the simpleton, AnCap sense that you mean it... As in, "If everyone paid less in taxes the entire society would be better off!"
 
Relative to those making 5 or 10 times that much, yes.

But not in the simpleton, AnCap sense that you mean it... As in, "If everyone paid less in taxes the entire society would be better off!"

I guess societies become more prosperous when more resources are wasted, yes?
 
Relative to those making 5 or 10 times that much, yes.

But not in the simpleton, AnCap sense that you mean it... As in, "If everyone paid less in taxes the entire society would be better off!"

I think the vast majority of Americans could pay little to no taxes on their personal income if the people at the top paid just a few percent more and nothing would change except people would have lots more money.
 
Yeah, that's what I was saying about how real wage increases don't begin to describe the improvement in living standards. But poor Greoric thinks that if there had been no inflation since 1913, someone making $20K a year today would be making the equivalent of $500K a year. That's what happens when people fail to realize that every transaction has two sides and that the economy is goods and services.

That's..... not the conclusion you can draw from anything I've written.
 
Yes, by virtue of innovation.
But how much does that really apply to you, or me? The whole reason it was worth it for Amazon to get invented, when they were in the red for like a decade all the way to like 55 billion, is it's a bigger numbers game. My grandmother didn't have running water or electricity, so 20k/year was ok. A person on welfare now has more luxuries than rich people 70 years ago.

We've now in this thread said I'm absolutely not rich at all for making 120k, yet I can pay a few grand in rent, I owe nothing on my car, I pay like 60/month for internet, my phone payment, my verizon bill, and I have like 8,000/month that I just put away. I just decided this week, out of the blue, to just order a piano for my sister's kids. Life is not hard.
 
Last edited:
I think the vast majority of Americans could pay little to no taxes on their personal income if the people at the top paid just a few percent more and nothing would change except people would have lots more money.

How do people get "lots more money" from people "at the top" paying "a few more percent"?
 
But how much does that really apply to you, or me? The whole reason it was worth it for Amazon to get invented, when they were in the red for like a decade all the way to like 55 billion, is it's a bigger numbers game. My grandmother didn't have running water or electricity, so 20k/year was ok. A person on welfare now has more luxuries than rich people 70 years ago.

Sure. The point here is that a depreciation in the purchasing power of money has, when excluded from innovation in technology, reduced people's standard of living, and the ability for their savings to hold value. Hence, why as in Jack's post, more elderly people are coming out of retirement to work.
 
That's..... not the conclusion you can draw from anything I've written.

"The value of our currency has been almost completely fucked out of its original value since 1913, and it's depreciation has accelerated in the more recent years. Where a one working parent household with a family of four was comfortable a generation ago, two parents working full time can barely meet the same standard now."

So you appear to know nothing at all about life in America in 1913, but more than that, you're clearly implying that you think that inflation has caused real incomes to go down. It's not the first time you've made that mistake, either, and the last time you were more hardcore about it (this time you seem embarrassed and trying to avoid getting too specific).

Hence, why as in Jack's post, more elderly people are coming out of retirement to work.

You misread. Retirement was unknown for most Americans in 1913. People generally worked until they died or became physically unable to work. Total hours worked per person has fallen a lot since 1913, and a big part of it is a reduction in hours for the elderly and children.
 
How do people get "lots more money" from people "at the top" paying "a few more percent"?

Because the government expenses will be paid by the people that own the government and the regular folks who just live here won't be donating 30% of their paychecks to Goldman and Lockheed anymore.
 
"The value of our currency has been almost completely fucked out of its original value since 1913, and it's depreciation has accelerated in the more recent years. Where a one working parent household with a family of four was comfortable a generation ago, two parents working full time can barely meet the same standard now."

So you appear to know nothing at all about life in America in 1913, but more than that, you're clearly implying that you think that inflation has caused real incomes to go down. It's not the first time you've made that mistake, either, and the last time you were more hardcore about it (this time you seem embarrassed and trying to avoid getting too specific).

If you'd stop being a nutball, and a Crooked Clinton denier, you could appreciate the simple concept that the value of money makes quicker moves than wages do, and depreciates people standard of living further by destroying the value of savings.
 
Because the government expenses will be paid by the people that own the government and the regular folks who just live here won't be donating 30% of their paychecks to Goldman and Lockheed anymore.

I don't know what any of that means. I'm just asking how a "few percent" from the top will give "lots of money". We'll assume a 100% transfer rate, and no bureaucratic shaving.
 
Yeah, that's what I was saying about how real wage increases don't begin to describe the improvement in living standards. But poor Greoric thinks that if there had been no inflation since 1913, someone making $20K a year today would be making the equivalent of $500K a year. That's what happens when people fail to realize that every transaction has two sides and that the economy is goods and services.
Well you're both wrong, actually. The quality of life for a poor person now is greater than for a rich person in 1913. I think he's talking absolute and you're talking comparative.
 
Back
Top