Letter to Feinstein

[Akula1992]

Speaking of taxes, this little article always makes me smile. The end of it is a pretty fair metaphor for what has been happening in France for the past several years where onerous taxes are being levied on the richest folks and they are deciding to leave France and take their money(and the taxes they would have paid) with them. Enjoy.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[an]

But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers. Should you punish their drive by increasing their taxes? If company take cost of living into consideration when determining one’s salary, why is it so far fetch for the government to consider that as well when taxing those salary. $250k here is upper middle class in my opinion, but upper middle class are just middle class people who work harder either through education or longer work hours than the middle and lower middle class. They’re far from what you’d consider upper class. If by your definition of living here is a choice, so pay up, even though cost of living already eat up a lot of the take home, then we should abolish welfare in this state as well. If they’re too poor to live here, they have a choice to move to a cheaper city, right?

[an]

But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers. Should you punish their drive by increasing their taxes? If company take cost of living into consideration when determining one’s salary, why is it so far fetch for the government to consider that as well when taxing those salary. $250k here is upper middle class in my opinion, but upper middle class are just middle class people who work harder either through education or longer work hours than the middle and lower middle class. They’re far from what you’d consider upper class. If by your definition of living here is a choice, so pay up, even though cost of living already eat up a lot of the take home, then we should abolish welfare in this state as well. If they’re too poor to live here, they have a choice to move to a cheaper city, right?

[an]

But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers. Should you punish their drive by increasing their taxes? If company take cost of living into consideration when determining one’s salary, why is it so far fetch for the government to consider that as well when taxing those salary. $250k here is upper middle class in my opinion, but upper middle class are just middle class people who work harder either through education or longer work hours than the middle and lower middle class. They’re far from what you’d consider upper class. If by your definition of living here is a choice, so pay up, even though cost of living already eat up a lot of the take home, then we should abolish welfare in this state as well. If they’re too poor to live here, they have a choice to move to a cheaper city, right?

[an]

But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers. Should you punish their drive by increasing their taxes? If company take cost of living into consideration when determining one’s salary, why is it so far fetch for the government to consider that as well when taxing those salary. $250k here is upper middle class in my opinion, but upper middle class are just middle class people who work harder either through education or longer work hours than the middle and lower middle class. They’re far from what you’d consider upper class. If by your definition of living here is a choice, so pay up, even though cost of living already eat up a lot of the take home, then we should abolish welfare in this state as well. If they’re too poor to live here, they have a choice to move to a cheaper city, right?

[an]

But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers. Should you punish their drive by increasing their taxes? If company take cost of living into consideration when determining one’s salary, why is it so far fetch for the government to consider that as well when taxing those salary. $250k here is upper middle class in my opinion, but upper middle class are just middle class people who work harder either through education or longer work hours than the middle and lower middle class. They’re far from what you’d consider upper class. If by your definition of living here is a choice, so pay up, even though cost of living already eat up a lot of the take home, then we should abolish welfare in this state as well. If they’re too poor to live here, they have a choice to move to a cheaper city, right?

[UCGal]

AN –
But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers.

I’m not sure where you get that I’m denying ANYONE the incentive to work hard to get more income.

And for the record – I’ve been known to work LOTS of UNPAID extra hours to get a product out or meet a deadline. I guess by your standards I’m an idiot because there’s no financial gain.

My employer rewards the higher cost of living here in San Diego by paying us on the exact same payscale as they pay folks in the midwest. (They used to have a higher payscale in SoCal – but did away with that a few years ago. We’ve been “adjusted” to the new lower scale by very low annual salary increases) It’s my choice to stay with this employer. I bear full responsibility. As an engineer, I make a comfortable income and can live within my means.

My employer also has a phrase they like to toss out when they announce less than generous merit increases… “It’s not the cost of living – it’s the cost of labor.” Translation – there’s another sucker ready to work for less, so we don’t have to pay you what it costs you to liver here.

Cost of living does not factor in to whether you are in a top income bracket or closer to median income. Raw data dictates it. I’m sure you’ve seen that standard bell curve type figures for salaries. It’s hard to justify calling someone on the far right of the curve as typical of the peak of the peak (middle) of the curve.

My issue is that folks making VERY good money like to kid themselves they’re “middle class” – when you look at the median income – it doesn’t make sense.

Here’s another bit of data for you. In San Diego County, for 2006 the median income was $36,081, it was $67,935 for married filing jointly.

http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/press/2008/08_23attach.pdf

$250k is NOT middle class. It’s 3.6 times greater the median income for a couple filing jointly. Even in expensive San Diego it’s not middle class. No matter how much it costs to live here.

[UCGal]

AN –
But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers.

I’m not sure where you get that I’m denying ANYONE the incentive to work hard to get more income.

And for the record – I’ve been known to work LOTS of UNPAID extra hours to get a product out or meet a deadline. I guess by your standards I’m an idiot because there’s no financial gain.

My employer rewards the higher cost of living here in San Diego by paying us on the exact same payscale as they pay folks in the midwest. (They used to have a higher payscale in SoCal – but did away with that a few years ago. We’ve been “adjusted” to the new lower scale by very low annual salary increases) It’s my choice to stay with this employer. I bear full responsibility. As an engineer, I make a comfortable income and can live within my means.

My employer also has a phrase they like to toss out when they announce less than generous merit increases… “It’s not the cost of living – it’s the cost of labor.” Translation – there’s another sucker ready to work for less, so we don’t have to pay you what it costs you to liver here.

Cost of living does not factor in to whether you are in a top income bracket or closer to median income. Raw data dictates it. I’m sure you’ve seen that standard bell curve type figures for salaries. It’s hard to justify calling someone on the far right of the curve as typical of the peak of the peak (middle) of the curve.

My issue is that folks making VERY good money like to kid themselves they’re “middle class” – when you look at the median income – it doesn’t make sense.

Here’s another bit of data for you. In San Diego County, for 2006 the median income was $36,081, it was $67,935 for married filing jointly.

http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/press/2008/08_23attach.pdf

$250k is NOT middle class. It’s 3.6 times greater the median income for a couple filing jointly. Even in expensive San Diego it’s not middle class. No matter how much it costs to live here.

[UCGal]

AN –
But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers.

I’m not sure where you get that I’m denying ANYONE the incentive to work hard to get more income.

And for the record – I’ve been known to work LOTS of UNPAID extra hours to get a product out or meet a deadline. I guess by your standards I’m an idiot because there’s no financial gain.

My employer rewards the higher cost of living here in San Diego by paying us on the exact same payscale as they pay folks in the midwest. (They used to have a higher payscale in SoCal – but did away with that a few years ago. We’ve been “adjusted” to the new lower scale by very low annual salary increases) It’s my choice to stay with this employer. I bear full responsibility. As an engineer, I make a comfortable income and can live within my means.

My employer also has a phrase they like to toss out when they announce less than generous merit increases… “It’s not the cost of living – it’s the cost of labor.” Translation – there’s another sucker ready to work for less, so we don’t have to pay you what it costs you to liver here.

Cost of living does not factor in to whether you are in a top income bracket or closer to median income. Raw data dictates it. I’m sure you’ve seen that standard bell curve type figures for salaries. It’s hard to justify calling someone on the far right of the curve as typical of the peak of the peak (middle) of the curve.

My issue is that folks making VERY good money like to kid themselves they’re “middle class” – when you look at the median income – it doesn’t make sense.

Here’s another bit of data for you. In San Diego County, for 2006 the median income was $36,081, it was $67,935 for married filing jointly.

http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/press/2008/08_23attach.pdf

$250k is NOT middle class. It’s 3.6 times greater the median income for a couple filing jointly. Even in expensive San Diego it’s not middle class. No matter how much it costs to live here.

[UCGal]

AN –
But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers.

I’m not sure where you get that I’m denying ANYONE the incentive to work hard to get more income.

And for the record – I’ve been known to work LOTS of UNPAID extra hours to get a product out or meet a deadline. I guess by your standards I’m an idiot because there’s no financial gain.

My employer rewards the higher cost of living here in San Diego by paying us on the exact same payscale as they pay folks in the midwest. (They used to have a higher payscale in SoCal – but did away with that a few years ago. We’ve been “adjusted” to the new lower scale by very low annual salary increases) It’s my choice to stay with this employer. I bear full responsibility. As an engineer, I make a comfortable income and can live within my means.

My employer also has a phrase they like to toss out when they announce less than generous merit increases… “It’s not the cost of living – it’s the cost of labor.” Translation – there’s another sucker ready to work for less, so we don’t have to pay you what it costs you to liver here.

Cost of living does not factor in to whether you are in a top income bracket or closer to median income. Raw data dictates it. I’m sure you’ve seen that standard bell curve type figures for salaries. It’s hard to justify calling someone on the far right of the curve as typical of the peak of the peak (middle) of the curve.

My issue is that folks making VERY good money like to kid themselves they’re “middle class” – when you look at the median income – it doesn’t make sense.

Here’s another bit of data for you. In San Diego County, for 2006 the median income was $36,081, it was $67,935 for married filing jointly.

http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/press/2008/08_23attach.pdf

$250k is NOT middle class. It’s 3.6 times greater the median income for a couple filing jointly. Even in expensive San Diego it’s not middle class. No matter how much it costs to live here.

[UCGal]

AN –
But you are denying them the incentive to work harder. If a 2 nurses work 3 extra shifts, they can easily make a combine of about $250k. These people who you considered middle class profession are not financially middle by your definition, because they work 2x as hard as their peers.

I’m not sure where you get that I’m denying ANYONE the incentive to work hard to get more income.

And for the record – I’ve been known to work LOTS of UNPAID extra hours to get a product out or meet a deadline. I guess by your standards I’m an idiot because there’s no financial gain.

My employer rewards the higher cost of living here in San Diego by paying us on the exact same payscale as they pay folks in the midwest. (They used to have a higher payscale in SoCal – but did away with that a few years ago. We’ve been “adjusted” to the new lower scale by very low annual salary increases) It’s my choice to stay with this employer. I bear full responsibility. As an engineer, I make a comfortable income and can live within my means.

My employer also has a phrase they like to toss out when they announce less than generous merit increases… “It’s not the cost of living – it’s the cost of labor.” Translation – there’s another sucker ready to work for less, so we don’t have to pay you what it costs you to liver here.

Cost of living does not factor in to whether you are in a top income bracket or closer to median income. Raw data dictates it. I’m sure you’ve seen that standard bell curve type figures for salaries. It’s hard to justify calling someone on the far right of the curve as typical of the peak of the peak (middle) of the curve.

My issue is that folks making VERY good money like to kid themselves they’re “middle class” – when you look at the median income – it doesn’t make sense.

Here’s another bit of data for you. In San Diego County, for 2006 the median income was $36,081, it was $67,935 for married filing jointly.

http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/press/2008/08_23attach.pdf

$250k is NOT middle class. It’s 3.6 times greater the median income for a couple filing jointly. Even in expensive San Diego it’s not middle class. No matter how much it costs to live here.

[CA renter]

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
————————–

These arguments always ignore the most important aspect of wealth…where did the “rich” man get his money?

Does he sell goods/services where the margins are very high? If so, one could make the argument that he is:

1. taking “excess” money from his customers

OR

2. not paying his employees or suppliers enough (taking “excess” money from them)

OR

3. both

———————————–

Do the people who run the companies (in the case of many executives, often not taking any personal risks, whatsoever) deserve all the “excess wealth” or does it rightfully belong to the workers who make that company run? I’ve seen plenty of examples where the owners/executives can leave for extended period of time and everything runs smoothly (often better than when he/she is there). Take the executive’s secretary out for a day, and all hell breaks loose. Who makes more money?

Don’t even try to tell me that these executives/fund managers/deal makers are so much smarter or more capable than most highly-intelligent individuals. If nothing else, this credit/housing bubble has shown the falacy in that thinking. How many “regular” people nailed what would happen **years** ago, while these executives raped the companies (and the shareholders and employees and society) while claiming that they knew what they were doing? Even if they knew what they were doing (and intentionally stealing), where were all the geniuses who were supposed to keep this from happening?

[CA renter]

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
————————–

These arguments always ignore the most important aspect of wealth…where did the “rich” man get his money?

Does he sell goods/services where the margins are very high? If so, one could make the argument that he is:

1. taking “excess” money from his customers

OR

2. not paying his employees or suppliers enough (taking “excess” money from them)

OR

3. both

———————————–

Do the people who run the companies (in the case of many executives, often not taking any personal risks, whatsoever) deserve all the “excess wealth” or does it rightfully belong to the workers who make that company run? I’ve seen plenty of examples where the owners/executives can leave for extended period of time and everything runs smoothly (often better than when he/she is there). Take the executive’s secretary out for a day, and all hell breaks loose. Who makes more money?

Don’t even try to tell me that these executives/fund managers/deal makers are so much smarter or more capable than most highly-intelligent individuals. If nothing else, this credit/housing bubble has shown the falacy in that thinking. How many “regular” people nailed what would happen **years** ago, while these executives raped the companies (and the shareholders and employees and society) while claiming that they knew what they were doing? Even if they knew what they were doing (and intentionally stealing), where were all the geniuses who were supposed to keep this from happening?

[CA renter]

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
————————–

These arguments always ignore the most important aspect of wealth…where did the “rich” man get his money?

Does he sell goods/services where the margins are very high? If so, one could make the argument that he is:

1. taking “excess” money from his customers

OR

2. not paying his employees or suppliers enough (taking “excess” money from them)

OR

3. both

———————————–

Do the people who run the companies (in the case of many executives, often not taking any personal risks, whatsoever) deserve all the “excess wealth” or does it rightfully belong to the workers who make that company run? I’ve seen plenty of examples where the owners/executives can leave for extended period of time and everything runs smoothly (often better than when he/she is there). Take the executive’s secretary out for a day, and all hell breaks loose. Who makes more money?

Don’t even try to tell me that these executives/fund managers/deal makers are so much smarter or more capable than most highly-intelligent individuals. If nothing else, this credit/housing bubble has shown the falacy in that thinking. How many “regular” people nailed what would happen **years** ago, while these executives raped the companies (and the shareholders and employees and society) while claiming that they knew what they were doing? Even if they knew what they were doing (and intentionally stealing), where were all the geniuses who were supposed to keep this from happening?

[CA renter]

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
————————–

These arguments always ignore the most important aspect of wealth…where did the “rich” man get his money?

Does he sell goods/services where the margins are very high? If so, one could make the argument that he is:

1. taking “excess” money from his customers

OR

2. not paying his employees or suppliers enough (taking “excess” money from them)

OR

3. both

———————————–

Do the people who run the companies (in the case of many executives, often not taking any personal risks, whatsoever) deserve all the “excess wealth” or does it rightfully belong to the workers who make that company run? I’ve seen plenty of examples where the owners/executives can leave for extended period of time and everything runs smoothly (often better than when he/she is there). Take the executive’s secretary out for a day, and all hell breaks loose. Who makes more money?

Don’t even try to tell me that these executives/fund managers/deal makers are so much smarter or more capable than most highly-intelligent individuals. If nothing else, this credit/housing bubble has shown the falacy in that thinking. How many “regular” people nailed what would happen **years** ago, while these executives raped the companies (and the shareholders and employees and society) while claiming that they knew what they were doing? Even if they knew what they were doing (and intentionally stealing), where were all the geniuses who were supposed to keep this from happening?

[Author]

Posts