Go Back .

"If we go back to 1950s tax code can we please go back to 1950s deductions as well."

Yeah, that's the point! High rates, that no one pays, because the spend or capital invest in ways that get them deductions.

Spending is good for economy, savings is bad. Paradox of Thrift.

"Fucking Reagan did one thing interesting. He removed the interest deduction. I always thought it was weird that you had to pay taxes on interest earned but not be able to deduct interest paid."

That is not a great argument for the deduction. You pay income tax on your income, but not "all" your spending. Deductions should be targeted at ways we want to encourage people to spend (and capital invest).

If we go back to 1950s tax code can we please go back to 1950s deductions as well.

Fucking Reagan did one thing interesting. He removed the interest deduction. I always thought it was weird that you had to pay taxes on interest earned but not be able to deduct interest paid.

Perf needs to quit cherry picking reports he doesn't understand in the first place...

"61% make it to the top 20% of income. That's a percentage, and that's success."

One post we're talking top 400 richest. Next we're talking top 1% net worth.

If suddenly we're talking $110K a year income is a target, then I'm not for raising taxes on those people AT ALL!

If we go back to the 1950s tax code as I'd like, then the marginal rate of that $110K marreid couple would be 30%.

You'd have to be $250K (AFTER deductions) to hit 50% and $700K (after deductions) to break what I'd want the top bracket of 70% to be.

Using your reference, we can't really extrapolate what % would hit that $250K, but it drops rapidly (60% to 40%) between $110K and $150K. We're down to 5% by $360K.... so? 15% maybe breaking the $250K in a year, so would have to capital invest to get deductions to avoid that tax rate. Less than 1% would ever have to worry about the 70% top bracket.

That is the level of "making it" I'm referring to with my "odds of getting rich" numbers.... Not an income in the top 20% for a couple years.

""We were talking about the likelihood of someone to succeed in America." No. No percentages were offered.

61% make it to the top 20% of income. That's a percentage, and that's success.

"The lotto, on the other hand, has the exact same odds of winning for every person who buys a ticket."

You're expanding the lotto analogy way beyond the scope that I used it to explain. I didn't intend it to mean the entire economy is like lotto.

Limit the analogy to how not everyone can win lotto, and the bigger the prize won, the more losers there need to be to fund that prize.

In the economy, total spent is total received. Savings is the result of an imbalance. For some to spend less than they earn, accumulating money, other have to be spending more than they earn, going into debt. The more money in some peoples' hands, the more debt in other peoples' hands.

The scope of the lotto example is just that. Even though some can win, not everyone can. For some to win big (accumulate a lot of money), the masses have to lose (be in debt, creating the money).

"We were talking about the likelihood of someone to succeed in America."

No. No percentages were offered. Anecdote was offered that some do go from rags to riches. This was used to imply that all could. Sorry, but no. Just because some win, does not mean everyone can. Even if everyone took risks, worked their asses off, did the "right thing", most are still going to be struggling paycheck-to-paycheck and some are still going to be cleaning toilets for minimum wage.

Just like lotto, for some to win big, the majority have to lose.

Just like the Lotto. You have to be in it. To win it.

I have no idea how that pertains to this thread?

Usually the posts are way too long and way too repetitive. I stopped reading a few weeks ago.

AZ........"Proof that one can do it, or that some can do it, is not proof that all (or even most) can do it.
Some win Lotto... but for every $1 million winner, there are 2 million $1 losers."

That was your post that I was referring to when I said your lotto analogy was bullshit. The likelihood of success in America is largely based on you effort and drive towards achievement. Will there be slight differences in the "ease" or "accessibility" for some? Yes. There is also the natural genetic differences in people that play a part.

The lotto, on the other hand, has the exact same odds of winning for every person who buys a ticket. We were talking about the likelihood of someone to succeed in America. So what does that have to do with the revenue minus expenses? Nothing. THAT was why I called it bullshit.

"Why would anyone call you contradictory?"

Your inability to comprehend is not indicative of me being contradictory.

hahahahahaha

"Why would anyone call you contradictory?"

Income is not net worth (aka, someone's wealth)!

Just because you earn more money per year, doesn't mean you have more wealth.

Hint, most of the very wealthy got that way from capital gains, with much of the wealth stored as "unrealized capital gains" which isn't income. Much of the typical household's wealth is in the value of their home, as unrealized capital gains.

"As for IQ and being wealthy, studies show a direct link between high IQ and income"

"Several studies have shown, there is not a link between IQ and wealth"

Why would anyone call you contradictory?

"if being an asshole directly correlated to wealth and success you would be a 1%"

Shall we discuss the difference between necessary and sufficient? Willing to be an asshole at times, is necessary to be good at business, but not sufficient.

As for IQ and being wealthy, studies show a direct link between high IQ and income. Those with an IQ at or above 120 (top 10%) have higher income than average. The higher the IQ above that, the higher the annual income.

However, if we look at the top 10% in wealth, we don't see that link between high IQ and high wealth. Actually, those with IQ between 110 and 120 (above average, but not exceptionally so) are over represented.

As for sourcing, I hate SLS doesn't allow links.

Try googling "correlations-of-iq-with-income-and-wealth".

I say being an asshole is part of what it takes to be successful at business, and you assume I want to eliminate it from business? Nope. Not at all.

Being an asshole is necessary for the efficient operation of the economy. Let's not pretend it isn't.

You said being an asshole has nothing to do with business. BULLSHIT!!! Being an asshole is an absolutely necessary part of being good at running a business. Let's be honest about that.

"So I'm guessing that AZ thinks a doctor or engineer should be payed as much as a sanitation worker, or cook at McDonalds."

Except I've repeated said I don't believe that.

"I'm starting to think that he doesn't know anything about Economics."

I'm starting to think you are jumping to conclusions.

And I don't think you'll find many here that would disagree that if being an asshole directly correlated to wealth and success you would be a 1%, and I'm willing to bet you're closer to being a hundredaire than a millionaire.

"several studies have shown, there is not a link between IQ and wealth"

Well, like a lot of your spew, you need better sources, because I'd be willing to bet that the number of millionaires with below average IQ would number in single digits, even counting lottery winners. Dumb people don't hold onto money for long.

So I'm guessing that AZ thinks a doctor or engineer should be payed as much as a sanitation worker, or cook at McDonalds. I could offer $10/hr to employees. I'd be out of business because they couldn't do the job.

I cold offer $150/hr to employees. I'd be out of business because I couldn't compete based on my costs.

I'm starting to think that he doesn't know anything about Economics.

"No, that would be equal outcomes. The smart ones will prosper. "

Except, several studies have shown, there is not a link between IQ and wealth. Luck, risk taking, where you started in life, and being an asshole, ALL play huge parts.

As for hiring competent people and paying the going rate, honest marketing, where it the competitive advantage in that? How do you be avoid being crushed by the competition of the free market operating like that?

Success comes from exploiting competitive advantage. Profits comes from over charging and underpaying.

It's good business, and should be rewarded... but let's not pretend that being an asshole, putting your wants above those of others, plays NO PART in running a business.

" I'm just glad my employees don't seem to share your world-view!"

I'm sure you're glad that they don't realize you are paying them as little as you can, while selling the fruits of their labor for as much as possible, to maximize your income at their expense.

" I mean start a business and become a huge success, and that is held up as proof everyone can do it. "

No, that would be equal outcomes. The smart ones will prosper. You can't fix stupid.

"Are you going to try to convince me the best car salesmen are the ones that always tell the truth and reveal every known issue with the vehicle? "

Everybody depends on repeat business for the long run. If you hire dishonest people you won't be around long haul.

Being good at business is all about maximizing revenue (charging as much as people will pay) and minimizing costs (keeping down other peoples' incomes). Both are kind of dick moves"

lmao!!

It's not being a dick to hire competent people and to pay them the going rate. We don't have forced servitude. If a person believes they can earn more elsewhere they are free to leave. If you pay too little you will likely have sub-par employees and your business will suffer. If you pay too much you won't be able to compete or expand.

Charging as much as people will pay is also not a dick move. It's economics 101. If people value your product or service they will pay for it.

Your bitter over something that happened in your professional life. Demy it all you want but it's so obvious.

What a miserable outlook! I'm just glad my employees don't seem to share your world-view!

Being an asshole has no part of it? What?

Being good at business is all about maximizing revenue (charging as much as people will pay) and minimizing costs (keeping down other peoples' incomes). Both are kind of dick moves.

Are you going to tell me no company has ever prospered by using deceptive advertising?

Employees want to form a union to collective bargain for higher wages, and the bosses think that's a wonderful idea? Or do they try to shut that shit down?

Business is going great when you are losing market share to new competitors, or when you're crushing the competition and putting them out of business?

Are you going to try to convince me the best car salesmen are the ones that always tell the truth and reveal every known issue with the vehicle?

Business is soooo about being an asshole.

As for hard work... sure, the 50% of businesses that fold in the first 2 years are all because those business owners just didn't work hard enough.

A few play lotto and win... I mean start a business and become a huge success, and that is held up as proof everyone can do it.

Truth is, even if everyone took risks and worked their asses off, someone still has to clean the toilets.

"Wealth is as much or more about luck, risk taking, being an asshole and a host of factors other than IQ."

It can be about luck, but it's almost always hard work
Risk taking is big part. Smart people know this. Risks come with the good chance of failures......the kind dumb people criticize Trump for.
Being an asshole has nothing to do with it. It does show how bitter you are.