"Money". Is it Worth it?

[Lamplighter]

There's a level of $ that is needed to provide what you believe are the necessities of life.
After that, it becomes wants, and then luxuries, then power,
and then greed, and finally more is never enough.

[glatt]

I think greed is out of order. Anything after the necessities is greed. If you want it, but don't need it, it's greed. We all have greed.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

After that, it becomes wants, and then luxuries, then power, and then greed, and finally more is never enough.

Who gets to define when each of those thresholds is met? and at what amounts?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

There's a level of $ that is needed to provide what you believe are the necessities of life.
After that, it becomes wants, and then luxuries, then power,
and then greed, and finally more is never enough.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who gets to define when each of those thresholds is met? and at what amounts?

Ibid

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who gets to define when each of those thresholds is met? and at what amounts?

The government.

Luxury, sales and estate taxes are a few. Another is income.

There are several tax brackets below $250k. Those people are at different levels of "not top earners." Everyone above that is a "top earner." But there is a huge difference between the couple of doctors that is bringing home $250k per year and the people bringing home $1M (and $10M, and $100M, etc).

Making $250k per year where I live (Helena, MT) is an incredible living, in Manhattan it is still a damn good living. On the other hand, while $50k per year in Helena is a good living it's much harder to live on in Manhattan, and the quality of life is much lower.

I really think Federal and State income tax rates should vary by where you live as well as by income.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

...


I really think Federal and State income tax rates should vary by where you live as well as by income.

Well, I think state income tax rates do vary by where you live.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

Well, I think state income tax rates do vary by where you live.

Not within the state, right?

Edit to clarify:
Where I live you can make $X by working for a local company. In a city 90 miles away you can make $X + $N. In a city about twice that distance away you can make $X + $N + $M. There are a lot of variables wrapped up in that, but it's generally true nonetheless.

There's not really much ability to make more than that and keep the same general duties.

There are also huge differences in population, which effects supply and demand in everything from labor to commodities to services. (It probably makes sense to go by county for this.)

I think if you take it all the way down to the city level, you end up with a system whereby you just pay one income tax and let each level above it in the chain tax the preceding level. So, city taxes you, county taxes city, state taxes county and federal taxes state.

I'm really just talking out of my ass here. I haven't fully developed this idea, obviously.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

Not within the state, right?

There are usually local taxes as well, so the sum of federal, state, and local taxes varies by location.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

The government.

Luxury, sales and estate taxes are a few. Another is income.

There are several tax brackets below $250k. Those people are at different levels of "not top earners." Everyone above that is a "top earner." But there is a huge difference between the couple of doctors that is bringing home $250k per year and the people bringing home $1M (and $10M, and $100M, etc).

Which is why your and the governments $250k number fails.

Making $250k per year where I live (Helena, MT) is an incredible living, in Manhattan it is still a damn good living.

Is that a joke? $250 might get you a 900 sq ft apt

On the other hand, while $50k per year in Helena is a good living it's much harder to live on in Manhattan, and the quality of life is much lower.

Depends on your definition of "quality of life".

I really think Federal and State income tax rates should vary by where you live as well as by income.

BS. Everybody should pay a percentage of their income. If you 10k a year and if you make 500k a year, you should pay a percent.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Which is why your and the governments $250k number fails.

Never said I thought it was a reasonable number. It's just the number everyone talks about and the government seems to have fixated upon.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Is that a joke? $250 might get you a 900 sq ft apt

Okay then, maybe a decent living. You aren't hurting for the essentials in any case.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Depends on your definition of "quality of life".

I agree.

Based on what you said above, you can get an apartment that is 180 sq. ft. on $50k per year in Manhattan. In Montana, that's a 1,200 sq. ft. apartment most places, a decent vacation and plenty of recreation. Anyway, whatever monetary concerns your "quality of life" entails can probably be met here with $50k per year (unless you need a Lamborghini and a second home in Aspen).

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

BS. Everybody should pay a percentage of their income. If you 10k a year and if you make 500k a year, you should pay a percent.

First, my thoughts can't be bullshit. They are my own and you have no way to verify them. I'm playing with an imaginary scheme here. If you don't like it, I don't care--I'm not emotionally invested.

Second, I think it would be awesome if we had a little earth in a bubble where we could accurately run simulations with variables like this changed. Eventually, we may get there.

So you think it's a good idea for it to be a fixed percent across the board?

If I'm earning at less than half the poverty line I should pay the same, let's say, 10% as the guy making $500k per year?

In the extreme example, you could drop my tax completely and just up the $500k person's rate by .000002%. That extra thousand dollars might make an enormous difference in my life. The rich guy isn't going to be impacted much at all.

I think the tax percentage should be based on current income in relation to other incomes in your area and the potential to make more money in the prevailing economic conditions.

I'm a software developer so these little complex thought experiments are fun for me :P

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

First, my thoughts can't be bullshit. They are my own and you have no way to verify them. I'm playing with an imaginary scheme here. If you don't like it, I don't care--I'm not emotionally invested.

Yea, same on my end.

Second, I think it would be awesome if we had a little earth in a bubble where we could accurately run simulations with variables like this changed. Eventually, we may get there.

Don't count on it.

So you think it's a good idea for it to be a fixed percent across the board?

Yes.

If I'm earning at less than half the poverty line I should pay the same, let's say, 10% as the guy making $500k per year?

Yes.

In the extreme example, you could drop my tax completely and just up the $500k person's rate by .000002%. That extra thousand dollars might make an enormous difference in my life. The rich guy isn't going to be impacted much at all.

To bad, it makes you invested.

I think the tax percentage should be based on current income in relation to other incomes in your area and the potential to make more money in the prevailing economic conditions.

So it should change as economic conditions change? Haaaaaaaaaaa......

I'm a software developer so these little complex thought experiments are fun for me :P

I am not, and they are equally entertaining to me....