And what would be the salary of those in office? The President and Vice-President? A senator? A House majority leader? The average congressman? A governor?

_________________

100k or less.

My question implied there should be a large disparity between what the President of the United States makes and what lower offices should be paid. For example, I'm sure you're aware that the President currently gets paid $400,000, the Vice President gets $230,700, regular congressmen in the House and Senate get $174,000, and so in. If I were to apply the same ratio in pay between those offices, the result would be that the President would be paid $100,000, the Vice President would get a paltry $57,675, and each congressman would get $43,500. In order for congressmen to be happy, we would have to pay them--according to you--$75,000 or more. So it's duly noted that you like to artfully dodge any of my questions that require any bit of thinking, but try to meet me halfway here, would you please?

If the President of the United States is paid $100k (using him as a baseline), and he still pays taxes, then he's paying the top tax rate, presumably. In other words, you're saying that even the highest paid government official would never make more than $100k MINUS taxes. Unless you think that government officials should not have to pay taxes?

In any case... you're well aware, I would imagine, that actors for blockbuster movies get paid millions upon millions of dollars. And the reason they do is because their movies do so well. In other words, actors are successful because the people--common, everyday people--allow them to be. And among them is Will Smith. Will Smith doesn't have a college degree. He's an example of how you can decide not to go to college and still be extremely successful. Should that success be penalized to such a degree that if he would normally make over $20 million on a movie then he would be taxed 99.5% of that and be left with $100k? That should be the standard?

Meanwhile people on welfare would be paid more and more for doing nothing?

_________________

One more thing. People win billions of dollars through state lotteries every year. Would you have government confiscate all winnings beyond $100k?

_________________

My god, having Congressmen earning as much as common teachers?! God forbid!

And actors, who did nothing in terms of work to become famous, and merely either knew the right people, or got lucky, have certainly rightfully deserved their incomes that are up to 100 times greater than a teacher, who, hell, if got paid per hour they work would earn significantly more than they do now.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

If it's so easy, stop being a teacher and become an actor. :\

_________________

Either that, or you can accept that people value teachers only as far as it gets them through school. You can further accept that people realistically value actors over teachers based on how much their movies make at the box office.

Actors are often the result of teachers teaching them how to act, project, memorize lines, etc., and unless they're just naturally talented actors, it does require more work and dedication than a teacher.

But you're a teacher, and therefore you know better than I do how much effort goes into being an actor. Unless of course you don't, in which case are you just blowing smoke up my ass?

_________________

This is communism.

If everyone could only make 100,000 a year, our economy would fall apart. The federal government would be forced to provide everything, and would have to expand the bureaucracy enormously. Corruption would run rampant. Civil disorder would be out of control. State and local governments would rebel. It would be extremely likely that power would have to be centralized to the point of totalitarianism, just to keep things running. The country's wealth would evaporate overnight as investors fled as fast as they could to other countries. The list of horrible consequences goes on and on.

Communism is bad.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that Washington D.C. is one of the most expensive cities to live in on the planet, and that members of the federal government have some of the hardest white-collar jobs in the world.

_________________

I've done no such thing, you asked what all those positions should be allowed to make and I answered. I don't think the president should be paid any more than any other politician. A president that's doing it for the money is already in my opinion the wrong person for the job.



For starters it's comical to income tax someone who's pay is coming from tax money, you should just pay them less and save on paper work through tax exemption on that lower amount. Never mind that with an income cap the top tax rate for any income under the cap would only be like 10% tops.



I have no sympathy for the 'plight' of people who make more money in one contract than they could ever responsibly spend in their lifetime. They'd still get their massive fame.



More winners, more often, with smaller pay outs. Are you even trying?



I'm sorry but this is all I can think about while reading this post.

http://boonce.org/up/1289671855127.jpg

I'll agree with you in part; someone should not take a job that has a high level of responsibility specifically because it pays well; they should take the job if they are qualified and have a desire to fulfill those responsibilities. However, I also believe they should also be well-compensated for their efforts.

I believe that people with similar job titles or similar responsibilities should be paid similar amounts. Jobs with more responsibility than others (such as the President, when compared to a state representative) should be have higher pay. Ergo, the President should be paid more than a congressman.

No; income caps are comical. Taxing government employees is not comical; some people might have investments (savings, stocks, real estate, etc.) or separate jobs, other personal income, etc. and you want them to pay taxes on it. If government employees got an exemption that would create a disparity between private citizens who did pay taxes and government employees who didn't. Your way would just complicate things.

You answered my question. Good. So someone who makes $110,000 a year pays $10,000 in taxes. Someone who makes $100,000 a year pays $10,000 in taxes. Someone who makes $1 million makes somewhere only slightly less than $1 million dollars because he's no longer doing his business in the United States. I'm glad we at least understand the situation.

Uh-huh. Do you think they'd still donate staggering amounts of money to charities that benefit the homeless if they only got $100,000 a year? Or are you saying we should rely on our *highly efficient* government [/heavy_sarcasm] for those kinds of programs?

I'm sure you realize that charity isn't charity if someone's forcing you to give it?

I was legitimately curious as to how you saw it, and I can tell you didn't even think about it before I mentioned it.

So, you would somehow... narrow the odds and give out... smaller winnings? You do realize that the proceeds of the State Lotteries are put towards private charities? I know that Pennsylvania's and Virginia's Lotteries go to benefit the elderly. You'd kick grandma to the curb like that?

Wow, you went ahead and proved my point for me. Teachers don't appear to be doing their jobs in the US.

_________________

Capitalist propaganda at it's finest.

Honestly Sentios, I'd stop trying. We had, what, dozens of pages in spam trying to convince Ruffdraft of anything. The only thing we got was pages and pages of talk.

_________________

Being well-compensated does not mean they need to be more compensated than others, that idea guarantees the existence of people only motivated by the higher level of income who may not be qualified.



React less and read more. I specified income tax exemption not all tax exemption, government employees should just get paid what they would have after taxes rather than adding paper work to the tax system. Taking money out of the tax coffers just to put it right back in the tax coffers is inefficient.



Someone who makes 110,000 and someone who makes 100,000 would both take home around 90,000 and someone who makes 1 million dollars somewhere else isn't relevant because that sort of person does whatever it takes to pay no taxes even now.



Charity is a band aid, it's a way to feel good without actually solving any given problem. Never the less I'd be fine with a tax deduction type of system where you could decide to give some of your taxed income to a charity instead of to the government. Of course 'this is why we can't have nice things' guarantees that dummy charities would spring up all over so former billionaires could get their money back.



I tend to over look things that are common sense to me.



See you're not even trying, the proceeds are not what get paid out to winners of the lottery. Winners of the lottery is what we're discussing.



Only because the country doesn't value education as evidenced by your defense of teacher's paltry salaries.



I don't imagine I'll convince him, I'm just getting a laugh at some of his arguments.

Yes, please, pay me $40,000. I will use a large percentage of that ensuring your kids go on band trips, ensuring your kids get the best band experience they can, because people like YOU believe that we can fix this deficit by cutting and cutting and cutting. Get rid of music in school, get rid of the arts. Oh, by the way, did you hear about those studies that show a massive correlation between students who study music and their stellar performance in math? But, you're right. I'm obviously in the wrong sort of work, because I will work above and beyond what I am paid to work, to ensure that your self-entitled brat of a kid can at the LEAST have a band experience that is good.

I can always just work the hours I am paid for, but then there won't be festivals, band trips, field shows, the chance to march down Main Street, Disneyland, replies to parent's email, a parent organization so that parents can help the band if they want to. So yes. Please. I definitely deserve that $40,000 paycheck. And you should cut my health care benefits, because ya know what? I don't have to be healthy to teach! So please. Go ahead and tell me, Mr. I've Never Worked In Education Ever, that teachers deserve the paltry income they get.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Because if it's not in favor of Communism, it's propaganda? Is that the new "shut up" argument? Someone doesn't agree with you so they're liars?

The fact that you agree with the failed Communist rhetoric that Sentios is spewing doesn't make anything I say any less factual. It just means you disagree with it. If you want to convince me of anything, you need to back up whatever claims you make with actual evidence. You can start with refuting the claims made by Wizard, since you seem so eager to dismiss them as propaganda without even knowing the definition of the word.

_________________

I favor merit-based pay for teachers. I would love to pay good teachers more. But they need to be willing to drop their tenure. If we are to pay good teachers more, all the bad teachers need to be weeded out. If we can't do that, then all they are is a waste of money when that money can go to better education.

Can you honestly tell me that you don't know any teachers who are bad at what they do? You think that because someone has a degree in education that means they deserve a job?

I never said that. Point out exactly where I said teachers deserve to be paid less than they are now and I'll apologize. What I said is that actors get paid more. Period. I made an observation and you took personal offense to it. That would be the same as if I said, "the word 'nigger' is a racial slur," and then some black guy gets angry that I even used the word.

Also: I didn't say it isn't hard to be a teacher. I just said that you don't know what it's like to be an actor. Heck, I could say that being an information systems specialist is harder than being a teacher; does that automatically mean that my job is harder than yours? Does the fact that you are a teacher mean you know better than I do how hard my job is?

Why do you get so angry when I make simple observations?

_________________

It also guarantees that highly-motivated people receive adequate pay.

Isn't this exactly why having a job is not a right? You can be fired for poor performance. I'm not saying encourage poor performance, I'm saying pay someone more money according to how important their job is and how well they perform in it.

...ah, I see what happened. I worded my post wrong. I didn't mean that if they had extra income that you wouldn't have them pay taxes on it. I meant that they should have to file their taxes like everyone else. I guess my point was just that if they're not paying income tax on what they make with a government salary, that makes it a little more difficult for the government to ensure that everyone pays their taxes in full. If they have private investments, it should be lumped together when they file their taxes, not separately.

Also, all of the deductions and most income tax filings are done electronically now. I know you don't literally mean "adding paper work," but why is it less efficient to tax everyone equally and then figure out if they paid too little or too much at the end of the fiscal year? I would think it would be far less efficient to have a system of exemptions for government employees and then have them file separate taxes if they had a job or investments outside of their government duties.

Now, that's just stupid. You told me that you would take no more than 10% for those making up to $100,0000. What you're telling me now is that anyone who would make more than $100,000 first has all income beyond that point confiscated and THEN they're taxed 10%? What if they made $90,000 one year and then found themselves working harder and made $150,000? Would they be taxed $50,000 or $60,000?

What do you mean it isn't relevant? If someone who would be taxed $900,000 by the government moves to a country where his taxes would be far less than that, the government loses $900,000. Imagine that happened with everyone who makes more than $100,000. How many rich people do you think the government would lose? What's the stop them from moving? {I know you're going to come up with a reason why one rich person wouldn't move; will that reason apply to all of them?}

Are you're saying that someone who makes more than $300,000 in our current system doesn't pay any income tax? If so, do you have proof of that?

Sort of like Unemployment, or Welfare?

No. All the millionaires would be gone, or else none of them would donate to charities anymore.

Nevertheless, even if you put a tax deduction system in place, why in the world would a rich person give *a portion* his money to a charity if the government's going to take all but $100,000 anyway? And don't tell me why you would, tell me why someone rich would.

Common sense apparently isn't so common, then.

You think I don't know that?

You'll notice I used the word "winnings" in the first sentence and "proceeds" in the next, which implies that those words have different meanings. Is it hard for you to understand common English? What in the world do you think proceeds are?

Consider getting a prescription for Adderall. Seems like you need it.

Oh, so you're not serious about all this foolish mind-numbing bullshit you're spouting. Had me going there.

_________________

I'm imagining that's what you saw in my post. It's one thing to disagree; it's quite another to just dismiss. Please, do tell me your version of what would happen if Sentios' scheme was implemented.

   Fool me once, shame on me? =O   



It doesn't matter where one's income comes from; income tax is based on the idea of taxing one's labor, since it's a form of commerce. The government simply would earn less revenue by allowing ANY income to go untaxed. There isn't a zero gain just because it's government pay. Considering the size of the federal bureaucracy alone, it would be quite the mistake.



This isn't true. Charities' influence goes deeper than just solving practical problems. While charity doesn't directly change government policy, it does a lot to influence it. Charities have a soft power in their moral authority; they can make waves among citizens. Faith-based charities are even more effective at this, although depending on which waves they're making, it could add to a problem (i.e. the Church spreading misinformation about condoms). Solving practical problems solves a lot of the world's problems by itself, anyway; distributing condoms in South Africa to reverse the rise of HIV/AIDS infections is an example.

Please keep your responses civil.

Don't even give me that condescending tone. Because I know you enough to know that you'll cut before you raise taxes. And you'll take our job security, and our bargaining rights because I know you enough to know your political ideologies. The matter of fact is that that whole argument about tenure and "bad teachers" is just a strawman. I've had so far in college, two professors who were bad at teaching. One because he's a condescending, apathetic asshole who emotionally abuses his students. The other because she's so focused on arguing her own political givings that she doesn't teach the damn subject. That's two teachers out of the several dozen I've taken while in school.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Except it doesn't, because the number of unqualified but greedy and charismatic people greatly strips the number of qualified people. Firing people for poor performance does little good if all you're doing is attracting people who talk big but perform poorly as is the case for politicians. If not for the complexity of today's laws I would advocate that politicians shouldn't be paid for their public service at all and they should have to hold real jobs as in days of old.



All they would have to do is file for their extra earnings or not file at all. Efficiency includes not doing something that doesn't need done, in this case giving someone money to immediately take back part of it. If you borrowed $20 from a friend and he owed you $10 you wouldn't pay him his $20 and expect $10 still, you'd pay him $10 straight out. (exception for change but that's splitting hairs)



10% on the first 100,000 and 100% on the extra 10,000 you had above that limit works out to around $90,000. It's a bracket system. "What if they made $90,000 one year and then found themselves working harder and made $150,000?" That's almost enough income for an entire second person, why did the company not hire a second employee? This is why we have 8%+ unemployment. They'd pay $60,000 and be encouraged to work less overtime, thus gaining non-monetary benefits.



The government doesn't lose $900,000 because they wouldn't be able to get that much money if they had to resort to a tax rate comparable to a tax haven's. And not everyone who made more than $100,000 would flee because other countries wouldn't allow that many immigrants to flood them.

And the super wealthy don't pay much if any income tax because they get all their money by other sources. That's why you can see CEOs make vows to work for $1. https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=c ... =firefox-a



Exactly. Though those are different problems.



Because they're used to being in control of their money, if they're able exercise control in where some of their tax money goes they'll do so. I actually don't have qualms with millionaires, very few of them became millionaires over night. They vast majority saved and invested far smaller yearly incomes, much closer to the income caps I support, until they had net worth to qualify them as millionaires. Fortunately for them they're not as inflexible as you think they are. Billionaires on the other hand hire teams of tax lawyers to comb their books for tax deduction opportunities and go so far to spread their worth across strategic companies to minimize their taxes.



It never is.



The proceeds had nothing to do with what we were discussing, there was no need to mention them which really means you were the one who didn't think through your argument. The lottery would be fully within it's capabilities to divide up the jackpots into smaller jackpots and there are at least half a dozen ways they could increase the rate at which the jack pot was hit. Two easy ones are to reduce the number of possible winning combinations or increase the number of combinations you get to pick per ticket.



So you're of the camp that a teacher can teach with no support from the parents or the overall culture? Well we see how that's working out so far.



Rather there's no convincing someone who's already convinced themselves that they're right.



So you're saying if you take a spoon of sugar from a bag and put part of it back you'll have MORE sugar in the bag than when you started? You must be both a magician and surgeon with hands that steady. More likely even if you tried to put ALL the sugar back you'd lose a little bit and, as you say, considering the size of the bureaucracy that adds up to a lot of sugar.



What I said is true, the mentality that charity creates makes it's 'okay' to not find a real solution. The only exception I will make is crisis charities but those are short lived and naturally go away or move on once the crisis is over. Since you like South Africa as an example you have to know that food charities aren't even denting the mass starvation. In fact they can even be said to increase it because they aren't equally matched with family planning education and birth control, resulting in people who don't have the means to support their current families having even more kids. It wasn't until the millennium development goals came around that any one even considered trying to find a real solution to their problems because the charity crowd was content with sending canned soup.

I was not being condescending. I was asking seriously. You do tend to get really angry even if I'm not personally attacking you. And conversely, I tend to stay calm when you insult me, so you really have no excuse.

If it sounded to you like I was being condescending, that's your fault, not mine.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well then if I'm threatening your bargaining rights or job security, perhaps you can give me a persuasive argument as to why teachers as a whole deserve those two things when no one else in any competitive industry receives them?

So you're saying that bad teachers don't largely contribute to the failing education system and put undue strain (financial or otherwise) on an otherwise already strained system? That bad teachers with tenure are so difficult to fire that they often just get passed from district to district? Where's the strawman in that?

Just two? I've had that many in just Elementary school. Three in High school. None in Middle school, but that was because I went to a Charter.

In any case, you're missing the point. I'm not talking about college professors; usually it's only those who did well in High school that go to college. {~usually, not always~} If someone does poorly in elementary or middle (or both), high school tends to be a lot more difficult. As a teacher, I'm sure you know that.

Also did you know that while Pres. Obama says we need to increase funding for public schools, he sent his own kids to private school? Weird, huh? But I'm not blaming him for doing that; it's certainly his prerogative as a parent to do what's best for his own children. But it's odd that he would champion public schools when he could push for more private schools to be competitive with public schools. It might be a good idea for the government to sell some of its under-performing schools and allow them to become private schools. At the very least, I think it's worth considering.

_________________

Honestly, it all just look silly, the arguing here. I mean, I'll go to bed knowing I'm right and you're a dumb pawn of the rich agenda, and you'll go to bed thinking you're right and I'm an evil Communist.
Talk is pointless. Especially on the internet. Too hard to find actual facts, that can't be countered by other "actual" facts. Ingrained perceptions change the world too much for their to be truth between us on these matters.

_________________

If I say "two plus two equals four," we agree, presumably. If I say "the sun will rise tomorrow," certainly you could argue there's a slight possibility that that isn't true, but based on the fact that it rose this morning, yesterday, and the day before that, I can say there's a strong possibility, and we're still on the same page.

Now, if I were to point out that policies such as those that Sentios advocates have already been tried--and if I cited the historical examples of how they failed--would you dismiss the historical facts I cite as propaganda? The reason I think you called Wizard's comments propaganda is that you didn't disagree with them but saw no valid means to refute them with evidence. So, if you want to look like someone who has no facts but an excuse for everything, then so be it. But if you want to win arguments and convince people that you know what you're talking about, you don't talk as if your opponent is intentionally misleading or lying with nothing to back up your claim. Just telling someone "I'm right, you're wrong" is not winning an argument.

_________________

I challenge you to support that statement with any credible evidence. I could potentially give you a few hundred thousand examples of why that's not true. {mild exaggeration}

Also: What is your definition of "qualified?" Is it someone who holds a college degree for the field in which he is working? Someone who doesn't hold a college degree but has certifications that represent his knowledge or ability to do his job? Someone who can effectively do the job without any certifications or degrees? "Qualified" needs to be qualified here.

Normally I would go into a rant about how voting scumbag politicians out of office is your responsibility and to go out and vote if it bothers you for crying out loud... but in this case I'm going to say it's probably a good thing you don't vote. Because a lot of your ideas are so dangerous that if you voiced them and the politicians listened, you might get your way, and our society would implode, and I'd never become rich doing what I do for a living.

But you don't get actively involved in politics so I've got nothing to worry about.

Heh. Come on. You're joking, right?

You're not joking?

That's really sad.

No, efficiency only means using the means with the least amount of wasted effort or resources. It can mean skipping unnecessary steps, or it can mean making a large system uniform for every participant rather than selectively exempting them on a case-by-case basis.

It's a stupid system. It would completely wipe out any kind of prosperity that America could hope for. And you'd champion that as a victory.

Irrelevant. I asked you, "what would happen to the person who works harder and sees their pay skyrocket." Your response is "Screw them, the company should just hire another person." What if they're self-employed (small business--they are their own employee)? Let's say that they get X amount of business one year and next year they get 2X business and their pay doubles. You'd punish their success by taking whatever was left over after your ridiculous dogma got hold of their finances.

This is what I'm trying to explain to you. You can't just force equality on a system. That's not how "equality" works. All the rich are guilty of is using their money wisely, and you would tax them out of existence. All you do is go from a system of natural inequality to one of forced inequality, and I guarantee you that the latter is a far worse system. Ask anyone who was living in the Soviet Union through the 1950s how it turned out for them and you'll realize that your system is flawed all the way to its core.

No, the reason we have an 8% unemployment rate is because millions of people join the work force every year and fewer people leave it. Unemployment does not rise dramatically because the scant number of employees that increase a company's production by doing too good of a job see a rise in their pay.

Great. We'll go with that for the sake of argument. Now let's pretend for a minute that that worker is you. You've just realized that you inadvertently put an extra $60,000 worth of work into your company and they're going to reap the benefits of that while the government takes all that extra work of yours as taxes. So essentially you just worked your ass off for absolutely no reason and you have nothing extra to show for it except a pat on the back. Is that how you want every American to live their life? With crushed dreams, zero ambition and no prospects for the future?

You're not paying attention. Try to at least follow along. In our current system, someone who makes $1,000,000 a year pays $350,000. Suddenly, you change the tax code so that same millionaire has to pay $900,000 (plus $10,000) if he makes $1 million a year. The millionaire says "fuck that" and moves to Hong Kong.

You're right in that the US would lose $350,000 if he moved before the change in taxation took effect. However, the goal in raising taxes would be to obtain $900,000 dollars from someone who makes $1,000,000 in that year. If that person leaves the US after that, the government has just lost $900,000.

Oh, sure. The thousands of countries with lower tax rates all around the world are going to block hundreds of thousands of potential high-income taxpayers from immigrating away from a world financial giant. THAT'S likely.

...in other words, all their income is from investments and they pay taxes on those investments?

They pay taxes on their income from investments. That's an income tax, it's just called something else. What's the problem?

There's nobody in the world who donates to charities with that in mind. Nobody.

When rich people donate, they look at people as investments. They try to determine who would be the best people (group or organization thereof) that matches their ideals. If the rich were going to be taxed all but $100,000 of their income, if they didn't leave the US, then they would likely start donating whatever was left over to charities just to spite the government. The government would start losing money. If that happened, what would you do then?

I think they're inflexible? Perish the thought. I'm just stating the obvious ramifications to your poorly-though-out ideas.

Well that wouldn't happen if you started over-taxing them. Considering they're only about 400 or so in America, they'd be the first ones to leave, and they'd be pretty well-accepted in other countries. Your ideas would not increase revenues, they'd slash them.

Why exactly do you think the proceeds aren't relevant? Everything becomes relevant when you decide to radically change a system. The reason I brought up the proceeds is that when someone wins the lottery, a chunk of those winnings are taken out as proceeds and they mostly go to charities or other worthy causes.

Also, I was wrong. The VA Lottery doesn't go to senior citizens. Here's a breakdown from VALottery.com as to how the proceeds are used:Also, narrowing the odds and reducing the payouts would be far more detrimental than you seem to think. With millions of people buying into it, you could potentially end up with multi-million-dollar jackpots (the minimum jackpot right now is $12 million),

Actually I've said multiple times in the past that part of the problem is parents not being involved. As for culture... I'm not sure what that has to do with teaching the individual students. However, there are thousands, if not millions, of after-school programs aimed at helping children, and if that's what you're talking about, then the problem is just that many kids don't take advantage of them.

Rather a bleak reality. But in that case, then do you have a solution in mind other than creating/funding a charity?

_________________

A good start on the road to being qualified for a political office (since that's what we're talking about) is not having a law degree, instead having something that indicates you know how to solve problems. The good doc sums this up pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKdaRcptVz8&t=1m56s



There's not a voting option to bar someone from office, so I'd have to vote for some other scumbag politician to keep the first one out of office. End result is the same though. I like that you think my ideas are dangerous though, since if you didn't think they had any validity you'd be indifferent to them.



It eliminates people doing it for the money and only leaves people doing it because they're interested in the future of the nation. If you think that's sad then I must be doing something right.



The system already isn't uniform thus cutting unnecessary effort is the open option.



Only if you define prosperity as excessive liquid assets.



Point is that by working harder they're closing opportunities for others, an income cap would reduce and eliminate their incentive to do that. Also a small business owner's pay wouldn't double because they did twice as much business, well unless they're completely short sighted and don't differentiate between their pay and their business's profits. Responsible owners give themselves a salary, sometimes with bonuses in good years, to ensure there are funds in the company to get through bad years.



The first part of what you're saying is true but doesn't prove me wrong. There are many companies that give over time for long periods of time instead of hiring more employees because it's cheaper for them to do that. The workers don't complain because they get paid more but the reality is that adds up to millions of jobs that aren't being created in a country that already doesn't have enough jobs.



That's a silly hypothetical involving someone who doesn't keep track of their income through the year and obviously there would need to be legal protections to prevent employers working you substantially beyond what you can earn.



You mean like now?



That premise depends on someone who gets paid a million dollar a year salary (>implying millionaires make a million a year) actually paying a full 35% on their taxes. If he evades an increase in taxes by moving the hong kong you're still not getting what you originally claimed to be getting and you have one less parasite in the country. Your same argument can be applied to any increase in taxes not just my income cap figures which means you've entered the slippery slope that results in taxes can never ever be raise or rich people will flee the country. That's a great basis for future-thinking policies.



>high income tax payers
But they're not or they wouldn't have left when asked to pay their taxes. Also...
>thousands of countries
...
http://geography.about.com/cs/countries ... ntries.htm



It's not income tax is the problem, it's filed under a separate tax.



>stating absolute negatives with no evidence
This will end well for you. Especially since what you said right after that proves that point.

Also they couldn't donate all their taxes to charity so your grand retaliation isn't so infallible.



You mean you're grasping at straws.



Perhaps, however their influence over policy making would also be slashed which would result in them being in nations they can't push around and us finally being able to cut pork barrel spending, useless subsidies, and all manner of bad policies like it's going out of style.



Because so long as the same money is paid out, albeit distributed differently, the same amount of proceeds could be generated. And there are two ways to handle excessive jackpots: The jackpots would be capped and rather than going over the limitations a new jackpot would be created. -OR- The extremely large jackpots can only be paid out in installments not in excess of income limitations. (though really the lottery winning aren't even accounted for on your income taxes currently)



The cultural mindset you're justifying with your earlier assessment is one where parents aren't involved though. I agree with you on that it's too hard to fire a bad teacher but your earlier assessment of a job's difficulty by how much money is made was simply out of touch with reality. A hard job doesn't necessarily pay well, which is the case for teachers.



So long as we're both acknowledging that fact there's no problem.



Good that's how it should work, why was anyone arguing with me?



I suppose I should rephrase, charity is not always a solution. Charities are like a wad of gum they're great for freshening your breath but they're horrible for plugging a cracked dam. It's only made worse because people then think it's okay to pretend the crack has been been fixed.



Let's look at a problem then, safe drinking water. The answer that charity provides is we'll send bottled water, whether it be a disaster like Katrina or a poor children of a 3rd world nation. Sometimes their other answer is send us money and we'll get water to these people somehow, they don't actually tell you how so you're just kind of taking their word for it.

How about instead we provide a real solution, a tool to convert water that those in need already have access to into something safe to drink. http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pritch ... ilter.html