Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

The Wall

View Poll Results: The Wall, for or against?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Go Wall!

    3 27.27%
  • No Wall!

    8 72.73%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 451 to 511 of 511
  1. #451
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The rest of us are struggling to uncover the missing information which clouds us from a full understanding.
    Watch more Fox News
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-10-2017 at 03:56 PM.
  2. #452
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Watch more Fox News
    This is both hilarious and sad at the same time

    Talk about conflicting emotions
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  3. #453
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    If the presumption is that all immigrants commit crimes, then that can only be buoyed by only looking at illegal immigrants, right?

    Does the idea of open borders always mean a complete lack of border control?

    I assume that you can have an open border policy while still requiring ID checks and criminal background checks and other stuff.
    Does open borders necessarily mean "w/o any scrutiny at all"

    'Cause if that's the case, I'm totally against open borders.

    I don't think unlimited access to all comers is best. I favor minimal hurdles to entry & citizenship, but keeping track of who's coming and going and preventing known trouble-makers from making trouble here.
    Probably depends on who is defining it.
  4. #454
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    From current events bra, many erudites have been denied visa or outright turned around. E.g. a dude had to balance a binary search tree just to prove he was a cs/software engineer.

    http://boingboing.net/2017/03/01/wha...ite-color.html

    Bonus points if you realize that the answer they were looking for could not deviate from wikipedias answer, as the ones asking had no idea what the fuck they were asking about

    Talent does not indicate you will be allowed through (or respected) by border patrol apparently
    This is showing a new systemic bias against Taleb types?
  5. #455
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Probably depends on who is defining it.
    Fair enough.

    Can you elaborate on asymmetric information a bit?
    Or even provide a link which you endorse as a good source for defining the term?
    I'm unfamiliar.

    (Sorry if you're in process of replying to my other post on this subject.)
  6. #456
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This is showing a new systemic bias against Taleb types?
    Is it not?

    Bonus points if you noticed the dude was from Nigeria (not on The List atm), had a fully valid visa, and still had to put up with shit.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  7. #457
    The gist of Taleb's argument against GMO as I understand it is that a small change in a number of small variables (i.e., genes) could have emergent multiplicative risks out of all proportion to their understood individual risks down the line, and that these could end up being catastrophically bad because ecology is all interconnected.

    The problems with the argument imho is that a) it isn't at all obvious that these variables will necessarily interact, and b) if they do, it isn't obvious that such an interaction will be any more likely to be catastrophic than would be leaving things as they are. The variables as they exist now could still have a catastrophic effect at some time in the future (we'll never know until it happens because it's impossible to predict all the interactions, which is kind of Taleb's starting point for saying we shouldn't mess with the unknown).

    It's like saying you have ten jars full of 100 marbles each, and each jar contains one or more marbles that fit into a piece that if combined becomes the 'giant doomsday marble'. You pull one marble from each jar simultaneously and if you pick 10 doomsday pieces at the same time you create the doomsday marble and the world implodes. His argument is analogous to saying that we COULD be increasing the number of doomsday pieces in each jar by GMO, thus increasing the chance of the world imploding. But with all the maths in the world it can't be measured objectively because it's impossible to identify the doomsday pieces' interactions by definition. Which he then uses as an argument that we basically shouldn't accept any risks with any GMO because it is akin to creating these potential doomsday marbles in different jars (I'm paraphrasing).

    tl;dr Taleb seems to be talking out his ass a bit on this one.
  8. #458
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    @wuf: Is asymmetric information more than the notion that 2 parties or agencies have different access to information?
    That's basically it. The "more", as far as I can tell, is how it can be applied and what we can derive from it. For example, it's typically used in finance with a more narrow definition regarding asymmetry in the information available to a buyer and seller. But it can be thought of very broadly, like how the difference between what physicists know about the universe and what the universe actually is is asymmetric information relevant for whenever physicists interact with the universe. Or things that you know and your girlfriend doesn't and vice versa are asymmetry of information regarding your interactions with each other. A derivative idea is that if that asymmetry were to lessen, hazard would lessen and efficiency would improve.

    The problem of asymmetric information is what we try to solve when we regulate financial markets. I believe that the idea can be applied across the board to all markets. My argument for free markets depends on the idea that they more efficiently use information and more efficiently reduce asymmetry of information than otherwise. Without that, I don't think the total free market ideal could hold up.

    'Cause confidential information and "top secrets" are a thing that gov't's have. Granted, there are trade secrets that companies have, too, but presumably those ARE being used by the companies to economic advantage. I presume that one company having and using its trade secrets is beneficial to the economy, since its withholding that information from competing companies doesn't prevent the secret from impacting consumer choices. Is this plausible from an economics standpoint?
    Great question. I'm not sure I can answer it, or even if I understand it. I do have a couple points of input though. The company uses its trade secrets to benefit itself. Any benefit to the economy that comes from this is secondary. The Invisible Hand idea is that when companies compete, the secondary effect, though unintended, happens nonetheless.

    The company not withholding its secret from other companies would likely impact consumer choices. If more information got out, that would affect choice (by revealing more about the product). If more companies competed on providing the product, this would likely impact price and availability, which would impact consumer choice.

    I'm curious if there is a preventative aspect of the system which prevents the business side from achieving symmetric information.
    I certainly think there is. The seller wants to increase its information while decreasing the buyer's (in specific ways) and vice versa. If you're negotiating for something, and you really really really want it and you are willing to accept embarrassingly low terms, you still don't want the other party to know that. You get more benefit from him having less information (or even from him having bad information).
  9. #459
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Fair enough.

    Can you elaborate on asymmetric information a bit?
    Or even provide a link which you endorse as a good source for defining the term?
    I'm unfamiliar.

    (Sorry if you're in process of replying to my other post on this subject.)

    It's not that complicated in its essence, it just refers to a difference in the potential upside/downside of an outcome. Buying a lottery ticket is asymmetric because the upside is huge and the downside is small. The risk of a meteor landing on your house has a huge downside and the upside if it doesn't happen is small (life just goes on).

    Taleb also applies it to situations where decisions are being made whose outcomes can be extreme, but don't directly affect the person(s) making the decision. An example would be financial institutions and the 2008 crisis. Assuming their actions caused all the bad outcomes, but they themselves didn't suffer financially due to bailouts, there's an asymmetry between them having no stake (or a limited stake) in the matter themselves and the overall consequences to people in general.

    Edit: sorry I thought we were still talking about Taleb. D'oh!
  10. #460
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Fair enough.

    Can you elaborate on asymmetric information a bit?
    Or even provide a link which you endorse as a good source for defining the term?
    I'm unfamiliar.

    (Sorry if you're in process of replying to my other post on this subject.)
    I can post something if I come across it. It's a topic I mostly only covered in class. It was sort of a light bulb where I realized that's the technical term for the types of things we talk about regarding problems in markets. For example, when I claim that people are individually more productive at spending their money than the government is spending the money instead, my claim is predicated in part on the idea that the people individually have less asymmetric information in relevant scenarios than the government does. The two main types of asymmetric information covered are adverse selection and moral hazard.
  11. #461
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Is it not?

    Bonus points if you noticed the dude was from Nigeria (not on The List atm), had a fully valid visa, and still had to put up with shit.
    I'd say the issue seems pretty timeless. Not something that began recently.

    To the idea that somebody named Nassim Taleb has a harder time entering the country than others, I don't know. I can't comment on any data. On theory, there are forces that could make that the case and countervailing forces that could actually make it easier to immigrate with that name. An example of a countervailing force could be that (I've heard) Middle East Christians have a much harder time getting into the country than Middle East Muslim blindly-assumed-to-be refugees. If true, there could be countervailing force of people thinking that Christians have it great so they can pound sand while Muslims are more downtrodden than squished snail so they can be given the stars.
  12. #462
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The gist of Taleb's argument against GMO as I understand it is that a small change in a number of small variables (i.e., genes) could have emergent multiplicative risks out of all proportion to their understood individual risks down the line, and that these could end up being catastrophically bad because ecology is all interconnected.

    The problems with the argument imho is that a) it isn't at all obvious that these variables will necessarily interact, and b) if they do, it isn't obvious that such an interaction will be any more likely to be catastrophic than would be leaving things as they are. The variables as they exist now could still have a catastrophic effect at some time in the future (we'll never know until it happens because it's impossible to predict all the interactions, which is kind of Taleb's starting point for saying we shouldn't mess with the unknown).

    It's like saying you have ten jars full of 100 marbles each, and each jar contains one or more marbles that fit into a piece that if combined becomes the 'giant doomsday marble'. You pull one marble from each jar simultaneously and if you pick 10 doomsday pieces at the same time you create the doomsday marble and the world implodes. His argument is analogous to saying that we COULD be increasing the number of doomsday pieces in each jar by GMO, thus increasing the chance of the world imploding. But with all the maths in the world it can't be measured objectively because it's impossible to identify the doomsday pieces' interactions by definition. Which he then uses as an argument that we basically shouldn't accept any risks with any GMO because it is akin to creating these potential doomsday marbles in different jars (I'm paraphrasing).

    tl;dr Taleb seems to be talking out his ass a bit on this one.
    It's funny, I think your explanation is fantastic and I don't think it suggests out-of-ass talking on his part.

    Perhaps it's because I view the "we COULD be increasing the number of doomsday pieces..." statement as being more credible than perhaps you do. Lately I've been of the mind that "consensus" gets lots of stuff wrong, even when backed empirically with higher-than-standard rigor.
  13. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's funny, I think your explanation is fantastic and I don't think it suggests out-of-ass talking on his part.

    Perhaps it's because I view the "we COULD be increasing the number of doomsday pieces..." statement as being more credible than perhaps you do. Lately I've been of the mind that "consensus" gets lots of stuff wrong, even when backed empirically with higher-than-standard rigor.
    I probably shouldn't have said 'talking out of his ass' as if he never thought about it much and just spun out a paper one day cause he was bored. I'm sure he has thought about it and he may be making more sense than I realise.

    OTOH, I still stand by my arguments a) and b) above. I think his argument is a bit of the old 'we're creating our own disaster because experts don't understand maths' argument that he used for economics. I think he may have gotten a big head about that and his hubris may have outran his knowledge a bit.

    What this kind of reminds me of is about a dozen years ago when Francis Crick (of Watson and Crick, the structure of DNA Nobel prize winners) decided he was going to be a neuroscientist, and not only that but solve pretty much the biggest question in neuroscience which was how the brain creates consciousness. That did not end well for him.
  14. #464
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    A common misconception is that undocumented immigrants avoid paying taxes. In fact, undocumented individuals pay sales and excise taxes, property taxes and, in some instances, personal income taxes. The study determined that at least 50 percent of undocumented households currently file income tax returns through the use of individual tax identification numbers, and many have taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks.

    In a state like Alabama, the study found, the effective tax rate for undocumented individuals was 7.2 percent, 3 percentage points higher than the 3.8 percent effective tax rate that the wealthiest 1 percent pay in that state. Alabama is no way alone in this development; 42 states currently tax undocumented people more than their wealthiest denizens.
    https://www.salon.com/2017/03/02/wat...est-1-percent/

    http://www.itep.org/pdf/immigration2017.pdf
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  15. #465
    How in the fuck can the wealthiest people be paying 3.8% effective taxes? Oh I forgot, they use that extra money to create jobs.
  16. #466
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    How in the fuck can the wealthiest people be paying 3.8% effective taxes? Oh I forgot, they use that extra money to create jobs.
    While the poor buy iPhones instead of health insurance
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  17. #467
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    If it's a misconception that illegal immigrants avoid paying taxes, why does the article concede that only 50% of illegal immigrant households pay income tax?

    Seems like a large number of them are avoiding paying taxes.
  18. #468
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    That specifically said household too, btw. So its accounting for the elderly, the children, etc who wouldn't have jobs to pay taxes with.

    It also tells you that the number is calculated using a "sophisticated program" (bullshit alert), based on numerous studies of illegals using phoney ssns
    Last edited by JKDS; 03-14-2017 at 12:36 AM.
  19. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    How in the fuck can the wealthiest people be paying 3.8% effective taxes?
    They don't. That's bullshit. The reports/links provided are full of baloney.

    Digging into the details, a big part of the equation is sales and other consumption taxes.

    Another misconception, is that FICA taxes are taxes. They aren't. They're insurances. 7.65% of your pay comes out to pay for medicare and social security. Those programs will only pay so much. There's a cap.

    Say someone makes 10 million per year, then he retires....does he expect social security to replace his income? Of course not. But the guy who made $50K per year, then retires DOES expect social security to replace his income.

    I don't know what the cap is anymore, 10 years ago it was like $90K. I suspect it's a hundred and something now. For the sake of argument, let's say it's $150k. Anyone making up to that amount pays FICA taxes and is entitled to benefits later in life up to a certain amount depending on how much they paid in.

    So the guy making $10 million/year only pays 7.65% on his first $150K, and then nothing on the rest. That's going to SERIOUSLY affect his 'effective tax rate'. It's going to look ALOT lower than someone making $50K per year.

    I dont' see what's wrong with that since the money isn't meant to be used on infrastructure, police, schools, or public service. The taxes collected are meant to fund those insurance programs. It's contained, or at least it's supposed to be.

    Sidebar: Anyone who believes Salon.com is credible is no longer allowed to ever give me shit for watching Fox News.
  20. #470
    I know a guy, a real dummy, his rebuttal to a 10% flat tax was that it would benefit the rich by reducing their taxes. Then a little later he was up in arms over his belief that the rich pay next to no taxes.
  21. #471
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    If it's a misconception that illegal immigrants avoid paying taxes, why does the article concede that only 50% of illegal immigrant households pay income tax?

    Seems like a large number of them are avoiding paying taxes.
    I haven't read the article, but you're conflating different statements.

    doesn't pay income taxes != doesn't pay any taxes
    avoids paying (some) taxes != avoids paying (all) taxes
  22. #472
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    While the poor buy iPhones instead of health insurance
    This is a thing.

    It bothers me.

    People are confusing.
  23. #473
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I haven't read the article, but you're conflating different statements.

    doesn't pay income taxes != doesn't pay any taxes
    avoids paying (some) taxes != avoids paying (all) taxes
    Thank you, but that isn't what I said. I havnt misled you about what the article says either. They argue that illegal immigrants DON'T avoid paying taxes. They simultaneously admit that only about 50%, maybe more, pay income taxes. Meaning near 50% don't pay income taxes. Meaning they avoid the income tax. Again, the article refers to households, so that 50% avoidance is 50% of households.

    Or is dodging the tax which steals near 20% of every legal citizens paycheck somehow not avoidance?
  24. #474
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    tax which steals near 20% of every legal citizens paycheck
  25. #475
    Wuf let's set up our own country where we don't have taxes. Then we can invade other countries, take them over and make them better.
  26. #476
    Just so long as Uncle Nige approves.
  27. #477
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Thank you, but that isn't what I said. I havnt misled you about what the article says either. They argue that illegal immigrants DON'T avoid paying taxes. They simultaneously admit that only about 50%, maybe more, pay income taxes. Meaning near 50% don't pay income taxes. Meaning they avoid the income tax. Again, the article refers to households, so that 50% avoidance is 50% of households.

    Or is dodging the tax which steals near 20% of every legal citizens paycheck somehow not avoidance?
    That's not what the article says.

    "A common misconception is that undocumented immigrants avoid paying taxes. In fact, undocumented individuals pay sales and excise taxes, property taxes and, in some instances, personal income taxes. The study determined that at least 50 percent of undocumented households currently file income tax returns through the use of individual tax identification numbers, and many have taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks."

    They're not arguing that illegal immigrants don't avoid paying taxes. They're arguing that it's a misconception that all illegal immigrants pay no taxes.
  28. #478
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You damn commie.
    You should be honored to pay American taxes.
    Where's your patriotism?
  29. #479
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You damn commie.
    You should be honored to pay American taxes.
    Where's your patriotism?
    Patriotism to the nation, not the state.
  30. #480
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Just so long as Uncle Nige approves.
    Of course, he's neve paid tax in his life.
  31. #481
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Patriotism to the nation, not the state.
    JKDS just made me read an article that says you're basically a mooch off the illegal immigrants your (beautiful?) state attracts, who're paying their share and the share of half of their brethren and your share, too.


    [/troll]
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 03-15-2017 at 12:17 AM.
  32. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Of course, he's neve paid tax in his life.
    Of course he has. Have you seen how much ale the man gets through?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #483
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    This is a thing.

    It bothers me.

    People are confusing.
    I guess it's absurd to say that anyone who owns any luxury item is therefore disqualified from any public aid or services.

    While it's troublesome to have some people blow their money on toys and then treat the rest of us like its our fault they have no savings, the alternative is uglier.
  34. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Of course he has. Have you seen how much ale the man gets through?
    That's all party funded, his personal stash he gets off the coast.

    We're also both white Wuf so I imagine he'd love that.
  35. #485
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post

    They're not arguing that illegal immigrants don't avoid paying taxes. They're arguing that it's a misconception that all illegal immigrants pay no taxes.
    Well, of course some illegals pay some taxes. But that's never been the point. It is obvious that those who buy goods, in States with sales tax, would pay that tax. No one pictures illegal immigrants going into special checkout lines at Walmart where they click magic "no tax, I'm illegal" buttons.

    What people get Sandy vaginas about is that their paycheck is cut into pieces, and the paychecks for illegals is not.
  36. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    What people get Sandy vaginas about is that their paycheck is cut into pieces, and the paychecks for illegals is not.
    Not only that, but the paychecks are smaller than they should be to begin with, even before they get cut to pieces.

    The illegal who is not paying income taxes is willing to work for a lower wage, since it's all cash. In the aggregate, that keeps wages low for everybody.
  37. #487
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Well, of course some illegals pay some taxes. But that's never been the point. It is obvious that those who buy goods, in States with sales tax, would pay that tax. No one pictures illegal immigrants going into special checkout lines at Walmart where they click magic "no tax, I'm illegal" buttons.

    What people get Sandy vaginas about is that their paycheck is cut into pieces, and the paychecks for illegals is not.
    I'm not speaking to what people get upset about.

    According to that link, the average amount of taxes paid by illegal immigrant households is higher than the rate paid by legal citizens. The article says that is true even when it is taken into account that half of illegal immigrants avoid paying income taxes.

    Unless you're prepared to argue with that statistic, the link actually belies your deeper point.

    The credibility of Salon.com was called into question, so this may be a simple act.
    (I have never heard of Salon.com before, so I have no idea if its a credible source.)
  38. #488
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I'm not speaking to what people get upset about.

    According to that link, the average amount of taxes paid by illegal immigrant households is higher than the rate paid by legal citizens. The article says that is true even when it is taken into account that half of illegal immigrants avoid paying income taxes.

    Unless you're prepared to argue with that statistic, the link actually belies your deeper point.
    I'll argue it. The article relies on the second link jack posted. The 2nd paragraph of the 2nd page says illegal immigrants would pay significantly more taxes if granted a pathway to citizenship. More taxes. Not less.

    What you, and perhaps the article, are confused is the reference to the effective tax rate of the 1%, who pay less than everybody cuz repiblicans.
  39. #489
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

    When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts
    Last edited by JKDS; 03-15-2017 at 09:52 AM.
  40. #490
    Mr. 1% earns $1 million per year. He's only charged FICA taxes on the first $150K. 7.65% x $150K = $11,475

    Mr. 99% earns 60,000 per year. He pays FICA taxes on all of his earnings under $150K. 7.65% x $60k = $4,590

    Effective tax rate of Mr. 1% = $11,475/1,000,000 = 1.1%
    Effective tax rate of Mr 99% = $4590/60,000 = 7.65%

    That cap on FICA taxes is what's really fucking up the data in this study, and makes the whole thing worthless in my opinion. You need some really muddled math to demonstrate that the rich pay less than the poor.

    FICA isn't really a tax either. It's an insurance. It's a contained system where you get out what you pay in. So if you want millionaires to pay more into the system, you're going to have to pay more out to them when they retire. I don't think anyone wants retired millionaires to get huge social security payments commensurate with their working income. Hence, the cap.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-15-2017 at 11:46 AM.
  41. #491
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

    When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts
    Yep. It's so bad that the more I know about this stuff, the more I ignore projections regarding the macro economy. Getting anywhere close to reliable takes so much more than is put into estimates. Even then, projections would still likely be unreliable. A good macroeconomist discusses effects of policies regarding incentives and unintended consequences; a bad macroeconomist releases projections.
  42. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    While it's troublesome to have some people blow their money on toys and then treat the rest of us like its our fault they have no savings, the alternative is uglier.
    What is the alternative?
  43. #493
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I'll argue it. The article relies on the second link jack posted. The 2nd paragraph of the 2nd page says illegal immigrants would pay significantly more taxes if granted a pathway to citizenship. More taxes. Not less.
    This is a separate point from what the Salon article says, then. The Salon article makes no predictions or even time-dependent statements that I saw.
    If that is a misconstruction of what the other link says (and that other link was the sole reference of the Salon article), then I'm again at a loss, since I now need to read that link, too.

    At any rate, I understood the point of the article differently than you and that's all I was discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    What you, and perhaps the article, are confused is the reference to the effective tax rate of the 1%, who pay less than everybody cuz repiblicans.
    What did I say which indicated a misunderstanding?
    What is the missing information which will eradicate my confusion?

    Please be careful not to attribute ideas to me which I have not supported.
    Just because I understand what someone has said, and can repeat it w/o distortion, doesn't mean that I agree with them.
    It means I understand them.
  44. #494
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Btw, I suspect the research article itself of heavy bias. When they do things like allege that States would take a big hit to tax revenue if illegals were all deported, they are engaging in dishonesty by omission. By ignoring that State costs would also drop simultaneously, they paint a one sided picture. We're left to guess whether the article accidently, through incompetence, painted that picture...or if they acted intentionally due to bias.

    When they go on to explain their methodology with vagueness, and nice but meaningless words like "sophisticated", I gain further doubts
    All of this rings true to my sensibilities as a skeptic and a scientist.

    I have yet to see data on this issue which doesn't scream of a foregone conclusion being confirmed through bias.
    Both sides have yet to describe the situation in a way which isn't blind to the complexity and nuance in the whole situation with glaring omissions in the data they report.
  45. #495
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    While it's troublesome to have some people blow their money on toys and then treat the rest of us like its our fault they have no savings, the alternative is uglier.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What is the alternative?
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I guess it's absurd to say that anyone who owns any luxury item is therefore disqualified from any public aid or services.
    Are you calling from a cell phone? Sorry 911 is only for people who don't squander their money on luxury items.

    We've got a unconscious patient with a gunshot wound coming in through the ambulance bay, but we found a pack of gum in his pocket and no insurance card, so we are turning him away.

    Welcome to the DMV. I see you have a Starbucks coffee cup, so you will not be permitted to share in the privilege of driving, to which non-frivolous citizens have access.
  46. #496
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    This is a separate point from what the Salon article says, then. The Salon article makes no predictions or even time-dependent statements that I saw.
    If that is a misconstruction of what the other link says (and that other link was the sole reference of the Salon article), then I'm again at a loss, since I now need to read that link, too.

    At any rate, I understood the point of the article differently than you and that's all I was discussing.


    What did I say which indicated a misunderstanding?
    What is the missing information which will eradicate my confusion?

    Please be careful not to attribute ideas to me which I have not supported.
    Just because I understand what someone has said, and can repeat it w/o distortion, doesn't mean that I agree with them.
    It means I understand them.
    What a waste of time, you got to be trolling at this point.
  47. #497
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I guess it's absurd to say that anyone who owns any luxury item is therefore disqualified from any public aid or services.
    It's like you're suggesting that we just suck it up when someone chooses to spend their food budget on a Cadillac and then applies for food stamps to cover the difference. It doesn't have to be like that. A more rigorous and nuanced method of means testing could solve that easily.

    Say you take home $2,500 per month. Rent = $1,000, Utilities $250, Cable/Net = $200, Car payment = 750, Gas = $100, Cell phone=$200. That's all your money and you haven't bought any food yet. Say you need $600 more to buy food every month.

    Should the government just give that away?

    Or should the government be allowed to evaluate the finances, at least a high level, and determine if there is really a "need"? The government knows what shit costs, that's how they calculate CPI and other economic metrics.

    the government could easily say that a reasonable car payment for someone of your income level and geographic region is more like $500 per month. The gov't could use that figure as a 'cap' on the expenditure claim. So now the numbers read like this

    $2,500 - Rent - Utilities - Cable - Car (capped at $500) - Gas - Cell = $250

    In this example, I believe the government should only give away $350. That plus the additional money that SHOULD be left over makes up a total of $600 needed for food.

    Then that citizen has the choice of driving a nicer car but eating less, or eating reasonably and driving a reasonable car. People should not be free to make that choice at the expense of other citizens. The choice should be made at their own expense.
  48. #498
    How about we just don't give that person any money?

    Tbf though the assumption that people understand money, financing and such things on even a basic level just isn't true. In fact people who do understand such things tend to have incentive to exploit the people who don't so I don't imagine that changing any time soon.
    Last edited by Savy; 03-15-2017 at 04:32 PM.
  49. #499
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    What a waste of time, you got to be trolling at this point.
    You should know me better than this after all these years.
    I'm not intentionally trolling you. When I troll, I claim it in the same post as the troll.

    ***
    I don't get why you're upset.

    You asked questions about what the Salon article says, and I was doing my best to figure out the same.

    You went to question whether or not those claims are based on data, and I agree with your analysis that it doesn't have the trademarks of unbiased reporting.


    IDK what you expect from the conversation if not that we are joining our super powers together to seek understanding of what this mad world is throwing at us.
  50. #500
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    .
    You are not my political rival.
  51. #501
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    How about we just don't give that person any money?

    Tbf though the assumption that people understand money, financing and such things on even a basic level just isn't true. In fact people who do understand such things tend to have incentive to exploit the people who don't so I don't imagine that changing any time soon.
    You are correct. A significant reason why so many people don't understand personal finance is they don't have much of a reason to anymore, largely due to government handouts, government mandated insurances, other regulations, and other cultural factors (like less cultural stigma to relying on others to take care of you).

    People used to have a much more firm grasp of personal finance. Independence from government and adoption of Protestant ethics/communities made sure of that.
  52. #502
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's like you're suggesting that we just suck it up when someone chooses to spend their food budget on a Cadillac and then applies for food stamps to cover the difference. It doesn't have to be like that. A more rigorous and nuanced method of means testing could solve that easily.

    Say you take home $2,500 per month. Rent = $1,000, Utilities $250, Cable/Net = $200, Car payment = 750, Gas = $100, Cell phone=$200. That's all your money and you haven't bought any food yet. Say you need $600 more to buy food every month.

    Should the government just give that away?

    Or should the government be allowed to evaluate the finances, at least a high level, and determine if there is really a "need"? The government knows what shit costs, that's how they calculate CPI and other economic metrics.

    the government could easily say that a reasonable car payment for someone of your income level and geographic region is more like $500 per month. The gov't could use that figure as a 'cap' on the expenditure claim. So now the numbers read like this

    $2,500 - Rent - Utilities - Cable - Car (capped at $500) - Gas - Cell = $250

    In this example, I believe the government should only give away $350. That plus the additional money that SHOULD be left over makes up a total of $600 needed for food.

    Then that citizen has the choice of driving a nicer car but eating less, or eating reasonably and driving a reasonable car. People should not be free to make that choice at the expense of other citizens. The choice should be made at their own expense.
    I caution that this could carry with it some substantial unintended consequences. This would likely open the door to greater intrusive power of bureaucracy and greater acceptance of dependency by citizens.


    When we get down to brass tacks, the only reason the government should provide for somebody is to increase their productivity. Doing so for any reason that reduces their productivity is unfair to the productive since they are the ones paying for it (this means unfair to most people). I have been unable to develop a cohesive argument for how government can intervene into personal exchange to make them more productive than otherwise. I can't even recall seeing an economist do it. Given this, it is probable that people are better off when the government doesn't try to help them.
  53. #503
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It's like you're suggesting that we just suck it up when someone chooses to spend their food budget on a Cadillac and then applies for food stamps to cover the difference. It doesn't have to be like that. A more rigorous and nuanced method of means testing could solve that easily.

    Say you take home $2,500 per month. Rent = $1,000, Utilities $250, Cable/Net = $200, Car payment = 750, Gas = $100, Cell phone=$200. That's all your money and you haven't bought any food yet. Say you need $600 more to buy food every month.

    Should the government just give that away?


    Or should the government be allowed to evaluate the finances, at least a high level, and determine if there is really a "need"? The government knows what shit costs, that's how they calculate CPI and other economic metrics.

    the government could easily say that a reasonable car payment for someone of your income level and geographic region is more like $500 per month. The gov't could use that figure as a 'cap' on the expenditure claim. So now the numbers read like this

    $2,500 - Rent - Utilities - Cable - Car (capped at $500) - Gas - Cell = $250


    In this example, I believe the government should only give away $350. That plus the additional money that SHOULD be left over makes up a total of $600 needed for food.

    Then that citizen has the choice of driving a nicer car but eating less, or eating reasonably and driving a reasonable car. People should not be free to make that choice at the expense of other citizens. The choice should be made at their own expense.
    Can't ever realistically happen as all car companies will send armies of lobbyists to tackle this immediately. Heck, they will probably even sue the government.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  54. #504
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Can't ever realistically happen as all car companies will send armies of lobbyists to tackle this immediately. Heck, they will probably even sue the government.
    The UK government not that long ago put in a minimum scrapping price of cars and as a result the bottom end of the used car market just disappeared.
  55. #505
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Can't ever realistically happen as all car companies will send armies of lobbyists to tackle this immediately. Heck, they will probably even sue the government.
    They would lose
  56. #506
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    The UK government not that long ago put in a minimum scrapping price of cars and as a result the bottom end of the used car market just disappeared.

    LOL, doesn't that affect the cheapest shit cars? Better cars mean more money has to be spent on the procurement of those cars, right?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  57. #507
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    LOL, doesn't that affect the cheapest shit cars? Better cars mean more money has to be spent on the procurement of those cars, right?
    What do you mean? I'm saying your car basically has a guaranteed scrap price, not so much a bad thing but market adjustments don't happen so it is, therefore any car you could buy that cost you less than x (x is scrap price of your car) you can no longer buy. We're talking old crappy cars at this point but that doesn't mean they aren't old crappy cars you can get time out of. The knock on effect of this is that EVERY car gets slightly more expensive because you don't just delete the cars worth less than that you also raise the value of every car slightly above that and that knocks on to every other car (decreasing as you go up). So that £400 car you might have bought is £450, etc.
  58. #508
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    What do you mean? I'm saying your car basically has a guaranteed scrap price, not so much a bad thing but market adjustments don't happen so it is, therefore any car you could buy that cost you less than x (x is scrap price of your car) you can no longer buy. We're talking old crappy cars at this point but that doesn't mean they aren't old crappy cars you can get time out of. The knock on effect of this is that EVERY car gets slightly more expensive because you don't just delete the cars worth less than that you also raise the value of every car slightly above that and that knocks on to every other car (decreasing as you go up). So that £400 car you might have bought is £450, etc.

    Indeed, every car gets more expensive, therefore more money has to be spent on the procurement of those cars, right?


    Making things more expensive is not in the interests of the poor and the marginated in any case. Which is probably why the more bottom end of the market dissapeared. But I dunno about this issue and it's not really relevant right now, so to steal your own words, cba.


    And yet my point was that in bananastand's particular example above


    a) Realistic prices for quite many people, but also realistic because no savings are taken into accoount. I guess, when living paycheck to paycheck, one cannot 'afford' to save even in theory


    b) By introducing a some sort of mythical government ceiling on a specific debit entry in any budget, you allow for allocation of those freed funds into something else. Yet, in this example, the specific affectees by this introduced ceiling would make so much noise to all the winds that it would be overturned in a snap. That, and lobbyists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    not so much a bad thing but market adjustments don't happen

    Indeed
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  59. #509
    That's fair enough.

    I'm just saying same car more expensive whilst also stopping you buying a % of the market. This isn't your point clearly.
  60. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    when living paycheck to paycheck, one cannot 'afford' to save even in theory
    Sure you can (unless you're referring to how somebody living paycheck to paycheck definitionally isn't saving).

    I've known a lot of working-low-middle-class people. They all have one thing in common: they throw their money down the toilet and complain about how they live paycheck to paycheck. A commonality among more well off people is tendency to save regardless of income level. In fact, one of the best ways (and probably the single most underrated way) to move up in wealth is to consistently spend less than you make.
  61. #511
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    In fact, one of the best ways (and probably the single most underrated way) to move up in wealth is to consistently spend less than you make.
    The math checks out.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •