|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How Rich is Rich?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I consider myself rich, though I earn less than 60k.
But do you consider yourself to be so rich that you should suffer punitive rates of taxation in order to shift some of your ill-gotten gains to poorer people?
'Punitive' rather begs the question, doesn't it?
There are definitely benefits I don't get and taxes I pay because of my income. It seems fair enough to me. My capacity to pay is such that I'm not drastically impacted.
When the rules for private health insurance changed here relatively recently, I found that the government would only pay 10% of the cost instead of the previous 30%. They still pay 30% for people on lower incomes. Maybe I'm weird, but I didn't find myself getting worked up about the fact that I now only get a 10% discount. Firstly, it's still a discount. Secondly, I didn't have any kind of feeling that the additional cost was going to drastically impact my life.
But that probably has something to do with me living well inside my means, and I know I'm weird in that respect.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I consider myself rich, though I earn less than 60k.
But do you consider yourself to be so rich that you should suffer punitive rates of taxation in order to shift some of your ill-gotten gains to poorer people?
Part of the problem here is the way the same word - "rich" - is used to mean far different things. There are plenty of socialists who will happily state that rich people are basically evil, that no-one can become rich without exploiting the poor, that rich people neither deserve nor need so much income, and that they should be heavily taxed so that wealth can be more "fairly" distributed. Should those statements apply to someone who earns a mere £60k a year before tax? Hell, that's not even a senior management salary these days, let alone Board Member money.
You're conflating waaaay too many separate issues here, and that's the problem. Addressing each separately is far more helpful:
#1. "plenty of socialists who will happily state that rich people are basically evil, that no-one can become rich without exploiting the poor, that rich people neither deserve nor need so much income." That's probably hyperbole, at least in the US. I would assume most here would disagree with such a blanket statement. The perjorative tone is unnecessary. What is helpful is to note that almost anyone who is able to accumulate significant wealth these days either did so thru inheritance or thru the contributions of many others-- thru careful use of government subsidies, the efforts of very lowly paid workers, etc. That doesn't make them "evil", it does mean that they necessarily "exploited" the poor. But it is relelvant to the discussion of variated tax rates. Removing the perjorative tone (if it exists) is important,
#2. "you should suffer punitive rates of taxation in order to shift some of your ill-gotten gains to poorer people?" goes to the purpose of taxation-- is it to redistribute resources, it is punishment of evil-doers-- or is it simply the way we support a stable govt (recognizing the rich consume more govt services than the poor) and/or encourage economic activity? One can support higher taxes for the wealthy for any/all of these reasons, but the motivation is quite different.
3. "Should those statements apply to someone who earns a mere £60k a year". After you parse out the above statements and get away from the inflammatory "taxation is punitive" rhetoric, you're going to most likely advocate a graduated taxation system, where there won't be any hard-and-fast cut off points, but simply see that those making £60k pay a smaller % than those making £120k and a larger % than those making £30k .
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
How rich is rich?
There are two functional definitions I'm aware of.
1 The Transitive Definition:
I earn a decent amount of money. (The speaker almost always fits this)
They own or earn significantly more than I do so they are rich.
They own or earn significantly less than I do so they are poor.
2: The Functional definition:
If I am geting deeper in debt each month I'm sinking.
If I am living paycheck to paycheck and breaking even I am struggling.
If I don't need to worry about money and add a decent sum to my savings every month I am well off.
If I could cash up now and never have to work again for the rest of my life I am rich.
If I never had to work in the first place because I inherited everything I'd need I am an aristocrat.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I have to say I don't know anyone around here who'd use the term "mere" anywhere near "£60K a year" unless they were being ironic. I don't know anyone on anything approaching that in my social circle. It seems a lot to me.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What is helpful is to note that almost anyone who is able to accumulate significant wealth these days either did so thru inheritance or thru the contributions of many others-- thru careful use of government subsidies, the efforts of very lowly paid workers, etc.
"Significant wealth", maybe. But that isn't at all the case for someone on £60k a year. My boss earns far more than that, and to my knowledge she hasn't inherited a bean or requiored anyone else's help (not counting her fellow workers and staff - myself included - who are all being paid for their efforts as well).
quote:
(recognizing the rich consume more govt services than the poor)
Can you back that claim up, because to me it seems completely backwards. Especially given that the richer someone is, the less likely they are to be reliant on government-provided healthcare or education.
[ 23. September 2013, 15:58: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have to say I don't know anyone around here who'd use the term "mere" anywhere near "£60K a year" unless they were being ironic. I don't know anyone on anything approaching that in my social circle. It seems a lot to me.
It's approximately £4,000 more than my wife and I currently earn - if I get the job I'm applying for, we'll be on a combined income greater than £60k. And yet we still have times where there's not a massive amout of money left at the end of the month - another five or ten thousand per year would really help. I certainly don't think we're rich, and I don't think we'd be rich if only one of us was working and bringing in the whole amount on their own, given that such a situation would be exactly the same in terms of what we could afford to buy and do. And in a hypothetical situation where we had the same income from only one partner with the other partner staying at home to look after a child or two (and the extra expenses that come with them), I think we'd be just about getting by financially.
OK, fine, we could live more cheaply by always eating crap food from Lidl or the chippy, driving a crap car and never going for an evening out or on holiday. But as far as I'm concerned, if we had to do all that then we'd be poor.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
(recognizing the rich consume more govt services than the poor)
Can you back that claim up, because to me it seems completely backwards. Especially given that the richer someone is, the less likely they are to be reliant on government-provided healthcare or education.
The rich benefit proportionately more from the civil courts (poor people don't hire lawyers to help them enforce contracts, for example), from fire protection services, flood control, and other government services and infrastructure that protect property (having more property to protect), from transportation infrastructure (they travel more, and they acquire more stuff that was transported from hither to yon).
The rich use more medical services than poor people, and the training for their doctors (and the research for new medical services) is heavily funded and subsidized by public funds. The rich rarely grow their own food or make their own furniture, but buy more of it than the poor, so they benefit disproportionately from the regulatory apparatus to ensure the safety of food and other consumer products.
The rich are far more likely than the poor to visit national parks and to go on treks in national wilderness areas. These lands are maintained for the benefit of all -- but you have to have the money for the travel and equipment and time away from work to enjoy them.
Do we need to go on?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And yet we still have times where there's not a massive amout of money left at the end of the month - another five or ten thousand per year would really help.
[cut parts not relevant to what I'm saying]
OK, fine, we could live more cheaply by always eating crap food from Lidl or the chippy, driving a crap car and never going for an evening out or on holiday. But as far as I'm concerned, if we had to do all that then we'd be poor.
Then I think most people (even in the UK, USA, etc.) are poor, Marvin. We can all easily use up all of our money each month things we think we need. At least anyone who's not seriously a millionaire can. If that's the definition of rich, I think we are into only millionaires are rich, and not all of them even.
[Edited because of crosspost]
[ 23. September 2013, 16:41: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Then I think most people (even in the UK, USA, etc.) are poor, Marvin. We can all easily use up all of our money each month things we think we need. At least anyone who's not seriously a millionaire can. If that's the definition of rich, I think we are into only millionaires are rich, and not all of them even.
Again, take a look at the L-curve. Use the zoom buttons and scroll from one end to the other. That's how income is distributed in our country. Which means that the person on food stamps and the millionaire are a lot closer to each other than either is to anyone at the very top of the income distribution.
This also explains why the majority can no longer get laws passed in this country. Money is power. And that power is in fewer and fewer hands. We're no longer a democracy. We're a plutocracy. We really are.
The folks at the top manage to keep the rest of us fighting with each other for crumbs, so we never notice what they've taken from all of us. And it's working.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Then I think most people (even in the UK, USA, etc.) are poor, Marvin.
I don't think it's a binary thing where you're either rich or you're poor. There's a large part of the middle of the spectrum where you're neither.
I'm not poor, and I'm happy to affirm that. But I'm not rich either.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Oh, I know, and it's ridiculous. It's just that I think millionaires are the first people who can actually manage to say they've bought about everything they want and still have money left over. I know that if we went to visit family 1/5 as often we wanted, we'd be broke. Let alone if we even occasionally went on vacations to a destination (as opposed to going to see family. I don't at all blame Marvin for being able to do some of these things, if he can--different choices. But I consider myself to make a good salary, and I think we are living comfortably. If we didn't owe money, I think we would be doing very well. In fact, maybe I'm trying to make a similar point to that L-curve--there may be people well below you (income-wise) who are not living all that differently, and the people above you are probably having to worry about their budgets too.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I do know that the food from Lidl isn't crap. Well, not all of it, rather like Sainsburys in that regard.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Sensible point though - of the people I know well, I think I earn the most. When Mrs Backslider goes back to work (the kids are a bit older now) we'll have a combined income around that £60K. Given that as I just said I don't think I know anyone closely on more than that, we're rich by definition.
Hence even though I can readily see us bringing in that much combined, I can't call it "mere". It's more than everyone I know well manages on.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
A packet of spaghetti is a packet of spaghetti, whether you buy it at Lidl or at Waitrose.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What is helpful is to note that almost anyone who is able to accumulate significant wealth these days either did so thru inheritance or thru the contributions of many others-- thru careful use of government subsidies, the efforts of very lowly paid workers, etc.
"Significant wealth", maybe. But that isn't at all the case for someone on £60k a year. My boss earns far more than that, and to my knowledge she hasn't inherited a bean or requiored anyone else's help (not counting her fellow workers and staff - myself included - who are all being paid for their efforts as well).
quote:
(recognizing the rich consume more govt services than the poor)
Can you back that claim up, because to me it seems completely backwards. Especially given that the richer someone is, the less likely they are to be reliant on government-provided healthcare or education.
The point I'm making is that NO ONE makes any amount of money in isolation. You make money because you live in a society with good roads to move products to market, an educated workforce you can draw upon as laborers, a good court system to enforce contracts, etc. Without that, doing business-- any business, on any scale-- would be difficult and significantly more risky (try doing business is Somalia). Your boss DID require help because all of those things-- paid for by the taxpayers-- contributed to her success. Which is not to say that her own effort, ingenuity, drive, hard work and financial investment wasn't a factor, even a greater factor. Simply that that didn't happen in a vacuum.
Same thing with #2. The rich consume more of a different sort of government services. They obviously won't be using food stamps or welfare benefits, and, as you note, are less likely to be using public education or health care. But, simply because they have more to lose (in terms of possessions), they are using more of other sorts of services-- for example, police and fire protection, court system, etc. They are also more likely to take advantage of things like price supports, trade deals, etc. That's all hard to quantify, although some shipmate may be able to put your google finger on some economist's estimate.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
I'm not sure whether we are rich or not - on the one hand, we can eat meat every day, we can even throw it away if it's gone off and buy more. I even bought a very nice pair of sharp knives recently to help me cut up all my food. But we aren't saving any money at the moment, we're renting, we don't have a car or any children.
Apparently I'm earning roughly a living wage for a single adult living where I do.
Maybe this could be a rule of thumb for how rich you are - if you were asked to work overtime, paid at your normal hourly wage, would you work it, or would you rather go home? How many hours a week would you do - 5, 10, 20? How many weeks would you do that for? Would it be a different number if you could work the overtime from home?
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The point I'm making is that NO ONE makes any amount of money in isolation. You make money because you live in a society with good roads to move products to market, an educated workforce you can draw upon as laborers, a good court system to enforce contracts, etc. Without that, doing business-- any business, on any scale-- would be difficult and significantly more risky (try doing business is Somalia). Your boss DID require help because all of those things-- paid for by the taxpayers-- contributed to her success. Which is not to say that her own effort, ingenuity, drive, hard work and financial investment wasn't a factor, even a greater factor. Simply that that didn't happen in a vacuum.
If nobody earns what they earn in isolation, why does that only ever get pointed out when talking about richer people? Everybody gets the benefit of education, roads, etc. so why not split the cost equally or proportionately to income?
quote:
Same thing with #2. The rich consume more of a different sort of government services. They obviously won't be using food stamps or welfare benefits, and, as you note, are less likely to be using public education or health care. But, simply because they have more to lose (in terms of possessions), they are using more of other sorts of services-- for example, police and fire protection, court system, etc. They are also more likely to take advantage of things like price supports, trade deals, etc. That's all hard to quantify, although some shipmate may be able to put your google finger on some economist's estimate.
I'm not convinced that having more stuff means requiring more police/court time. They only get involved if a crime is committed, and I'm sure I've read that poorer people are victims of crime more often than rich. Plus, rich people can afford their own lawyers rather than needing state-provided ones.
Of course, the clincher for this sub-debate is simple: if the rich we're using more government resources than the poor, why would taxing them at higher rates be redistributive?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The point I'm making is that NO ONE makes any amount of money in isolation. You make money because you live in a society with good roads to move products to market, an educated workforce you can draw upon as laborers, a good court system to enforce contracts, etc. Without that, doing business-- any business, on any scale-- would be difficult and significantly more risky (try doing business is Somalia). Your boss DID require help because all of those things-- paid for by the taxpayers-- contributed to her success. Which is not to say that her own effort, ingenuity, drive, hard work and financial investment wasn't a factor, even a greater factor. Simply that that didn't happen in a vacuum.
If nobody earns what they earn in isolation, why does that only ever get pointed out when talking about richer people?
You're kidding me, right? The debt that the poor owe to society is CONSTANTLY being pointed out-- including in your own posts here. The poor are constantly reminded that they are being supported by "government handouts" whether it's food stamps or government cheese (flashback to the 80s) or whatever. It is only the wealthy who are under the illusion that they have reaped no benefit from society as a whole or the government.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Everybody gets the benefit of education, roads, etc. so why not split the cost equally or proportionately to income?
Well, as pointed out, that's not entirely true. As was pointed out, the rich travel more than the poor-- so they use more roads, national parks, etc. And the point of a graduated tax system as advocated here is in fact, to split the cost proportionally.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Same thing with #2. The rich consume more of a different sort of government services. They obviously won't be using food stamps or welfare benefits, and, as you note, are less likely to be using public education or health care. But, simply because they have more to lose (in terms of possessions), they are using more of other sorts of services-- for example, police and fire protection, court system, etc. They are also more likely to take advantage of things like price supports, trade deals, etc. That's all hard to quantify, although some shipmate may be able to put your google finger on some economist's estimate.
I'm not convinced that having more stuff means requiring more police/court time. They only get involved if a crime is committed, and I'm sure I've read that poorer people are victims of crime more often than rich. Plus, rich people can afford their own lawyers rather than needing state-provided ones. [/QB]
I'm not suggesting that the rich are more subject to crime, at least the breaking-and-entering type. In fact, as you suspect, the poor are more frequent victims of crime of that sort. Rather, I'm talking about the financial consequences: the rich have more property to protect, from fire, from theft, or from fraudulent "bad players" (i.e. needing the protection of the court system).
While the rich can and do hire their own lawyers, that doesn't help them much in a place like Somalia where there isn't a strong court system. Having good lawyers only helps you if you have strong courts backed by a strong government. The rich are significantly more likely to use those courts for civil actions-- enforcing contracts, etc.-- again, simply because they have more to protect.
And you don't need to particular USE services to benefit from them. The fact that we have strong courts and strong police systems are an obvious deterrent to would-be criminals-- whether garden-variety burglars or a while collar con artist who doesn't uphold his end of a business contract.
All of that without even getting into the question of police and fire response times in affluent neighborhoods vs. inner city.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, the clincher for this sub-debate is simple: if the rich we're using more government resources than the poor, why would taxing them at higher rates be redistributive?
I'm not really sure how to answer this, because it seems like basic math: if group A pays less of the total cost of government, then increasing the percentage they pay would obviously redistribute wealth. I'm not sure what needs explaining there?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I consider myself rich, though I earn less than 60k.
But do you consider yourself to be so rich that you should suffer punitive rates of taxation in order to shift some of your ill-gotten gains to poorer people?
Part of the problem here is the way the same word - "rich" - is used to mean far different things. There are plenty of socialists who will happily state that rich people are basically evil, that no-one can become rich without exploiting the poor, that rich people neither deserve nor need so much income, and that they should be heavily taxed so that wealth can be more "fairly" distributed. Should those statements apply to someone who earns a mere £60k a year before tax? Hell, that's not even a senior management salary these days, let alone Board Member money.
I think it frankly odd that, in a recession, when I am single, employed fulltime, and own my own house outright - everytime there was a budget in the last three years I end up slightly better off or down by an annual total of about 50p, on a bad year maybe a whole tenner.
At the same time I work with people who are barely getting by. It doesn't seem right.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
if group A pays less of the total cost of government, then increasing the percentage they pay would obviously redistribute wealth. I'm not sure what needs explaining there?
It only redistributes wealth if the extra tax ends up going to group B. if it just (or mostly) gets spent on group A anyway, then it's still being spent on group A and isn't being redistributed.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
When we lived in the UK we certainly didn't feel very rich although on paper our combined salaries looked reasonable (though not in the 60K bracket). However as someone said earlier a large chunk of it was swallowed up in housing costs each month. In our case a mortgage on a modest 1970's housing estate semi - nothing very fancy. Although I was working two days a week I was paying out over £100 per week on childcare, so that was another significant chunk gone. Housing costs, childcare costs, fuel costs are all significant drains on what looks like a fairly decent income.
These days whether I feel rich or poor depends on the who I am comparing myself to. Living in Tunisia I am aware that we have so much more than so many people here and are very blessed to have a comfortable home and enough money to allow for treats and holidays. Today I visited the home of a local woman which reminded me again of my relative wealth. Her home is a simple courtyard with a few rooms opening off it, in a poor and densely populated part of the city. (However even in Tunisia a TV is considered a pretty basic essential!)I am rich in comparison. However our kids go to an International school, their school friends are the children of doctors, diplomats, business people and other well off members of society. We are volunteer overseas development workers living in a slightly shabby apartment, with an old CRT TV, no smartphone, no ipad, no swimming pool, no Mercedes to drive. When I pick up our kids from birthday parties in the beautiful homes of their friends I don't feel very rich at all! At times we have worried about money as unexpected expenses have come up but somehow we always seem to have been provided for by the generosity of others, prompted we feel by our heavenly father who knows what we need.
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
if group A pays less of the total cost of government, then increasing the percentage they pay would obviously redistribute wealth. I'm not sure what needs explaining there?
It only redistributes wealth if the extra tax ends up going to group B. if it just (or mostly) gets spent on group A anyway, then it's still being spent on group A and isn't being redistributed.
We're not talking about changing the budgeted items-- the total expenditures on things like the courts, police and fire protection-- those services that benefit the rich more than the poor-- remain the same, so there's no "extra tax" for group A to spend on services. Rather, we're suggesting that if group A (the rich) pay more taxes then group B (the poor) is able to pay somewhat less taxes, while the level of services to both rich and poor remains the same. Thus you have effectively "redistributed" wealth-- in a way that, to myself at least (not one of the "poor"), seems fair.
[ 23. September 2013, 22:28: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
£60K a year not rich? ... But what is rich?
"A woman can never be too rich or too thin."
-Wallace Warfield Simpson, Duchess of Windsor
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
It's all relative, isn't it? I think it was Dickens who said something like:
quote:
Annual income £100, annual expenditure £99 - result: happiness
Annual income £100, annual expenditure £101 - result: misery
He was probably about right.
We dream of an income of £60,000; for the first 7 years we lived here in Canada I wasn't eligible to work, and our gross income was about $25,000 - $30,000.* When I got a job two years ago it went up by $20,000. While we're not on the bread-line, we're nowhere near what I'd call "rich".
I think my definition of "rich" in financial terms would be "never having to worry about money".
* When we moved here 10 years ago the pound was worth about $2.40; for the last 5 years or so it's been more like about $1.60.
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
It's all relative, isn't it? I think it was Dickens who said something like:
quote:
Annual income £100, annual expenditure £99 - result: happiness
Annual income £100, annual expenditure £101 - result: misery
He was probably about right.
Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield. (And IIRC twenty pounds was the income, with expenditures of nineteen, nineteen and six or twenty, ought and six to land you in happiness or misery.)
quote:
I think my definition of "rich" in financial terms would be "never having to worry about money".
Yes, I think that's it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
In updating my congregation's facebook page, I came across the epistle for next Sunday.
"For we brought nothing into this world. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that." 1 Timothy 6:7,8
As I look at some of the comments here, I note some have said those with high income do not feel rich, while some who have low income have said they feel rich.
I think the writer to Timothy would say if you are content with what you have, you are rich.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
I think my definition of "rich" in financial terms would be "never having to worry about money".
I'd agree. And I'd say that under that definition, one isn't really rich until one has at least a million. I'm not sure what level of annual income that translates to, but it sure as heck ain't £60,000!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
I think my definition of "rich" in financial terms would be "never having to worry about money".
I'd agree. And I'd say that under that definition, one isn't really rich until one has at least a million. I'm not sure what level of annual income that translates to, but it sure as heck ain't £60,000!
Last time I checked the equivalent to £1m capital was around £100k income, but interest rates and the like have changed since then.
[ 24. September 2013, 10:14: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
We get the majority of our food from Aldi and save about a third on our bill, and and most of the food there is really good. We could now afford to shop at Waitrose(just about)but why waste money. Some people are just too snobbish about where they shop. I don't know much about lydl but know people that are pleased with it.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
We get the majority of our food from Aldi and save about a third on our bill, and and most of the food there is really good. We could now afford to shop at Waitrose(just about)but why waste money. Some people are just too snobbish about where they shop. I don't know much about lydl but know people that are pleased with it.
It's much the same as Aldi but is better for cold meats. And it does more cereal bars that don't contain milk products.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
Apparently I'm earning roughly a living wage for a single adult living where I do.
I'm pretty sure my husband and I prefer living more cheaply than most do, but still I somewhat sceptical of that site. It may not translate well to the US as it says we live off of 50-60% of what we would need to survive; even though we are paying back student loan etc debt every month, so we are clearly doing okay.
It does seem quite a high figure - I would say that we were comfortable rather than scraping by. I'd say their figures for food costs are higher than they need to be, for instance.
Cost of living varies between countries, of course - transport costs are quite high here.
Here's a Living Wage calculator for the USA to compare with.
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
It does seem quite a high figure - I would say that we were comfortable rather than scraping by. I'd say their figures for food costs are higher than they need to be, for instance.
I think both sites (US and Irish) have a slightly generous food allocation. Other than that, the US site is rather meaner about what it calls necessary expenses than the Irish one. I gave it my details, and I would say that it significantly lowballs housing.
The Irish one also allocates very much more for clothing, beer etc.
I'd say that the Irish site is aiming at a pleasant, comfortable life, whereas the US site is aiming at "not on the streets".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
As I understand it, because of inflation, you'd now need £7 million to have the "millionaire" lifestyle envisaged in songs like "Who wants to be a millionaire?"
Of course, if someone offered me £1 million, I'd take it - I wouldn't be asking where the other £6 million was. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
