I really don't give a fvck what or why, but something about the money Williamson et al are going to make is eating you.
What % of NBA lottery picks' salaries should be redistributed?
- Thread starter GarrettFildman
- Start date
I really don't give a fvck what or why, but something about the money Williamson et al are going to make is eating you.
Yes. Not because I think that's the right thing to do. More because I don't trust the mechanism created to handle that redistribution. I think that mechanism is even more corrupt.
And I believe that their wealth gets redistributed anyway -- when they purchase things. Even expensive cars get built by middle class factory workers. Mansions are built by middle class masons, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc.
No. I believe in equality under the law. They have a responsibility to do what everyone else is required by law to do. Nothing more.
When a "charity" derives its money through the forceful confiscation of the property of others, should it still call itself a charity?
No, dipstick, I believe that the disposition of one's income or wealth, beyond what is legally required, is an individual decision. It is not my place to tell someone what to do with his or her money, which means it sure as hell ain't yours.
Yet, you have no problem discussing what athletes and celebrities make and should donate. You tell them what they should do with their money and tell us what to think. You seem to be quite the hypocrite
There is no need for name calling. It isn't personal. I am simply asking questions.
So how much is the fair share for someone making tens of millions or more in a year? Is it fair that someone should make that much while the usher getting people to their seats is making less than one thousandth of that in the same organization?
Here's your problem: If you raise taxes much more, large earners will simply take their earnings off shore. Now, Williamson can't do that, but he is simply one of the several who make large sums of money and have to abide by federal, state and local taxes. Other's will simply move their money to other countries and the USA will lose billions in investible money. New York City is a perfect analogy. But don't believe me, believe Gov. Cuomo.
Well I appreciate the spirited discussion. I'm sorry some took the questions and thoughts I put forward personally.
I actually am in agreement with most people that you should get to keep the majority of what you earn no matter how high that amount may be.
I also think you have the right to do with it whatever you chose so long as it is legal to do so.
I am incredibly happy for kids like Zion who are bringing more value to their organization and compensated for it like perhaps they never even dreamed. Guys like Saquon Barkley are so easy to root for because they not only are adding that value to their organization, but they are just so humble in doing so and he absolutely does seem to really give to others in his time and otherwise. He's the face of the organization that every organization would love to have.
I think our tax rates are reasonable where they are, progressive but not overly so to the point of oppressive.
I can't understand those who are preoccupied with what others have or make. It isn't like they make what perhaps you should. Let's be real, none of us were in line to be the #1 pick, or were being looked at for that new movie, or to be the next CEO at GE, or founded Amazon. Those people making theirs doesn't in any way limit our opportunity.
I did try to ask reasonable questions to my thoughts on this subject. I also tried to pose reasonable counter positions to my own. It is sometimes a useful exercise to try to understand other points of view.
Most of you rejected those positions that counter my own personal beliefs, but even with the majority here confirming my beliefs, I am still open to listening to alternate points of view. A famous Einstein quote is “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.” So if someone presents alternate views well substantiated by facts and logic, perhaps it sways those with the ability to think and reason. I feel like a major character flaw is anchoring and seeking confirmation bias. That limits our growth.
Anyway, thank you to those willing to share your thoughts.
I actually am in agreement with most people that you should get to keep the majority of what you earn no matter how high that amount may be.
I also think you have the right to do with it whatever you chose so long as it is legal to do so.
I am incredibly happy for kids like Zion who are bringing more value to their organization and compensated for it like perhaps they never even dreamed. Guys like Saquon Barkley are so easy to root for because they not only are adding that value to their organization, but they are just so humble in doing so and he absolutely does seem to really give to others in his time and otherwise. He's the face of the organization that every organization would love to have.
I think our tax rates are reasonable where they are, progressive but not overly so to the point of oppressive.
I can't understand those who are preoccupied with what others have or make. It isn't like they make what perhaps you should. Let's be real, none of us were in line to be the #1 pick, or were being looked at for that new movie, or to be the next CEO at GE, or founded Amazon. Those people making theirs doesn't in any way limit our opportunity.
I did try to ask reasonable questions to my thoughts on this subject. I also tried to pose reasonable counter positions to my own. It is sometimes a useful exercise to try to understand other points of view.
Most of you rejected those positions that counter my own personal beliefs, but even with the majority here confirming my beliefs, I am still open to listening to alternate points of view. A famous Einstein quote is “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.” So if someone presents alternate views well substantiated by facts and logic, perhaps it sways those with the ability to think and reason. I feel like a major character flaw is anchoring and seeking confirmation bias. That limits our growth.
Anyway, thank you to those willing to share your thoughts.
Of course it is! It's about the relative value created.
Just as it is fair that Taylor Swift makes 1,000 more in a year than the chick singing at the local bar?
How much value has the usher created relative to the "talent" on the floor?
NO. those with much more do not have more "responsibility" - whatever that means - to society, at least not via confiscation by govt behind the threat of guns.
If we are being honest, a flat tax is progressive. At a 10% tax rate, someone making $100K pays 10K in taxes. A person making a million dollars pays 100K in taxes. Does the high earner get more national defense or more roads than the lower earner for their 10X "contribution?" Zion will already pay hundreds of time more taxes for the same government services as the average citizen.
When you say "redistribution," you are suggesting that politicians specifically punish high earners because you have deemed that they didn't really earn it, don't deserve it, or have more responsibility b/c of the size of their check. No thanks comrade. We have seen that story and it's not pretty.
Agreed.
Although many have argued that CEOs shouldn't make what they do relative to some common laborer. I fail to see why the CEO with significantly greater responsibility and complexity of duties is held in a different regard than a kid who can run, jump, and put a ball through a hoop or a guy who looks really cool saying lines that he rehearsed or Taylor Swift.
To me, if they command that value either by ability to run a large organization, jump higher than others, sing better, etc. then they earn that pay. And the usher, well, appreciate them for doing their job as well. But they don't add the same value.
It's worse than that. It's suggesting that politicians specifically reward low earners because he or she wants to buy their votes.
Agreed. I almost would go further than the flat tax. I really don't want to tax income at all. I would prefer only a tax on consumption. The problem is that I think consumption only tax may drive purchases off shore for the large ticket items similar to how many have found work arounds to the income tax. So maybe a low flat tax and a low consumption tax combo works best in practice.
Why don't I like to tax income? It is one way people can move up in life. When you tax income, you reduce the ability of someone to move up financially in life. I was born in a family that didn't have money but my dad worked sometimes 3 jobs to get us what we needed. My mom focused on education and I earned scholarships and worked my way through undergrad. I was paid to go back to grad school and now am retired in my mid-40s. I'm not rich in my view, although most in my family think I am. But I feel a combination of work ethic, education, taking risk, and good returns on investments have helped me to live a good life.
Sometimes they do. Especially if that high earner owns a business. Sometimes businesses get tax breaks. Sometimes they get infrastructure upgrades (roads, etc.) in exchange for locating their factory in a certain spot. And they will certainly gain more favorable treatment from politicians looking to pick up a nice campaign donation.
When you said infrastructure upgrades, my mind immediately goes to these cities putting hundreds of millions into stadiums and arenas for the NFL and NBA and the like. I suppose that helps them want to pay athletes more. I get that the city sees it as an investment that they get tax dollars back on job creation and spending, but the same can be said for businesses. And some of these cities are footing these huge new stadium deals while they are practically on the brink of insolvency.
By-product of the massive growth in discretionary income resulting from our economic system.
Did you watch the E-60 on this subject, and how I’ll prepared so many of them are to handle such extreme wealth.
The best things in life are still free.
If I read the news correctly, some of our presidential candidates say 70-90%
