It can't be the money....

The person pulling in $200k+ contributes in ways beyond just taxes. They create jobs at Costco when they purchase their HDTVs. Their McMansions create jobs for builders, etc. and when comepleted for gardeners, etc.

I could argue that the person that makes $200k a year and works until 65 and spends like the Jonses ends up making a larger contribution to society than the person making $200k who LBYMs and retires at 40.

Which is better in the long term? Well that is a different topic!

On a PERCENTAGE basis, the Starbucks barrista pays more taxes, on an ACTUAL cash basis, the $200K a year guy pays about $80K in various taxes,enough to pay about 4-5 folk's SS payment............:eek:
 
The person pulling in $200k+ contributes in ways beyond just taxes. They create jobs at Costco when they purchase their HDTVs. Their McMansions create jobs for builders, etc. and when comepleted for gardeners, etc.

I could argue that the person that makes $200k a year and works until 65 and spends like the Jonses ends up making a larger contribution to society than the person making $200k who LBYMs and retires at 40.

Which is better in the long term? Well that is a different topic!

Let's say the high-stress guy takes his rage out in traffic. He cuts people off, tailgates, lays on the horn, swears, etc. In an average day, he might impact 50 people on the road. Let's say that he gets 5 of those people in a foul mood and causes one of them to start driving like a jerk the rest of the commute home as well. Obviously, this has a cascading effect.

Further, let's say that, because he's so high strung, he has no outlet for his frustration and takes it out on his two boys. Not physical abuse mind you, just emotional belittling. And, since he's working so much, they're neglected. They've got problems at school but all he does is criticise them for bad grades and whining about their problems. Eventually they despair of everything and decide to take out their problems on their school, especially the bullies that picked on them.

The shooting spree makes headlines across the country. 12 students and 3 teachers killed. But, it turns out that one of the teachers, while fatally shot himself, was able to stop the two boys in time before they killed even more people.

Meanwhile, the barrista is always pleasant and engaging with everyone. She connects with her customers on a personal and emotional level. While she might only be in someone's life for a few minutes a day, everyone walks away feeling even more uplifted and engaged.

One of her customers happens to be a Phys Ed teacher who is despondant about life. His wife just left him, his finances are in shambles, and he's thinking he might just skip work to go home and end it all.. run the car in the garage. The barrista picks up on his problems and sits down to talk to him... her simple act of going out of her way gets him out of that funk.

He goes to work at the school that day when two angry young boys come in and start shooting. Putting away any thought for his own safety, he charges after them and manages to wrestle a gun away from one of the boys and shoots them both. He's shot in the process but, as he dies, he knows that he's helped save many others.

So, in this extremely contrived scenario, you could argue that, from a social standpoint, the barrista made the much more positive impact.

In other words, it's probably better to judge people on the moral of their character rather than the size of their paycheck.
 
Strange going on in this thread.... and all just made up stuff....

But I will throw in MY made up stuff...

You talk about the 'high stress' guy making $200K per year.... I will tell you from a lot of experience that the people who make that and above are normally less stressed than the white collar guy making $60 to $100... and the top executives making in the $1 mill range are usually not that stressed either... they MAKE people stressed, but they are not...
 
This post has become increasingly interesting..its amazing how we all interpret and draw conclusions based on what we perceive what someone has said or is thinking. Most of my statemnts in the original post were only observations of events in the society in which we live. I have found that some of us, perhaps study or live economics on the macro level and some of us on the micro level. As a crude analogy, as much as I/we would like to ignore/destroy the plants and trees, we are in fact in a life sustaining symbiotic relationship. I need the oxygen they produce and they need the carbon dioxide I produce,...... just try going 60 seconds without it!

This has become an interesting thread - I have skimmed so I apologize if I am missing a point, but I was thinking along the same lines as Ferco's post - when we consider what someone contributes to society it is increasingly important to ask at what cost does that contribution come? Does the pollution from the 2 hour commute in a single passenger car ofset the added taxes he pays?
 
How did you come up with that?

When I was single, my marginal tax rate was higher than I am now with a family..........more deductions.

What deductions does a 20 year old college student have working 20 hours a week?
 
Let's say the high-stress guy takes his rage out in traffic. He cuts people off, tailgates, lays on the horn, swears, etc. In an average day, he might impact 50 people on the road. Let's say that he gets 5 of those people in a foul mood and causes one of them to start driving like a jerk the rest of the commute home as well. Obviously, this has a cascading effect.

Further, let's say that, because he's so high strung, he has no outlet for his frustration and takes it out on his two boys. Not physical abuse mind you, just emotional belittling. And, since he's working so much, they're neglected. They've got problems at school but all he does is criticise them for bad grades and whining about their problems. Eventually they despair of everything and decide to take out their problems on their school, especially the bullies that picked on them.

The shooting spree makes headlines across the country. 12 students and 3 teachers killed. But, it turns out that one of the teachers, while fatally shot himself, was able to stop the two boys in time before they killed even more people.

Meanwhile, the barrista is always pleasant and engaging with everyone. She connects with her customers on a personal and emotional level. While she might only be in someone's life for a few minutes a day, everyone walks away feeling even more uplifted and engaged.

One of her customers happens to be a Phys Ed teacher who is despondant about life. His wife just left him, his finances are in shambles, and he's thinking he might just skip work to go home and end it all.. run the car in the garage. The barrista picks up on his problems and sits down to talk to him... her simple act of going out of her way gets him out of that funk.

He goes to work at the school that day when two angry young boys come in and start shooting. Putting away any thought for his own safety, he charges after them and manages to wrestle a gun away from one of the boys and shoots them both. He's shot in the process but, as he dies, he knows that he's helped save many others.

So, in this extremely contrived scenario, you could argue that, from a social standpoint, the barrista made the much more positive impact.

In other words, it's probably better to judge people on the moral of their character rather than the size of their paycheck.

What's the address of your Starbucks? Mine sucks, I want to buy coffee at yours......:D
 
When I was single, my marginal tax rate was higher than I am now with a family..........more deductions.

What deductions does a 20 year old college student have working 20 hours a week?

Why does he need deductions? Most likely, that 20 yo college student working 20 hr/week does not pay a dime in tax, except of cource SS and Medicare, which every one pays.
 
What's the address of your Starbucks? Mine sucks, I want to buy coffee at yours......:D

As I said, it was very contrived. Frankly, a bald-faced appeal to emotions. But, in my defense, it was in the spirit of the hypothetical question that I gave one hypothetical answer. Humans are very complex things and I doubt any of us could fully follow a thread of how we impact each other.

In other words, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that, holistically, rich people are necessarily better than normal people.
 
Why does he need deductions? Most likely, that 20 yo college student working 20 hr/week does not pay a dime in tax, except of cource SS and Medicare, which every one pays.

Remember when Ross Perot was pushing for a flat tax, and told everyone he only paid a 2% marginal tax rate on something like $140 million in income? :D
 
In other words, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that, holistically, rich people are necessarily better than normal people.

Argh, so close, but it's the converse we're pushing for.

*Likewise, is not hard to believe that holistically, wealthy people (who earned their wealth), are not necessarily less moral or less ethical.
Agreed?

That's the rejection of the OP. Not the follow-on "clarifications" (or correction however one looks at it), which seem to want to imply that if you are wealthy, you ruined the enivornment by doing so...a new topic perhaps..

-Mach
 
In that case, feel free to repost my story with the roles reversed.

To be honest, I'm really not sure what the point of the original post was.
 
A common fallacy is that higher paying jobs have more stress. IMHO there is more ego downside and more responsibility for decision-making. But the people that excell in those jobs can handle it better that the wage-earning who feels no control over things impacting him.

And they work longer because of it. The downside is that many of them do not attend to many aspects of their personal finances, instead believing that their earning power and stock options will provide for their retirement.
 
And they work longer because of it. The downside is that many of them do not attend to many aspects of their personal finances, instead believing that their earning power and stock options will provide for their retirement.

The truth of that statement is staggering. Try telling a CFO of a publicly traded company he needs to diversify AWAY from his company stock..........:D:D
 
Remember when Ross Perot was pushing for a flat tax, and told everyone he only paid a 2% marginal tax rate on something like $140 million in income? :D

I will call BS on this... a 2% MARGINAL:confused:

Maybe he paid only 2% of his income, but not marginal...


(just having some fun with you Dude>:D)
 
You can free yourself of these issues- exactly the same way that Kahn did. It's called divorce. But often it's cheaper to deal with the issues some other way.

Ha

Ha, been there done that 12 years ago. I'd rather jump on Ginza knifes or go back to work. Retire early does not mean retire early at any price. Besides, she pulls in a nice salary and wants to keep working.

My point is wealth or enough wealth is a perception that is on a relative scale. If we compare our nest egg to the folks with $5M, it is not enough. But how about if we compare to the rest of the planet? People all over the world live happy and meaningfully on much less.
Energy use is a good way to measure consumption.
If we consume 6X the energy of the average person on earth and it is still not enough. Something is not right.
 
Back
Top Bottom