The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: GU on March 14, 2017, 11:47:49 AM
-
Presented just for entertainment, not to impugn anyone's morals. It seems to me that your typical Mustachian is a moderate left-wing Progressive type (but perhaps I'm just projecting MMM onto his readers). At any rate, it is pretty obvious that there are plenty of Mustachians that fit this profile. Prior to the election of Trump*, the focus of the mainstream American left has been: (i) reduce inequality, especially by raising taxes on the rich; (ii) protect the environment to a greater extent; (iii) decrease racial/gender discrimination; and (iv) play defense or make incremental expansions to existing social welfare programs including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc.
I posit that common features of Mustachianism are at odds with all of these policy aims to some extent.
First, the amount of legal but aggressive tax avoidance pushed on MMM is astounding. Tax loss harvesting! Back-door Roth! And so on. How is lowering the tax rate of admittedly wealthy people (early retirees), therefore increasing inequality and reducing the amount of money the government can redistribute to more deserving people, consistent with a commitment to eradicating inequality? I know, most will say "I'm not really rich!" or "tax the fat cats, not me" or "tax big business"! I'm reminded of the famous saying "don't tax him, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree!" and the study which found that 44% of millionaires consider themselves "middle class," with another 40% saying they were "upper middle class." www.cnbc.com/2015/05/06/naires-say-theyre-middle-class.html
If Trump did a back-door Roth, there would have been apoplectic articles in the NY Times about how crooked it is, yet Mustachians are cool with all that.
Second, a majority of Mustachians want to retire and travel the world. Flying in an airplane is one of the worst possible things you can do for the environment, especially in such a short amount of time. A couple trans-oceanic flights wipe out a lifetime worth of bicycling to the grocery store. How does flying around the world mesh with a staunch commitment to environmentalism? Hasn't Trump been getting crap for flying to Florida all the time? Why is better when you do it?
Third, large institutions like big businesses, universities, government agencies, etc. are subject to all sorts of burdensome and restrictive rules and regulations around race and gender, and political correctness is enforced informally but with brutal efficiency. Mustachians get to drop out of this world and think and act as they wish. Even if they start a side hustle or small business, they will be exempt from most of these rules and regulations. If you support all these rules because you think it makes the world a better place, why are you in such a hurry to abandon the part of the world that is subject to those rules? [I admit this is pretty weak]
[I deleted this because it is too weak and distracting from other issues]
Fourth, Mustachians like to exchange tips on how to get healthcare for as cheap as possible, including "gaming" various systems in place to help the destitute, not unmotivated rich people. People with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, in their portfolios that take Medicaid or ACA vouchers intended to help poor people afford healthcare undermine support for those programs. Imagine the reactions from the general public "why should a 45-year old nurse pay taxes to fund some rich 36-year old retiree's healthcare? Are you kidding me?" Imagine if Ivanka Trump qualified for Medicaid because she succeeded in sheltering all of her income from tax, and that she took it. People would be getting out their pitchforks, yet rich Mustachians don't bat an eye.
*I'm no Trump supporter, but since he's the bête noire of the left right now, I'll use him as a reference periodically.
-
Interesting questions. I can't speak for anyone more than myself, who I consider a left-leaning semi-mustachian. Let's see if I can conjure up some answers for you.
- Tax Avoidance. I suppose I don't see taking advantage of the current system to be at odds of wanting to see the system changed. Sure, I could not take advantage of my 401(k) tax shelter and pay more now, but how likely is it that those extra dollars will make a positive change in society? I'd rather vote for bond measures to support local schools or elect politicians who will favor more supportive social programs. Similarly, I could use my tax savings to give directly to causes that I feel are important (like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood, as the latest election has prompted me to do. I can't speak from a perspective of altruism here since I am as greedy as the next person, but I fundamentally don't see these two ideas as being necessarily in conflict.
- Travel the World. I think that we (MMM folks) do enjoy travel, though perhaps not everyone or maybe not even the majority of people. I certainly love it and have done my fair share of it. Your point about the environmental damage is well-placed and I don't have a good answer for that other than carbon offsets or trying to have a smaller footprint at home. That said, I think there are significant benefits from world travel that are easy to discount that may factor in. For example, learning about other countries and cultures promotes an awareness that our way is not the only way of doing things, that there are valuable ideas to be had elsewhere, that people who look different and speak different languages are people worthy of respect and interaction just like people at home. Having a global mindset and ties outside your home country/town/state may make it easier to empathize with the plight of refugees or open up your wallet when the next tsunami strikes.
burdensome and restrictive rules and regulations around race and gender, and political correctness is enforced informally but with brutal efficiency
As my large engineering company has realized and many others like it, embracing things like an open and inclusive workforce leads to better results. Better work environments, happier employees, better bottom-line returns. Having a diversity of ideas has been shown again and again to improve group problem solving. I personally would love the freedom of not having to work, but I love the aspect of my job that includes mentoring and coaching and helping others expand their careers. I have no desire to go start a small business where I am free to ignore the inclusion values that I admire at my current workplace.- I don't get healthcare subsidies (except what the gov indirectly gives me through my employer) and don't plan on doing so in retirement. I think this is similar to the taxes debate above though. Taking advantage of what the system offers me is not mutually exclusive of wanting the system to be fairer and treat the disadvantaged better. We would all win if we could simply do away with our catastrophe of a healthcare system and replace it tomorrow with a Canada- or UK-type system, thereby drastically reducing overall spending and improving outcomes. Think of what we could do with a few extra percentage points of GDP that could be diverted to other projects?
-
I would qualify as left leaning, Bernie-style, with some libertariansim mixed in...
1.) Taxes - I actually hope real tax reform occurs. I personally think the ultimate Mustachian policy would be a flat consumption/national sales tax. Those who consume more, pay more - on all transactions - cars, homes, stuff to go in homes, etc. That will make the rich hedge fund guys pay their fair share as they buy lots of crazy expensive stuff. And I guess for now I fall into the camp that rules are rules - so I try to pay as little tax as possible within the system without flat out lying. So I don;t hold it against the Trumps and Buffets of the world who can shelter income. But I do hope it changes soon
And the Trump and Roth - sorry, that made laugh. The guy is somehow a financial black hole. If he bothered to put away his $5500 and age related catch-up contribution in a backdoor Roth? I don't think anyone would ever notice or care. How would we? No tax returns to review... And seriously, I don't think the lost future revenue of backdoor Roth IRAs is going to be very significant
2.) Travel - most mustachians do not take their own plane. So just by flying commercial with hundreds of others, you would be doing hundreds of times less harm to the environment than Trump. I bet many mustachians are also more cognizant of how they travel and consume once they get to their destination as well..
3.) Gender/Race - Yeah, this one was pretty weak, sorry. Why would not wanting to be part of the academic/industrial machine be running away from equality? Not wanting to continue to toil away as a cog for MegaCorp doesn't make me less likely to support these ideas.
4.) Healthcare - Unmotivated rich people would just pay out of pocket for healthcare. Mustachians would qualify as very motivated people, rich or not. As a Bernie type on this, I think we should have universal health care, so early retirees are the perfect example of folks who should be able to get access to basic healthcare. We would also likely have a very robust return of small business - I know so many people that would love to try and open a store in that vacant storefront on Main St. USA (Not just on Etsy or wherever), but they don't want to get crushed by lack of healthcare if they leave their corporate job. Again, the ACA/Medicaid wasn't necessarily being gamed, but rather used in the way I think it should be (this is clearly not a libertarian position of mine)
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
US-Canadian duel citizen here. Born and raised in the States, live in Canada since 2004. "Pay" taxes on both sides of the border (make less than the foreign income exemption as of now, so for now I only pay in Canada - however, I still file my taxes according to the law in the States).
I make 55k CAD a year. My job would probably gross me about 60-90k USD in New England, US (where I'm from). Even though after taxes I take home 37k of my 55k, I wouldn't make the trade, especially now. My taxes give me a lot. Presently, I don't use the free healthcare, cheap/free education, and all the other social services that I pay for - but they peace of mind they afford me if something were to happen to me, is definitely worth the 18k a year.
-
On Trump's flying to Florida: The only reason it's attracting scrutiny is because Trump and other Republicans constantly complained about Obama's golfing. Frankly, Trump going to Florida every weekend doesn't even register as a problem when compared to everything else he's doing.
Also would GLADLY pay more in taxes to have universal health care.
-
Canadian Leftie perspective here:
1. Taxes - I use the current tax laws to moderate the taxes I pay. I don't do anything illegal and I do pay significant taxes while working and my projections show I'll be paying a lot of taxes in FIRE. If the government wants to raise taxes on me to end homelessness, improve the education/healthcare systems, reduce poverty, etc... go nuts. I'll vote for that shit and I'll happily hand over many thousands of dollars of taxes to pay for it. OTOH - if there is a seniors tax credit I'll happily take that as well. If the government cuts the senior's tax credit for anyone making over $40K/yr and I lose it that's fine since it's a reasonable test of need. If I end up in one of the many likely successful FIRE years and end up with a couple spare millions I'll donate that money to charity and support some worthy causes as a voluntary social tax.
2. Flying/Environment - well I'm not a lover of plane flight, but I do plan many roadtrips in FIRE. Firstly I did the best thing I could in terms of limiting my environmental impact - I didn't breed. There is nothing I could do [realistically] that would ever wipe out that benefit to the environment. Now it's true I could stay home and not travel, but I am not a saint. I do plan to make my road trips last months each so that the driving to get from point A to point B is amortized over many days of travel. I don't hold up my life as worthy of environmental sainthood. OTOH I don't feel like an asshole either.
3. Gender/Race - weak and not worthy of response.
4. Healthcare - I paid into our national healthcare system all my life and have used very little in the way of services. I will continue to pay in FIRE, but will likely need more help. That said I do plan to end my own life with a MAD [Medically Assisted Death] when the tide turns for my health and not drag shit out. It's only a guess, but I could easily save the country 50% of my lifetime medical costs by doing this....not to mention avoid lots of suffering.
-
There are all kinds of people on these boards, but the thing that strikes me the most is that mustachians are pragmatists and optimizers. Simply put having a more equitable society is an overall net benefit to the society. In the same way immigration has been a positive force for the US, not a negative one. Universal (single payer healthcare) both costs less to the government AND provides overall better care than the mess that is the US healthcare system. As far as travel, I would imagine many mustachians would be, if they were not tied down to a job, traveling more. But probably not flying to cancun for a 4 day trip but going somewhere and doing slow travel, which both immerses one in the culture more, and is less environmentally costly.
I would imagine that most people dislike trump not because he is a Republican or right-wing, but because he is a mean-spirited ignorant, possibly psychologically unstable person whose policies are harmful.
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
+1 (and I would add education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and a number of other things to the list of things I would willing pay more in taxes to support)
-
There are all kinds of people on these boards, but the thing that strikes me the most is that mustachians are pragmatists and optimizers. Simply put having a more equitable society is an overall net benefit to the society. In the same way immigration has been a positive force for the US, not a negative one. Universal (single payer healthcare) both costs less to the government AND provides overall better care than the mess that is the US healthcare system. As far as travel, I would imagine many mustachians would be, if they were not tied down to a job, traveling more. But probably not flying to cancun for a 4 day trip but going somewhere and doing slow travel, which both immerses one in the culture more, and is less environmentally costly.
I would imagine that most people dislike trump not because he is a Republican or right-wing, but because he is a mean-spirited ignorant, possibly psychologically unstable person whose policies are harmful.
+1
-
I fully agree that there is a portion of this community who are
Hippocratic hypocrites but rationalize their actions to themselves:
1) Some here say that they are willing to pay more in taxes. Guess what, you have the right to write a check to the IRS any day you want. Go ahead, increase your tax burden voluntarily. Warrant buffet keeps asking to be taxed more but why not pull out his check book and write a big fat check himself.
2) Mustachianism is about decreasing spending and living life by being self sufficient and badass. But there is no room to cut government spending or look for ways to decrease the cost of government programs. This country like most American's doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending problem. Yet Mustachians keep wanting to increase taxes and increase spending.
3) Those Mustachians who say they have paid into the healthcare system and retire early. Believe me, the cost of your healthcare will far outweigh your 15 years of medicaid tax contributions that you paid at the lowest rate possible. Hard working American's will be covering your care. That squarely puts them into the moocher class.
4) Yup, Mustachians sure love to travel and burn fuel. You can rationalize that it is not so bad since the plane is flying there anyways, but planes fill up with you on it or not which means demand is high enough and your butt could stay home and not burn the extra fuel.
There are a few on here who actually practice what they preach and I commend you for your convictions. The rest are just lying to themselves.
Me, I want my taxes lower, I like to travel and I don't care if I burn gas to do it. I also want a more efficient lower cost government that doesn't burden business with unnecessary costs and doesn't meddle in other country's affairs.
-
Rebuttal inserted. I lean left but I would like some optimisation. Our governments blow billions on ideology, instead of well considered policy.
I fully agree that there is a portion of this community who are Hippocratic but rationalize their actions to themselves:
1) Some here say that they are willing to pay more in taxes. Guess what, you have the right to write a check to the IRS any day you want. Go ahead, increase your tax burden voluntarily. Warrant buffet keeps asking to be taxed more but why not pull out his check book and write a big fat check himself. I doubt anyone is simply "willing" to pay more. Most people would accept an increase if it went to their priorities AND if the existing spending was optimised
2) Mustachianism is about decreasing spending and living life by being self sufficient and badass. But there is no room to cut government spending or look for ways to decrease the cost of government programs. This country like most American's doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending problem. Yet Mustachians keep wanting to increase taxes and increase spending. Spending hitting record highs is hardly the problem... as the economy grows everything should always hit record highs (wages, profits, tax etc). It's the comparative rates of growth that really matter. I would be happy to see the rate of government spending growth reduce or flatline and optimised across all programs. Our tax burden is enough as a % of GDP is enough, the way it is raised and from whom, and the way it is spent are 2 very different problems to be argued at the ballot box
3) Those Mustachians who say they have paid into the healthcare system and retire early. Believe me, the cost of your healthcare will far outweigh your 15 years of medicaid tax contributions that you paid at the lowest rate possible. Hard working American's will be covering your care. That squarely puts them into the moocher class.Same argument applies for government age pension here in Australia. People argue "I've paid tax all my life so I deserve the pension" but it's a fallacy... they don't pay nearly enough to cover what they draw plus all the other uses of their taxes. Truth is the 1% pay the lion share of taxes and subsidise everyone else. But there's the rub... at what point does society at large say "you've got too much, more than what could be considered a reasonable profit out of the society that you have generated it from".
4) Yup, Mustachians sure love to travel and burn fuel. You can rationalize that it is not so bad since the plane is flying there anyways, but planes fill up with you on it or not which means demand is high enough and your butt could stay home and not burn the extra fuel. A Mustachian who doesn't drive much and is efficient with electricity usage would still burn less fuel on a trip overseas on a passenger plane, than the average citizen of the western world in the average year.
There are a few on here who actually practice what they preach and I commend you for your convictions. The rest are just lying to themselves.
Me, I want my taxes lower, I like to travel and I don't care if I burn gas to do it. I also want a more efficient lower cost government that doesn't burden business with unnecessary costs and doesn't meddle in other country's affairs.
-
I fully agree that there is a portion of this community who are Hippocratic but rationalize their actions to themselves:
I have to ask. Why are you picking on doctors? ;)
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
+1 (and I would add education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and a number of other things to the list of things I would willing pay more in taxes to support)
One can always write a bigger check to the US Treasury than what the 1040 form indicates is your fair share.
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
+1 (and I would add education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and a number of other things to the list of things I would willing pay more in taxes to support)
One can always write a bigger check to the US Treasury than what the 1040 form indicates is your fair share.
Why do people keep using this argument? It's disingenuous in the extreme.
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
+1 (and I would add education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and a number of other things to the list of things I would willing pay more in taxes to support)
One can always write a bigger check to the US Treasury than what the 1040 form indicates is your fair share.
Why do people keep using this argument? It's disingenuous in the extreme.
Probably the lack of proper education that they think other people should pay for.
-
I fully agree that there is a portion of this community who are Hippocratic but rationalize their actions to themselves:
I have to ask. Why are you picking on doctors? ;)
Damit....stupid autocorrect and my idiot spelling :(
-
Rebuttal inserted. I lean left but I would like some optimisation. Our governments blow billions on ideology, instead of well considered policy.
I fully agree that there is a portion of this community who are Hippocratic but rationalize their actions to themselves:
1) Some here say that they are willing to pay more in taxes. Guess what, you have the right to write a check to the IRS any day you want. Go ahead, increase your tax burden voluntarily. Warrant buffet keeps asking to be taxed more but why not pull out his check book and write a big fat check himself. I doubt anyone is simply "willing" to pay more. Most people would accept an increase if it went to their priorities AND if the existing spending was optimised
2) Mustachianism is about decreasing spending and living life by being self sufficient and badass. But there is no room to cut government spending or look for ways to decrease the cost of government programs. This country like most American's doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending problem. Yet Mustachians keep wanting to increase taxes and increase spending. Spending hitting record highs is hardly the problem... as the economy grows everything should always hit record highs (wages, profits, tax etc). It's the comparative rates of growth that really matter. I would be happy to see the rate of government spending growth reduce or flatline and optimised across all programs. Our tax burden is enough as a % of GDP is enough, the way it is raised and from whom, and the way it is spent are 2 very different problems to be argued at the ballot box
3) Those Mustachians who say they have paid into the healthcare system and retire early. Believe me, the cost of your healthcare will far outweigh your 15 years of medicaid tax contributions that you paid at the lowest rate possible. Hard working American's will be covering your care. That squarely puts them into the moocher class.Same argument applies for government age pension here in Australia. People argue "I've paid tax all my life so I deserve the pension" but it's a fallacy... they don't pay nearly enough to cover what they draw plus all the other uses of their taxes. Truth is the 1% pay the lion share of taxes and subsidise everyone else. But there's the rub... at what point does society at large say "you've got too much, more than what could be considered a reasonable profit out of the society that you have generated it from".
4) Yup, Mustachians sure love to travel and burn fuel. You can rationalize that it is not so bad since the plane is flying there anyways, but planes fill up with you on it or not which means demand is high enough and your butt could stay home and not burn the extra fuel. A Mustachian who doesn't drive much and is efficient with electricity usage would still burn less fuel on a trip overseas on a passenger plane, than the average citizen of the western world in the average year.
There are a few on here who actually practice what they preach and I commend you for your convictions. The rest are just lying to themselves.
Me, I want my taxes lower, I like to travel and I don't care if I burn gas to do it. I also want a more efficient lower cost government that doesn't burden business with unnecessary costs and doesn't meddle in other country's affairs.
That is a solid rebuttal, here is mine:
1) I believe that most people are more willing to accept a small increase on others as opposed to themselves yet are willing to say otherwise to fit their ideals.
2) Record spending would be okay if it wasn't outside of our means. Our deficit is rising faster than our GDP. This is an unsustainable habit.
3) Yup, the 1% and the middle class pay for almost everything in this country. It doesn't mean that early retirees should mooch off of them. Not fair. Save enough to cover your own healthcare/insurance premiums then retire. Otherwise you are taking advantage of those willing to work. It is no different than the patient I had the other day with asthma who somehow convinced the government she is too sick to work and now on disability. I know how bad her asthma is. Get up off your ass and get a job you leach.
4) Just because you ride a bike often does not mean you should go out of your way and pollute the Earth somewhere else. That is just your brain trying to rationalize bad behavior to fit your needs.
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
+1 (and I would add education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and a number of other things to the list of things I would willing pay more in taxes to support)
One can always write a bigger check to the US Treasury than what the 1040 form indicates is your fair share.
Why do people keep using this argument? It's disingenuous in the extreme.
Probably the lack of proper education that they think other people should pay for.
Bless your hearts. You are wrong. Week after week, more gets sent to the US Treasury than we citizens direclty (or our employers on our behalf) are required to send. And no, they won't just send back any of those over-payments automatically. Never have and never will. They keep it unless or until you file a form, specifically requesting the return of your money.
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause. Even your local school system will accept money, directly from you, over and above what your pre-determined share already is. If you'd gladly pay more for education, go right ahead and endow a scholarship, write the check to the PTA, pay for your nearest Jr. High to get new Marching Band uniforms or equipment in the biology lab. Whatever public good that is mostly funded by tax dollars will also take your money. Library, Public Health Center, Senior Center, Veterans Affairs, Foster Care System, you name it.
-
I would say 1) and 4), tax avoidance and using Obamacare subsidies despite high assets, are pretty similar, and wouldn't say they're hypocritical. We can optimize while at the same time recognizing that these are failures of the system. For instance, probably many here would vote to close tax loopholes and perhaps include wealth in means-tested programs like ACA, even though it might hurt them personally.
I would never "donate" to the government by forgoing a deduction, but I wouldn't be opposed to donating extra money to a cause that helps hungry people around the world.
As for flights, you are completely right and it is downright silly to be fastidious with organic or sustainably-produced whatever, when a single roundtrip flight across the ocean can release 1 ton of CO2 into the atmosphere per seat. For reference that's roughly the annual emission of a person in India, or 3 people in Kenya. Just so we can have "fun" or gain a rich cultural experience.
But like above, this doesn't mean I won't optimize for myself; flights are amazingly cheap. But I would certainly vote in favor of an airplane tax which simply internalizes this externality.
-
Mustachianism is about decreasing spending and living life by being self sufficient and badass. But there is no room to cut government spending or look for ways to decrease the cost of government programs. This country like most American's doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending problem. Yet Mustachians keep wanting to increase taxes and increase spending
I hear/read the argument about massive government inefficiencies and waste all the time, but I have never seen any actual data to support the hand-wringing. I am sure that things could be more efficient, just like my for-profit corporation could be more efficient. I am not convinced we are significantly less efficient than other rich countries' governments which manage to deliver healthcare to their citizens along with other quality-of-life benefits such as paid parental leave, quality early child care and education, inexpensive university education, pension, infrastructure investments, and so much else. I'll pull some random numbers from wiki as points of comparison. I apologize for my utter inability to figure out the intricacies of tables in this forum.
Country Gov expenditures as % of GDP Healthcare exp % of GDP Life Expectancy
USA 41.6 17.9 79.3
Canada 41.9 9.8 81.8
New Zealand 47.5 8.9 84.6
UK 48.5 8.5 80.5
France 56.1 11.2 81.9
Norway 43.9 9 84.3
Sweden 51.2 9 84.1
Denmark 57.6 8.4 78.6
Netherlands 49.8 9.2 81.4
Israel 44.6 7.8 82.1
Japan 42 8.2 83.3
Argentina 40.9 8 76.1
We are not an outlier in overall government spending but we are an outlier in a) how much we spend on healthcare for less-great outcomes and b) we are one of the only countries in the world that doesn't offer paid maternity leave or mandate vacation time for workers. In my view it is not so much a matter of how much we spend but that we are not getting a good deal for the money being spent.
***
Edit: thinking about it more, I was too incomplete. We are additionally an outlier in: investment in mass transportation (high speed rail anyone?), infant mortality, % of people without health insurance, % of people killed by guns, being one of the only rich/developed countries to still have the death penalty. I am sure there are other big ticket items as well, but my brain is fried at this point.
-
...
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause.
...
Of course that's what they mean. Everyone knows that's what those statements mean.
-
I used to (still am a little bit) a lefty until I started seeing all the waste that was in place. The reality is even the right spends money like it's going out of style on their pet projects.
Medical insurance is a disgrace in this country and is killing our economy. Guys, throwing MORE MONEY at the problem isn't going to make it better, it's going to make it worse. With more money available prices rise, rinse, and repeat.
That is exactly what caused the housing boom/bust in 2008/2009. Too much cheap money bid prices up to unsustainable levels until one day, the house of cards fell.
Same thing is going on with student loans. The programs were expanded (under a noble cause!) but universities raised prices, rinse, and repeat. I've seen pictures of my old college - it looks like something straight out of a Silicon Valley startup magazine. Soooo much money has been spent on taking colleges to the "luxury" level.
-
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause. Even your local school system will accept money, directly from you, over and above what your pre-determined share already is. If you'd gladly pay more for education, go right ahead and endow a scholarship, write the check to the PTA, pay for your nearest Jr. High to get new Marching Band uniforms or equipment in the biology lab. Whatever public good that is mostly funded by tax dollars will also take your money. Library, Public Health Center, Senior Center, Veterans Affairs, Foster Care System, you name it.
And if that would actually fix the structual deficiency, then I'm sure it would be a good solution. Therein lies the problem though. A few checks from a few people isn't going to do it. Hence the reason your "argument" is disingenuous. Pretty simple stuff here.
If you think education and healthcare are "pet causes" then you're in need of former much more than you realize.
I have no idea how anyone thinks they benefit from being surrounded by idiots. Some things are actually worth paying for. If MMM has taught you one thing, it should be that.
-
...
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause.
...
Of course that's what they mean. Everyone knows that's what those statements mean.
It's more honest then "Our government is too big! Lower taxes!!!1!11!*"
* "Except for taxes for the pet causes that I support."
-
Thanks for the responses so far. What actually prompted my post was this realization: a person who ERs is likely to pay fairly high payroll and income taxes for 10–15 years, but will then pay almost zero income or payroll taxes the rest of their life (let's limit the discussion to federal income and payroll taxes, while admitting that most people will pay state/local sales tax and property tax during retirement).
Public Finance economists have developed an elaborate way of judging tax policy called "optimal income tax theory." This was developed by James Mirrlees, who won the Nobel prize for this work, and many other scholars. I haven't looked at this stuff for a while, but let me try to summarize.
The problem: how to maximize social utility (well-being) through the tax and transfer system while distorting economic decisions as little as possible ("efficient"). People are assumed to have a declining marginal utility for money, such that an extra dollar for Warren Buffet brings him a lot less utility than an extra dollar for a Somali peasant. People are also assumed to have both different abilities (defined here to mean "ability to earn money in the labor market") and different income levels. The tax instrument assumed to be available is essentially a wage tax; capital transactions are not part of the earliest models for simplicity.
With these assumptions and a few others, you can, through a model, mathematically define the utility functions of everyone, and how the tax-and-transfer system would impact that utility. Solving the equation for how to maximize total utility is essentially an optimization problem (hence "optimal" income tax theory).
An interesting thing that comes out of this literature is that it would be great—if you are committed to maximizing utility at all costs—if we knew people's abilities, because if we did, we could just tax them based on ability, not on earned income. A tax on ability would be maximally efficient because it wouldn't lead to any disincentive to work the way that a tax on wages does, in the same way that a head tax is efficient. But a tax on ability is better than a head tax, because it allows for differentiation in tax burdens that many consider fair, whereas under a head tax everyone pays the same.
People that earn significantly less than their ability implies are called "shirkers" in the literature. They are seen as shirking their duty to earn money, which can then be taxed and redistributed to people with a higher marginal utility for a dollar. Shirkers decrease total utility at the expense of less able people. A Mustachian who retires early is the ultimate shirker under this worldview. Mustachians are high ability people who drop out of the labor force and drastically reduce their lifetime tax burden, while often drastically increasing their lifetime consumption of public benefits.
Personally I don't believe optimal income tax theory has much to offer real world policymakers, and I think many of its assumptions are unrealistic or at least incomplete. It just struck me that Mustachians, shirkers that they are or aspire to be, are the optimal income tax theorists' worst nightmare! But many prominent economists subscribe to the theory [see here for further reading: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezNBER12handbook.pdf]. I say vive les shirkers!
-
Maybe a tax on able bodied people that don't work or are intentionally under employed, wouldn't that be interesting.
The tax could be say work for 2-3 years rebuilding roads or bridges here in the USA for minimum wage and at the end of there stint they will have a marketable trade.
Then for there social justice work they so want they can go to Syria and donate there time to rebuild that country.
-
People that earn significantly less than their ability implies are called "shirkers" in the literature. They are seen as shirking their duty to earn money, which can then be taxed and redistributed to people with a higher marginal utility for a dollar. Shirkers decrease total utility at the expense of less able people. A Mustachian who retires early is the ultimate shirker under this worldview. Mustachians are high ability people who drop out of the labor force and drastically reduce their lifetime tax burden, while often drastically increasing their lifetime consumption of public benefits.
Personally I don't believe optimal income tax theory has much to offer real world policymakers, and I think many of its assumptions are unrealistic or at least incomplete. It just struck me that Mustachians, shirkers that they are or aspire to be, are the optimal income tax theorists' worst nightmare! But many prominent economists subscribe to the theory [see here for further reading: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezNBER12handbook.pdf]. I say vive les shirkers!
Given what we see from MMMers that retire and then take side jobs or hobby jobs or second "careers," shirkers are really a protest vote. Once FI is reached, the FIREed have determined that earning another dollar in a primary career isn't worth a boss or the rigid 9-5 schedule or the paltry 3 weeks of vacation/year (for US workers). From various semi-FI threads, it's obvious that a lot of people wouldn't mind working part-time or doing a 1yr:1yr work:play schedule but most career fields don't accommodate that freedom. The optimal economic choice for this type of individual is, then, to reach FI and be a shirker.
-
I was surprised as well to find that a group of, what you would assume are fiscally conservative people, mostly lean left. But if you consider the demographic of the readership I don't think the split is surprising at all.
Most people here have either ample income or investments and are college educated which is just a recipe for being at least more socially liberal at a minimum. Though almost none of us are "rich", in terms of yearly income. Those that could have been income rich have also chosen to somewhat forgo that path in the interest of buying more personal time and freedom.
This kind of goes against the general consumer motivate American entrepreneurial spirit that drives many educate people to lean more conservative as they become more entrenched in the world of government regulations or high tax brackets.
This seeking of optimization over excess I think also lines up with people who have a strong logical mind set which means you see a lot more engineering and science minded types around here, both of which are groups that are overwhelming liberal. I certainly know good and even great engineers who are super religious, or strong free market constitutional conservatives but they are a minority.
When your goal is living well and not necessarily getting rich, and you are far enough out of poverty to study the nuances of personal finance, it is easy to see that there are many different paths to living well financially some of which could involve higher taxes and better public services. Most college graduates and people working at multinational companies see so many Europeans getting so much more out of their government socially than we do that it is hard not to say the grass is greener in some respects.
But don't get me wrong. I think to a degree young left leaning people turn too much of a blind eye to the high levels of inefficiency in government and it is worth remaining skeptical of the brilliance of new laws and programs that sound good on paper. I think in general in government there is too much focus on intent and not enough on analyzing fairly actual results.
For me personally being center left, I think the current Repubs, especially under DJT simply have too much nationalist, religious and anti-environmental regulation baggage for me to get behind. Also I am kind of brown, I may get mistaken for an Italian since I have a lot of Euro features, but in the Midwest I could also be mistaken for a Muslim and get fucked with. I am sure that fear is partly irrational but I do have to grapple with the reality that too much anti immigrant nationalism could eventually negatively impact me because I don't look "white".
I would rather for now deal with the failings of the Democrats. I think from a purely logical and economic perspective there are a lot of interesting conservative ideals surrounding economics and smaller government. But I think the current Repub party is mostly a bastardization of that philosophy bent on helping our wealthiest citizens a bit too much, at the cost of our environment most helpless citizens.
And at the same time I feel like my concern about Republicans breaching the line on the separation of church and state is along the same vein as conservatives concern that Democrats are on a slippery slope to killing the second amendment.
-
We are all hypocrites in life, just about different things and to different extents.
That said, yes I'd consider myself a left-wing Mustachian.
Some examples:
- LGTB rights...I want everyone to have the same freedom's I do.
- Legalization of pot...I don't use it, nor would I be that likely to, but it'd bring in more taxes and make the whole operation less dangerous
- Taxes...in a world of abundance, we don't have a production problem, we have a distribution problem. Higher taxes used properly could alleviate some of that.
- Clean air, water, soil...This will effect my happiness and bottom line more than a slightly cheaper product made with shady practices.
- Foreign treaties...Free trade that's that's slightly skewed to favor the economics of poorer countries is good for the rich countries like us also, because it will create a less turbulent world.
That's a short list of liberal beliefs right there, and I think they all fit into the ideas this site was founded on.
-
Thanks for the responses so far. What actually prompted my post was this realization: a person who ERs is likely to pay fairly high payroll and income taxes for 10–15 years, but will then pay almost zero income or payroll taxes the rest of their life (let's limit the discussion to federal income and payroll taxes, while admitting that most people will pay state/local sales tax and property tax during retirement).
Public Finance economists have developed an elaborate way of judging tax policy called "optimal income tax theory." This was developed by James Mirrlees, who won the Nobel prize for this work, and many other scholars. I haven't looked at this stuff for a while, but let me try to summarize.
The problem: how to maximize social utility (well-being) through the tax and transfer system while distorting economic decisions as little as possible ("efficient"). People are assumed to have a declining marginal utility for money, such that an extra dollar for Warren Buffet brings him a lot less utility than an extra dollar for a Somali peasant. People are also assumed to have both different abilities (defined here to mean "ability to earn money in the labor market") and different income levels. The tax instrument assumed to be available is essentially a wage tax; capital transactions are not part of the earliest models for simplicity.
With these assumptions and a few others, you can, through a model, mathematically define the utility functions of everyone, and how the tax-and-transfer system would impact that utility. Solving the equation for how to maximize total utility is essentially an optimization problem (hence "optimal" income tax theory).
An interesting thing that comes out of this literature is that it would be great—if you are committed to maximizing utility at all costs—if we knew people's abilities, because if we did, we could just tax them based on ability, not on earned income. A tax on ability would be maximally efficient because it wouldn't lead to any disincentive to work the way that a tax on wages does, in the same way that a head tax is efficient. But a tax on ability is better than a head tax, because it allows for differentiation in tax burdens that many consider fair, whereas under a head tax everyone pays the same.
People that earn significantly less than their ability implies are called "shirkers" in the literature. They are seen as shirking their duty to earn money, which can then be taxed and redistributed to people with a higher marginal utility for a dollar. Shirkers decrease total utility at the expense of less able people. A Mustachian who retires early is the ultimate shirker under this worldview. Mustachians are high ability people who drop out of the labor force and drastically reduce their lifetime tax burden, while often drastically increasing their lifetime consumption of public benefits.
Personally I don't believe optimal income tax theory has much to offer real world policymakers, and I think many of its assumptions are unrealistic or at least incomplete. It just struck me that Mustachians, shirkers that they are or aspire to be, are the optimal income tax theorists' worst nightmare! But many prominent economists subscribe to the theory [see here for further reading: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezNBER12handbook.pdf]. I say vive les shirkers!
Shirker here, and proud of it. I def don't lean left.
Before FIRE I was commuting 2-4 hours each day, plus putting in hours at home on evenings/weekends/etc. I made great money, hence the FIRE part, but it was no longer worth it to me. After adding federal and state taxes, my top marginal tax rate was over 50% so obviously had zero desire to further "climb the ladder" and take on more responsibility. Beyond that, because of declining marginal utility, I valued my time (which I had very little of) a lot more than making large sums of money (which I already had a huge pile of). Add in real estate and sales taxes and how little we get in return (esp. here in California) and I got tired of feeling like a sucka.
So I FIRED at 38, got my subsidized Obamacare, and pay almost no taxes now. And I save a bunch by doing things myself (since I now have the time) and spend much less money in general.
People can use whatever pejorative labels they want, I don't care. My purpose in life is not to provide ever increasing dollars for the government.
-
Thanks for the responses so far. What actually prompted my post was this realization: a person who ERs is likely to pay fairly high payroll and income taxes for 10–15 years, but will then pay almost zero income or payroll taxes the rest of their life (let's limit the discussion to federal income and payroll taxes, while admitting that most people will pay state/local sales tax and property tax during retirement).
Public Finance economists have developed an elaborate way of judging tax policy called "optimal income tax theory." This was developed by James Mirrlees, who won the Nobel prize for this work, and many other scholars. I haven't looked at this stuff for a while, but let me try to summarize.
The problem: how to maximize social utility (well-being) through the tax and transfer system while distorting economic decisions as little as possible ("efficient"). People are assumed to have a declining marginal utility for money, such that an extra dollar for Warren Buffet brings him a lot less utility than an extra dollar for a Somali peasant. People are also assumed to have both different abilities (defined here to mean "ability to earn money in the labor market") and different income levels. The tax instrument assumed to be available is essentially a wage tax; capital transactions are not part of the earliest models for simplicity.
With these assumptions and a few others, you can, through a model, mathematically define the utility functions of everyone, and how the tax-and-transfer system would impact that utility. Solving the equation for how to maximize total utility is essentially an optimization problem (hence "optimal" income tax theory).
An interesting thing that comes out of this literature is that it would be great—if you are committed to maximizing utility at all costs—if we knew people's abilities, because if we did, we could just tax them based on ability, not on earned income. A tax on ability would be maximally efficient because it wouldn't lead to any disincentive to work the way that a tax on wages does, in the same way that a head tax is efficient. But a tax on ability is better than a head tax, because it allows for differentiation in tax burdens that many consider fair, whereas under a head tax everyone pays the same.
People that earn significantly less than their ability implies are called "shirkers" in the literature. They are seen as shirking their duty to earn money, which can then be taxed and redistributed to people with a higher marginal utility for a dollar. Shirkers decrease total utility at the expense of less able people. A Mustachian who retires early is the ultimate shirker under this worldview. Mustachians are high ability people who drop out of the labor force and drastically reduce their lifetime tax burden, while often drastically increasing their lifetime consumption of public benefits.
Personally I don't believe optimal income tax theory has much to offer real world policymakers, and I think many of its assumptions are unrealistic or at least incomplete. It just struck me that Mustachians, shirkers that they are or aspire to be, are the optimal income tax theorists' worst nightmare! But many prominent economists subscribe to the theory [see here for further reading: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezNBER12handbook.pdf]. I say vive les shirkers!
That is a pretty neat theory, might have to read that. All the same my initial issue with the idea that a person choosing not to work to their potential is a bad thing depends greatly on the context of the rest of the society.
In a perfect society where people with the most earning potential were earning that money by making a maximal positive contribution to society I would agree with the premise that Mustachians to some degree may be shirkers, though even that would depend on what we though a fair work life balance is. And at what age the older workforce should phase out or change its contribution.
But then look at our society. Large numbers of people making loads of money are doing questionable good and simply fueling a blind consumerist society. We have people conning retires out of life savings, we have investment bankers gambling away people savings, we have corporate boards dying to eviscerate public land and shirk their responsibility to take care of their negative impacts on the local community.
We see people with jobs doing a great deal of public good, community service workers, teachers and stay at home parents trying to raise their own children paid nothing or next to nothing.
But as you noted the numerous issues that one could come up with against this tax model probably stem from its incredibly idealistic nature.
-
...
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause.
...
Of course that's what they mean. Everyone knows that's what those statements mean.
[/quote]
It's more honest then "Our government is too big! Lower taxes!!!1!11!*"
* "Except for taxes for the pet causes that I support."
[/quote]
You are completely correct. The conservatives are no better than the liberals. They choose different pet projects or different lobbyists to appease. Liberals do it in the guise of social justice or helping others. Conservatives do it in the guise of smaller government. In reality neither want smaller government as that would mean less money for their pet projects or their lobbyists. It is a sad state of affairs out there. I think a lot of people are realizing this and the reason why Sanders and Trumps received so much support. They both gave you the sense of antiestablishment.
The reality is that people are selfish and will do what is best for themselves first. It is not only human nature, it is nature.
And if that would actually fix the structual deficiency, then I'm sure it would be a good solution. Therein lies the problem though. A few checks from a few people isn't going to do it. Hence the reason your "argument" is disingenuous. Pretty simple stuff here.
If you think education and healthcare are "pet causes" then you're in need of former much more than you realize.
I have no idea how anyone thinks they benefit from being surrounded by idiots. Some things are actually worth paying for. If MMM has taught you one thing, it should be that.
Are you kidding me? Pay an extra $5k in taxes by buying and building 10 new computers each year for the local inner city classroom. Or you can take some cash and buy health insurance for poor family that does not meet the requirements for subsidies or medicaid. There are plenty of places you can spend your money on.
I hear/read the argument about massive government inefficiencies and waste all the time, but I have never seen any actual data to support the hand-wringing. I am sure that things could be more efficient, just like my for-profit corporation could be more efficient. I am not convinced we are significantly less efficient than other rich countries' governments which manage to deliver healthcare to their citizens along with other quality-of-life benefits such as paid parental leave, quality early child care and education, inexpensive university education, pension, infrastructure investments, and so much else. I'll pull some random numbers from wiki as points of comparison. I apologize for my utter inability to figure out the intricacies of tables in this forum.
A list of waste in 2016 offered by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Total $1.2 billion
https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Festivus2016.pdf
Here is 2015's report from USNews
https://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/rand-pauls-festivus-reveals-1b-in-wasteful-government-spending
-
I'll use every legal means to reduce my taxes. I would also vote to raise my taxes for life saving programs like single payer.
-
I'll use every legal means to reduce my taxes. I would also vote to raise my taxes for life saving programs like single payer.
Ah, but how much!?
As a libertarian myself I see single payer as a somewhat more freedom causing policy. As in- people are free to work/notwork/start a company/be a bum without being forced to work for health care.
As a libertarian I have a limit to what I would spend on these as well. What if it cost 50% payroll tax increase? 20%? 10%? 2%?
-
I'll use every legal means to reduce my taxes. I would also vote to raise my taxes for life saving programs like single payer.
Ah, but how much!?
As a libertarian myself I see single payer as a somewhat more freedom causing policy. As in- people are free to work/notwork/start a company/be a bum without being forced to work for health care.
As a libertarian I have a limit to what I would spend on these as well. What if it cost 50% payroll tax increase? 20%? 10%? 2%?
I completely agree with you. I would be thrilled to pay a little more in taxes if it definitely paid for medical care for every American. I am not willing to pay a very large percentage. The ACA has increased my taxes by a few percent and we still don't have everyone's medical bills covered. Yes some got medicaid and others got subsidies for health plans with huge deductibles, but healthcare in this country is still screwed. The government's thirst to spend money is never ending.
-
I think the dissonance OP notes in their opening post has to do with the watering-down of leftism, particularly Socialism, in the last hundred years. The greedy bourgeoisie that Marx rallied against was the middle class. As people with larger incomes gradually adopted socialist philosophies, they had to cope with the fact that they themselves were the oppressors. So they voted for social programs like free healthcare and expanding the dole. The Soul of Man under Socialism implies that this type of behaviour numbs the pain that the aggressor and oppressor should feel about the whole crooked situation. It preserves the broken system since these social programs function as an anesthesia.
Some people here will say "I'd vote for more taxes" but, and I'm not meaning to be judgmental, a large reason why they say so is because middle-class incomes have been rising slowly over the last decade. In the progressive haven of Canada, when we saw our wages rise in the 90's and 00's, we wanted lower taxes. We see growth slowing and want higher taxes now. (Especially if you want the higher taxes to be on people besides you.)
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
+1 (and I would add education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and a number of other things to the list of things I would willing pay more in taxes to support)
One can always write a bigger check to the US Treasury than what the 1040 form indicates is your fair share.
Why do people keep using this argument? It's disingenuous in the extreme.
Probably the lack of proper education that they think other people should pay for.
Bless your hearts. You are wrong. Week after week, more gets sent to the US Treasury than we citizens direclty (or our employers on our behalf) are required to send. And no, they won't just send back any of those over-payments automatically. Never have and never will. They keep it unless or until you file a form, specifically requesting the return of your money.
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause. Even your local school system will accept money, directly from you, over and above what your pre-determined share already is. If you'd gladly pay more for education, go right ahead and endow a scholarship, write the check to the PTA, pay for your nearest Jr. High to get new Marching Band uniforms or equipment in the biology lab. Whatever public good that is mostly funded by tax dollars will also take your money. Library, Public Health Center, Senior Center, Veterans Affairs, Foster Care System, you name it.
Calling the tax system unfair and arguing it leads to inequality is not just about the total tax an individual pays. It is recognizing that our tax system creates certain types of incentives and disincentives, and the current set of incentives/disincentives actively foster extreme income inequality. Writing a check for a worthy cause will not correct these structural mechanisms of inequality.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Interesting.
First, the amount of legal but aggressive tax avoidance pushed on MMM is astounding. Tax loss harvesting! Back-door Roth! And so on. How is lowering the tax rate of admittedly wealthy people (early retirees), therefore increasing inequality and reducing the amount of money the government can redistribute to more deserving people, consistent with a commitment to eradicating inequality?
What's the hypocrisy argument? That ignorance of how to pay your taxes should be voluntarily observed to spread equality? The real argument here is that taxes should be more fair and simple. You're acting like the mom who says "there are starving children in Africa" at every meal. Really? That's awful, so what you're saying is, if I don't finish this, you're going to mail it to them, right? Oh... no?
Trump acts like his argument is the same, that he's just using the available tax code. However, Trump's taxes are governed by rules that are NOT available to everyone, or even most people. Literally anybody can shelter their 401k, which is really not something Trump is worried about. Trump is working with rules none of us have ever heard of, which were designed for only people in very specific and unusual circumstances. Almost anyone on this board has taxes simple enough to figure out without a tax lawyer. If you could only figure out your taxes with an extremely highly paid professional on retainer, then it may be evidence you're taking advantage of some relatively unevenly distributed tax rules. No, it's not necessarily hypocritical to make a fuss over Trump's case for a few reasons - one, he made taxpayers and his own workers and shareholders pay enormous bills for his own incompetence, both from his collapsing businesses and from his dodged tax bills. Two, Trump also claimed he was all over fixing our broken tax system because he knows sooo much about it. Oh, yeah, three - we are not all about taking all the handouts you can. That usually sparks a debate on the board.
If Trump did a back-door Roth, there would have been apoplectic articles in the NY Times about how crooked it is, yet Mustachians are cool with all that.
You have an amusing picture of the NYTimes' interests. Trump has access to far more tax options than any (or nearly any) here are well-versed on. Trump isn't even versed on them - he has people for that. Tremendous people. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Huge people.
To pretend his unbelievable real-estate deduction is the same as a backdoor Roth is a liiiiittle misleading. Degree matters. Chaffetz offering you skip your iPhone and viola - health insurance is affordable - is funny because it shows an astounding failure to apprehend degree. An iPhone doesn't remotely resemble the amount needed to pay for healthcare for the average American, and a Roth backdoor does not resemble the amount dodged with far more arcane tax treatments (that last for decades, potentially), and which, again, are not available to most of us. He even took advantage of government programs for academia with a sham university (that he would have been more likely sued for if he hadn't become President). The list goes on. His tax avoidance is the anchovy atop the whole crappy cake. If the law seems to make it so one person can be dishonest and skip jail time, and another person can't be, and the variable is wealth, I don't mind openly disapproving of the abuse. Anyone can backdoor a Roth. Only real-estate moguls could do what Trump did in writing off a tax loss he made mostly other people eat for him. That's why people hold it against him. Not because sheltering taxes legally is inherently evil. It's fair to argue the social contract is frayed with every tax rule that needs its own hour of study to understand. If you want to argue that Apple sheltering billions overseas or Trump writing off hundreds of millions for decades are the same as the guy doing a backdoor Roth, heck, I'll tell you what, you can even do that, as long as we both vote (if we ever get the chance) to eliminate all of it.
The travel thing is easy, since it's not about hopping on jets every three days for Mustachians.
Fourth, Mustachians like to exchange tips on how to get healthcare for as cheap as possible, including "gaming" various systems in place to help the destitute, not unmotivated rich people. People with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, in their portfolios that take Medicaid or ACA vouchers intended to help poor people afford healthcare undermine support for those programs. Imagine the reactions from the general public "why should a 45-year old nurse pay taxes to fund some rich 36-year old retiree's healthcare? Are you kidding me?" Imagine if Ivanka Trump qualified for Medicaid because she succeeded in sheltering all of her income from tax, and that she took it. People would be getting out their pitchforks, yet rich Mustachians don't bat an eye.
Taking advantage of others is obviously neither righty nor lefty - it's a human problem. Sure, you can find plenty of hypocrisy there.
As for shirking, most Mustachians did not become forest hermits, so are obviously still contributing, and left a high-paying workforce spot open for another person who actually needed the job...
Your suggestion that Mustachians are just John-Galting it is kind of funny (that you suggest it's lefty is even funnier). Would you rather have your educated people doing jobs they have passion for and spreading financial wellness habits or taking over the business world? Is there somehow a shortage of people waiting to take over businesses that we need Mustachians to be preoccupied with this?
(Modified for John Galt: do we somehow have a shortage of aspiring widget manufacturers, that if you stopped making your high-demand products, no one would ever step in to fill the void of your absence?)
I giggled over Rand Paul's government waste presentation. "Nearly two billion." Ok. "Well, 1.4 billion is nearly 2." Only if you can't round properly. "Also that's a lot." Only if we accept the fallacy that individual personal spending is useful in understanding just how much money the federal government handles. Two billion is an entire season of Animaniacs worth of hilarity if you're going to compare it to the total amount the federal government deals with. If THAT'S what you came up with, Mr. Paul, you're saying that our government is a shocking model of ultra-efficiency that should be praised for having so little waste as 1.4 billion dollars, even though that's an unfathomably large amount to me, because it's so small a part of the total federal budget.
That number to the US economy is actually by proportion ALMOST THE SAME AS WE PAY IN VANGUARD FEES. If that's all that's wasted, BRAVO.
-
Hefty,
Although someone retiring early and leaving the workforce may and probably will open a job for someone else, if that person then retires and lives off the taxes of others they are using the hard work of tax payer dollars to fund their retirement. I think those people are moochers (unless of coarse they were 1% income earners paying huge taxes for 10 years and then retiring. Those people did in fact contribute into the system and deserve to reap some of those rewards.
Next, $1.2 billion is a lot of money. And that is only waste that Rand Paul found. What about the waste that is not so easily observed. I see government regulation creating waste in my workplace and every other hospital I have ever worked at. How do we calculate those billions. As mustachians we try and make little cuts in our lifestyle that over several years get us out of debt and make us financially independent. How is this any different? I said it earlier and I will say it again. The US doesn't have an income problem, the US has a spending problem.
The left believes if we tax just a little more we can fix every problem. There is a limit to how much more can be taxed. Just recently taxes were increased substantially thanks to the ACA. Although it fixed a few issues in our healthcare system such as pre-existing conditions and getting health insurance for more people, it did not even come close to fixing our healthcare problem. So what is the answer? Increase taxes further? How much more? When does it stop? The Gaffer Laffer Curve dictates there is a point where if taxes were to continue increasing productivity would decrease and the total of taxes collected starts to decline despite the higher tax rate. I do not know at what percentage that becomes or if we are anywhere near it, but the fact remains that taxes can not be increased indefinitely. I will tell you regarding myself that if those taxes increase enough I will start cutting how much I work, and no, my field is not easily replaceable. There is a shortage of doctors in this country already.
Disclaimer: I am not a republican. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
-
The panic about whether taxes are too high is bonkers because nobody pays the stated tax rate in corporate America. If your supermarket sold bananas for 3.99 each but they were always on sale for 0.99 a bunch, you would probably say "that's stupid" and not panic about the price of bananas.
I disagree about how much the top 1% pays in taxes. Great, you made lots of money. You did that because of the elegance of a society you inherited - you didn't build that, or fight in WWII for that, and it's okay to tax your unbelievable gains from it to give it back to that society, because the presence of that society made your fortune more than you did. I know that's unpopular with some folks, but you're not making billions of dollars in Zamibia because there aren't billions of dollars to make there.
Corporations sometimes pay NOTHING in taxes. NOTHING is a lot less than what almost anyone else pays anywhere. Many have pointed out to me "but they move money around!" as if that were a service. So does the mafia, and we don't thank them for it. Also, income taxes your staff pay aren't taxes your company is paying. You don't get any credit for that.
The left doesn't believe anything as a unified bloc. Neither for that matter does the right, or we'd already have Obamacare repeal and an end to Medicaid and Social Security.
Government regulation no doubt creates waste. It's not nimble or particularly suited for nuance that creeps up over time. It makes businesses do things they don't want to, like file onerous forms and waste time and spend extra money and jump through tax hoops... and not dump toxic waste in the river or cheat emissions rules. I'll take the good with the bad. I wish we could talk about making the good better and minimizing the bad more often. Republicans are now all about eliminating all regulation and defunding everything they can't eliminate, and Democrats never seem to get around to talking about cleaning up graft or figuring out how Social Security can keep working. At this point I think we got no answer on immigration because nobody wants the other to get credit for solving problems anymore. Both parties actually seem to do more of what they're bad at than ever when it comes to the big ticket stuff. Let's all get distracted by wedding cakes for gay people and your right to not be offended at your university.
-
The Gaffer Curve
I had a laugh here at Samwise Gamgee ranting about his "old Gaffer" being difficult for him in the LOTR.
I believe you meant the "Laffer" Curve? :)
-
OK, I'll take a crack at it (sorry in advance for the wall of text). I am both left-wing and all about personal responsibility. My overriding world view is that, economically, a society should be structured to provide an equal opportunity for everyone (to the extent possible), to reward people appropriately for hard work/talent, and to provide a safety net for those who can't make it; socially, I think society should guarantee the civil liberties of all of its members.
Social first, as it's "easier" (a/k/a simpler to explain in concept, not easy to implement): to me, this means focusing on protecting the rights of the minority. The majority always gets its way through the power of democracy. The role of the federal government must be to protect its citizens against the tyranny of the majority in any individual state -- a LBGTQ kid shouldn't forfeit constitutional rights by moving to a red state, and a conservative Christian shouldn't forfeit rights by moving to NYC. Etc. This is where I conflict significantly with "states' rights" advocates -- to me, individual civil liberties trump states' rights.
Economically: to me, the question is how do you best create a system that allows each individual an as-fair-as-possible chance to succeed? Neither extreme works; you can take all the money from all the people and redistribute it, but then there is no incentive to work hard and learn and do better to get ahead; you can give people the absolute freedom to do whatever they want economically, but then you end up with Robber Barons and an oligarchy that just cements power within itself and doesn't give the vast majority of the populace a fair shake. So given the system we have, and that it will never be either perfectly equal or perfectly free, where do you draw the balance? For me, specific areas of opportunity include:
- Universal basic health care. The number of bankruptcies in this country attributable to giant health-care bills is ridiculous. But the opaque-ness of the process is perhaps even more difficult -- I am highly intelligent and highly trained, and I still don't have the ability to, say, ensure that everyone I deal with at a hospital is in my plan, or compare costs on an apples-to-apples basis. The complexity of our system is an additional tax on people with lower cognitive abilities.
- Education. Many states used to invest heavily in education as a path to economic growth; my FIL, for ex., went to school for free at CCNY. These budgets have been cut significantly over the past 20 years as state budgets became tighter, with more of the costs shifted to the students as a matter of state law. This also creates a perverse incentive for the schools to accept out-of-state and international students, who generally pay full price (and a much higher price to start). I am in favor of solidifying the CC-to-state-school link, with lower prices/free CC tuition, 100% clear transferability of credits (a big issue in many states), and improved state funding of the state education system.
- Taxes. First, they are probably going to be higher given my preferred social investments, and I'm ok with that. But I think there are efficiencies to be gained and it might not be entirely additive -- based on a recent post elsewhere, it looks like I am currently paying about the same amount as I would in Canada at our current income level, and yet I still get to pay for health care on top of that. Second, I think taxes are appropriately allocated on a progressive basis, meaning people like me should carry more of the burden. I am annoyed at various aspects of the tax code, which strikes me as clearly slanted to prefer companies and rich people over normal working stiffs. E.g., employment income is taxed at higher rates than investment income; businesses can deduct many costs that I can't as a person. And the complexity goes back to the same issue above: it is so difficult to work through that identifying and taking advantage of those tax breaks is almost impossible for those with fewer resources.
- Regulation of business. I am in favor of reasonable regulation to (i) provide a level playing field/minimum standard of conduct, and (ii) protect the individual liberties mentioned above. My huge problem is the way this is done -- the way Congress works is it keeps adding more programs and more layers to fix problems, and it never re-evaluates the old stuff to see whether it is still useful. I do environmental law, and the amount of money people spend just on trying to ensure compliance with the gazillion different requirements is pretty ridiculous -- not the emissions controls, mind you, just the personnel and the systems and the paperwork. Same with tax law -- why do we need to have so many different tax-protected ways to save for retirement (and why do corporate execs get different rules than everyone else?)? What's wrong with giving everyone a single bucket to fill as they choose? The amount of money we lawyers make just helping people navigate the current system is a sort of ridiculous tax on the economy.
- Social Security: I think it should be shored up. We need a basic safety net for people who are disabled, who don't make sufficient money to save much for retirement, etc. I also think AFDC is important, because no child should ever go hungry just because he chose his parents poorly.
All of these issues are far more Democrat than Republican issues. So I routinely vote Democrat. I vote for every school improvement bond, even though I know it will raise my taxes. I voted for Hillary, knowing that the end result would be that she would raise my taxes, because someone has to pay for this stuff, and I make more than most and can afford it. I'm probably going to personally make out like a bandit under Trump, but that doesn't provide any appeal at all, because it means society is moving away from the values that I hold dear -- if anything, Trump has induced a "bunker" mentality, a much more selfish sense that, well, I really need to look out for myself now, so let's sock away everything I can so I have more choices if the shit hits the fan (with "choices" being anything from being prepared to retire if the economy crashes, to moving to another country, to quitting to work for the ACLU. Note that I don't *actually* think horrible things are going to happen, but my brain naturally tends to look for the worst possible outcome so I can be prepared if it actually happens.).
To me, like an earlier poster said, it's about efficency: the way to "make America great again" is to take the maximum possible advantage of the talents of the maximum number of people possible. So investments in education, nondiscrimination laws, and a basic safety net for the inevitable individual failures seem like the best way to unlock that talent and ability. I was one of those kids who could have slipped through the cracks -- we were on food stamps for a while, and without them, I don't know if my mom would have been able to get her degree and have the stable employment that brought us to the MC. Both my mom and I have more than paid back the value of that temporary investment in the amount of taxes we have paid in our working lives. I want other kids like me to have the same opportunity, and I don't mind paying taxes to support them.
But I also don't think that is in any way inherently inconsistent with Mustachianism. I think our health care system is broken and the ACA was a good step but in itself insufficient; ergo, the subsidies are an imperfect way of addressing the holes in our current system, so I don't have a problem with people making the best of the system we are stuck with. I don't particularly think it's fair that our retirement system is so complex and that many people don't have good options, but that doesn't mean I should personally boycott my 401(k) -- that's cutting off my nose to spite my face. If I choose to retire before 65 or 70, that's my own personal choice to give up a future higher standard of living in return for more freedom today. Etc.
Tl;dr: Politics are about what I think our system should be. Mustachianism is about best navigating the system that we are currently stuck with.
-
I disagree about how much the top 1% pays in taxes. Great, you made lots of money. You did that because of the elegance of a society you inherited - you didn't build that, or fight in WWII for that, and it's okay to tax your unbelievable gains from it to give it back to that society, because the presence of that society made your fortune more than you did. I know that's unpopular with some folks, but you're not making billions of dollars in Zamibia because there aren't billions of dollars to make there.
100% agreed. Having a little historical perspective is important. A society isn't just the people who exist now, but the countless who have sacrificed in the past, as well as the unpaid and those who had their land stolen from them. It is also important to remember the future. What do we even have a society for?
The one thing that has also occurred to me in with age is the sheer dumb luck of it all, in terms of having a lucrative career. Absolutely, working hard will, IN GENERAL, reward you with more money, but not always. And many people who do very little make more than people who work very hard. I know many people who aren't as smart or as hard working but just have the right connections. Why do they deserve to get more from society vs. the person who is harder working but just doesn't have the access to networks. The other thing that I think most people never consider, is your choice of career vs. what is really going to be valuable can change between you making that choice and being employable. I think of all the people I know who thought being an attorney would be lucrative only to finally graduate, face a glut of other young law students and end up underemployed.
I have no idea what to tell my kids to shoot for now. My son has a gift for coding, but I am afraid that will be yesterday's hot career now, since they are pushing it so heavily in schools. My daughter is more artsy, with a focus on photography, and those are not generally careers that people make fun of or discourage as fluff.
-
Corporations sometimes pay NOTHING in taxes. NOTHING is a lot less than what almost anyone else pays anywhere. Many have pointed out to me "but they move money around!" as if that were a service. So does the mafia, and we don't thank them for it. Also, income taxes your staff pay aren't taxes your company is paying. You don't get any credit for that.
Some corporations don't pay any income taxes, that is true. Often this is due to the fact that they are not profitable. Businesses pay income tax on their "net income," i.e., profits. Sure, many large corporations use tax planning to reduce their U.S. tax bills, but the vast majority of this planning is just as legal as a back-door Roth.
But your comment is wrong in a different way. You have to understand tax incidence. A corporation is a fictional legal entity. Only people can pay taxes. No one thinks the burden of a cigarette excise tax falls upon the cigarettes themselves, obviously the incidence falls on consumers. Saying corporations pay taxes is like saying Sherlock Holmes paid taxes. Only people can pay taxes.
There are three groups upon whom the tax incidence of a corporate income tax can fall: owners/shareholders (via lower distributions or share prices), employees (via lower wages), and consumers (in the form of higher prices). Due to the mobility of capital, most economists believe that the lion's share of the incidence falls upon employees these days. So raising the corporate income tax is very much like raising taxes on labor. [further reading: https://www.kansascityfed.org/Publicat/RegionalRWP/RRWP07-01.pdf]
-
I giggled over Rand Paul's government waste presentation
Backing up just a bit here, we have to also remember that Rand Paul is hardly an unbiased source on this subject, so I would expect waste as determined by a source without a partisan axe to grind may very well find less. That is not to say that the system is perfect, but it feels like we can get a lot more bang for our dollars focusing on other issues. For example, let's get our healthcare spending down from 17% of GDP where it is now, not even covering everyone with people going bankrupt and dying, to the OECD average of something closer to 9% of GDP. That is $134 billion in savings right there.
-
If Trump did a back-door Roth, there would have been apoplectic articles in the NY Times about how crooked it is, yet Mustachians are cool with all that.
You have an amusing picture of the NYTimes' interests. Trump has access to far more tax options than any (or nearly any) here are well-versed on. Trump isn't even versed on them - he has people for that. Tremendous people. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Huge people.
To pretend his unbelievable real-estate deduction is the same as a backdoor Roth is a liiiiittle misleading. Degree matters. Chaffetz offering you skip your iPhone and viola - health insurance is affordable - is funny because it shows an astounding failure to apprehend degree. An iPhone doesn't remotely resemble the amount needed to pay for healthcare for the average American, and a Roth backdoor does not resemble the amount dodged with far more arcane tax treatments (that last for decades, potentially), and which, again, are not available to most of us. He even took advantage of government programs for academia with a sham university (that he would have been more likely sued for if he hadn't become President). The list goes on. His tax avoidance is the anchovy atop the whole crappy cake. If the law seems to make it so one person can be dishonest and skip jail time, and another person can't be, and the variable is wealth, I don't mind openly disapproving of the abuse. Anyone can backdoor a Roth. Only real-estate moguls could do what Trump did in writing off a tax loss he made mostly other people eat for him. That's why people hold it against him. Not because sheltering taxes legally is inherently evil. It's fair to argue the social contract is frayed with every tax rule that needs its own hour of study to understand. If you want to argue that Apple sheltering billions overseas or Trump writing off hundreds of millions for decades are the same as the guy doing a backdoor Roth, heck, I'll tell you what, you can even do that, as long as we both vote (if we ever get the chance) to eliminate all of it.
My post made up a hypothetical example about Trump doing a back-door Roth. My OP was written prior to my awareness of the leaked Trump tax returns and has nothing to do with those. I don't understand the purpose of your rambling attack here.
Further, given that the Times ran multiple articles suggesting foul play with Mitt Romney's IRA, even though they had no proof he did anything wrong, I would have to bet the Times would seize any opportunity to criticize a back-door Roth by the Donald. [here's one example of many: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/politics/bains-offshore-strategies-grew-romneys-wealth.html] Given Trump's recklessness, I'd be surprised if he even has retirement accounts.
-
I think the dissonance OP notes in their opening post has to do with the watering-down of leftism, particularly Socialism, in the last hundred years. The greedy bourgeoisie that Marx rallied against was the middle class. As people with larger incomes gradually adopted socialist philosophies, they had to cope with the fact that they themselves were the oppressors. So they voted for social programs like free healthcare and expanding the dole. The Soul of Man under Socialism implies that this type of behaviour numbs the pain that the aggressor and oppressor should feel about the whole crooked situation. It preserves the broken system since these social programs function as an anesthesia.
Some people here will say "I'd vote for more taxes" but, and I'm not meaning to be judgmental, a large reason why they say so is because middle-class incomes have been rising slowly over the last decade. In the progressive haven of Canada, when we saw our wages rise in the 90's and 00's, we wanted lower taxes. We see growth slowing and want higher taxes now. (Especially if you want the higher taxes to be on people besides you.)
Great comment that gets at what I was thinking. It reminded me of another book in this vein: G.A. Cohen, If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? Cohen was a Socialist professor of Philosophy at Oxford.
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
+1 (and I would add education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and a number of other things to the list of things I would willing pay more in taxes to support)
One can always write a bigger check to the US Treasury than what the 1040 form indicates is your fair share.
Why do people keep using this argument? It's disingenuous in the extreme.
Probably the lack of proper education that they think other people should pay for.
Bless your hearts. You are wrong. Week after week, more gets sent to the US Treasury than we citizens direclty (or our employers on our behalf) are required to send. And no, they won't just send back any of those over-payments automatically. Never have and never will. They keep it unless or until you file a form, specifically requesting the return of your money.
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause. Even your local school system will accept money, directly from you, over and above what your pre-determined share already is. If you'd gladly pay more for education, go right ahead and endow a scholarship, write the check to the PTA, pay for your nearest Jr. High to get new Marching Band uniforms or equipment in the biology lab. Whatever public good that is mostly funded by tax dollars will also take your money. Library, Public Health Center, Senior Center, Veterans Affairs, Foster Care System, you name it.
Great...call us out, but you really don't know what I mean, or do you have access to the hidden life of my brain?
The rest of this response is equally silly...the whole idea is to have collective support of goods that would not be sufficiently supported otherwise, as others have pointed out. And this gets to the other posts claiming that comments like mine are masking free-riding on the sacrifices of others--I do want better support for a number of goods (like education) because WE are collectively better off. I don't have kids, so it's not like I want others to pay for something benefits me beyond being part of a better society. So yes, there is self-interest at play - I want to be part of a better society and a better world and I'm willing to help pay for it (not unilaterally try to foot the bill, which wouldn't make any real difference). Perhaps more clearly put in terms of self interest, I'd rather pay for schools than prisons, but that is me and my selfish pet cause...
-
I am not sure where I stand anymore haha.
I am a big fan of sates rights. I am more libertarian on a federal level and pretty liberal on a local level. Living in Massachusetts we have this beautiful form of government called open town meeting where all the registered voters in the town can go once a year and vote on the yearly town budget. It is a pretty entertaining event and is pure, local democracy. I usually vote for tax increases to pay for schools, new fire truck, etc.
What gets me though is MA had romneycare and some of the best schools in the country. We are pretty mid level on tax burden which would probably lower if not for unfunded pension issues. But my liberal friends like to push the agenda that works in MA onto the entire country. I would much rather have my taxes managed on the state level than the federal level which is why I tend to vote more republican/libertarian in national elections. The country should be measured on a state by state basis, not as a whole. It is too different. If a state program fails, then other states wont adopt that. If is succeeds, other states will fall in line.
-
The one thing that has also occurred to me in with age is the sheer dumb luck of it all, in terms of having a lucrative career. Absolutely, working hard will, IN GENERAL, reward you with more money, but not always. And many people who do very little make more than people who work very hard. I know many people who aren't as smart or as hard working but just have the right connections. Why do they deserve to get more from society vs. the person who is harder working but just doesn't have the access to networks. The other thing that I think most people never consider, is your choice of career vs. what is really going to be valuable can change between you making that choice and being employable. I think of all the people I know who thought being an attorney would be lucrative only to finally graduate, face a glut of other young law students and end up underemployed.
I have no idea what to tell my kids to shoot for now. My son has a gift for coding, but I am afraid that will be yesterday's hot career now, since they are pushing it so heavily in schools. My daughter is more artsy, with a focus on photography, and those are not generally careers that people make fun of or discourage as fluff.
Life is not fair. Life is not meant to be fair. But the reality is that those who understand the game are more likely to succeed in it. That is what you tell your kids.
OK, I'll take a crack at it
That is a great post. It is funny but I fully agree with everything you said but tend to vote Republican more often even though I strongly disagree with just about all their social issues. I think our government can use a lot more efficiency before we talk about increasing taxes.
I had a laugh here at Samwise Gamgee ranting about his "old Gaffer" being difficult for him in the LOTR.
I believe you meant the "Laffer" Curve? :)
Foiled again by autocorrect and fixed. Thanks.
The panic about whether taxes are too high is bonkers
1) I run my medical practice through a corporation. I structure it in such a way that all profits are distributed at the end of the year and the corporation pays $0 taxes. I pay income tax on those profits. My point being, if the corporation does not retain any of its profits it will pay $0 in taxes. Me, the owner and will cover all tax liabilities. I will agree that corporations like people will find any loop hole or incentive to minimize their tax burden within what the law allows. It is simple common sense.
2) As for personal tax. If the tax percentage was 0% the government would get nothing in taxes. If the Taxes were 100% then no one would work and the government would get 0% in taxes. Obviously 2 extremes that do not exist. What about 1% and 99%. Those would yield a very very small amount of tax revenue. There exists an ideal point or range of percentages which will yield the most revenue. I do not know if we are at that point or where it exactly lies but I know for myself that if taxes went up 10% on my highest tax bracket I would without a doubt decrease my productivity below that tax bracket. Why bust my ass to only keep 40 or 50 cents on the dollar? I have already decreased my productivity to stay below certain thresholds and will do it again if my tax burden increases.
3) The US government is bloated and needs much reform and trimming of the fat. More taxes may add some social benefit but also adds to bloat. I pointed out how recently the ACA increased taxes on higher income earners. Remember $200K/yr if you are single does not put you in the 1%. Being a physician I see very little improvement in the healthcare provided. It did expand medicare which helped many people. It also provided subsidized healthcare to others but unfortunately for many of them the deductibles are so high they can't really use it. Obviously the tax increase did not fix the problem. Do we increase taxes more? How much more? You have to agree that we can not increase taxes indefinitely. I hope you answer these questions.
Disclaimer: I am fiscally conservative and strongly believe a good efficient government can provide a solid safety net for those in need. Not for moochers and leaches of society but for people who really need the help. I am happy to pay my fair share of taxes for that.
-
I fully agree that there is a portion of this community who are Hippocratic hypocrites but rationalize their actions to themselves:
1) Some here say that they are willing to pay more in taxes. Guess what, you have the right to write a check to the IRS any day you want. Go ahead, increase your tax burden voluntarily. Warrant buffet keeps asking to be taxed more but why not pull out his check book and write a big fat check himself.
2) Mustachianism is about decreasing spending and living life by being self sufficient and badass. But there is no room to cut government spending or look for ways to decrease the cost of government programs. This country like most American's doesn't have an income problem, it has a spending problem. Yet Mustachians keep wanting to increase taxes and increase spending.
3) Those Mustachians who say they have paid into the healthcare system and retire early. Believe me, the cost of your healthcare will far outweigh your 15 years of medicaid tax contributions that you paid at the lowest rate possible. Hard working American's will be covering your care. That squarely puts them into the moocher class.
4) Yup, Mustachians sure love to travel and burn fuel. You can rationalize that it is not so bad since the plane is flying there anyways, but planes fill up with you on it or not which means demand is high enough and your butt could stay home and not burn the extra fuel.
There are a few on here who actually practice what they preach and I commend you for your convictions. The rest are just lying to themselves.
Me, I want my taxes lower, I like to travel and I don't care if I burn gas to do it. I also want a more efficient lower cost government that doesn't burden business with unnecessary costs and doesn't meddle in other country's affairs.
As I read here, this is willing to pay more taxes for certain benefits. Why in heavens, would I write a check to the IRS when I am not benefitting in anyway. In countries that pay higher taxes, they have free healthcare, education, etc to brag about.
-
They are seen as shirking their duty to earn money
This may be the most American statement I have ever seen in my life.
GU - I think you are correct. The whole "maximal efficient" tax theory is, like most economic theories, very interesting. It's also riddled with impossible assumptions that are ignored in the interest of writing proofs which can win Nobel Prizes.
I mean, the whole economics profession is still searching for that lost colony of "rational actors" which underpin most of microeconomics.
-
I mean, the whole economics profession is still searching for that lost colony of "rational actors" which underpin most of microeconomics.
Hahaha, nicely put.
-
But don't get me wrong. I think to a degree young left leaning people turn too much of a blind eye to the high levels of inefficiency in government and it is worth remaining skeptical of the brilliance of new laws and programs that sound good on paper. I think in general in government there is too much focus on intent and not enough on analyzing fairly actual results.
For me personally being center left, I think the current Repubs, especially under DJT simply have too much nationalist, religious and anti-environmental regulation baggage for me to get behind. Also I am kind of brown, I may get mistaken for an Italian since I have a lot of Euro features, but in the Midwest I could also be mistaken for a Muslim and get fucked with. I am sure that fear is partly irrational but I do have to grapple with the reality that too much anti immigrant nationalism could eventually negatively impact me because I don't look "white".
I would rather for now deal with the failings of the Democrats. I think from a purely logical and economic perspective there are a lot of interesting conservative ideals surrounding economics and smaller government. But I think the current Repub party is mostly a bastardization of that philosophy bent on helping our wealthiest citizens a bit too much, at the cost of our environment most helpless citizens.
And at the same time I feel like my concern about Republicans breaching the line on the separation of church and state is along the same vein as conservatives concern that Democrats are on a slippery slope to killing the second amendment.
You, sir, just hit the nail on the head.
-
Even though it would put off my FIRE date a bit, I would gladly pay more in taxes to support universal healthcare for every citizen.
I second that. The thing is though, we could actually have universal health care AND spend less than we currently do. All we have to do is look around us in the club of rich countries and pick which solution we like best. "Everyone else is doing it so why can't we?"
+1 (and I would add education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and a number of other things to the list of things I would willing pay more in taxes to support)
One can always write a bigger check to the US Treasury than what the 1040 form indicates is your fair share.
Why do people keep using this argument? It's disingenuous in the extreme.
Probably the lack of proper education that they think other people should pay for.
Bless your hearts. You are wrong. Week after week, more gets sent to the US Treasury than we citizens direclty (or our employers on our behalf) are required to send. And no, they won't just send back any of those over-payments automatically. Never have and never will. They keep it unless or until you file a form, specifically requesting the return of your money.
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause. Even your local school system will accept money, directly from you, over and above what your pre-determined share already is. If you'd gladly pay more for education, go right ahead and endow a scholarship, write the check to the PTA, pay for your nearest Jr. High to get new Marching Band uniforms or equipment in the biology lab. Whatever public good that is mostly funded by tax dollars will also take your money. Library, Public Health Center, Senior Center, Veterans Affairs, Foster Care System, you name it.
Great...call us out, but you really don't know what I mean, or do you have access to the hidden life of my brain?
The rest of this response is equally silly...the whole idea is to have collective support of goods that would not be sufficiently supported otherwise, as others have pointed out. And this gets to the other posts claiming that comments like mine are masking free-riding on the sacrifices of others--I do want better support for a number of goods (like education) because WE are collectively better off. I don't have kids, so it's not like I want others to pay for something benefits me beyond being part of a better society. So yes, there is self-interest at play - I want to be part of a better society and a better world and I'm willing to help pay for it (not unilaterally try to foot the bill, which wouldn't make any real difference). Perhaps more clearly put in terms of self interest, I'd rather pay for schools than prisons, but that is me and my selfish pet cause...
Clearly I've hit a nerve.
Basically, I agree in part with the OP's observation. There is hypocrisy in the left leaning folks who believe we ought to have more public goods yet simultaneously seek to minimize their responsibility for paying for them. It's the same elite hypocrisy at play when rich liberals reject school choice for the very people whose economic situation subjects poor children to dreadful public schools while sending their own kids to a place like Sidwell Friends.
The lefty mustachian strawman says "Oh, but I would gladly pay more taxes if it were going to go towards X."
While thinking, "Since it isn't going to X, it might as well go into my stache."
Behaviorally, he is exactly like the heartless libertarian or conservative who believes she'll make a wiser decision with her own money than the government will.
-
An example of a right wing hypocrite is someone who gets agitated by a poor person using SNAP benefits who could be working harder but then excuse a very rich person from paying only a 4% effective tax rate because of tax loopholes. Lets make a tax system that doesn't over burden the middle class. The middle class is shrinking and when the rich don't pay their fair share and the poor have no money in the first place they are the only demographic left.
-
An example of a right wing hypocrite is someone who gets agitated by a poor person using SNAP benefits who could be working harder but then excuse a very rich person from paying only a 4% effective tax rate because of tax loopholes. Lets make a tax system that doesn't over burden the middle class. The middle class is shrinking and when the rich don't pay their fair share and the poor have no money in the first place they are the only demographic left.
And it gets even better when you realize the tax code is deliberately complex in order to make the rich benefit. It's all moneyed interests. Why else would we need a tax code that's thousands of pages?
-
I'm not sure how everyone who is not on the far right has been all of a sudden dumped into the far left-wing liberal world just because some of us don't like Trump or conservative policies.
If liberals are hypocrites why does the majority of people using ACA in the red states? What about the numbers of right-wing folks on food stamps, welfare, etc? Another example: Look at all the attacks on people when workers starting protesting for living wage hikes? They don't deserve it? Then why are we talking about how unfair it is that the middle class can't make a living wage these days. What about immigrants that are both lazy criminals but also hard workers who steal jobs from Americans. What is that, Schrodinger's immigrant? What about a republican majority government who wants to cut healthcare funding but gets healthcare and pension for life?
Anyway...
I would consider MMM folks to be outside the mainstream of either side. Some of us may be liberal minded in some aspects, and some may not be, but being a responsible citizen who is self-reliant is certainly not a common characteristic of either side of the political fence these day.
-
People that earn significantly less than their ability implies are called "shirkers" in the literature. They are seen as shirking their duty to earn money, which can then be taxed and redistributed to people with a higher marginal utility for a dollar. Shirkers decrease total utility at the expense of less able people. A Mustachian who retires early is the ultimate shirker under this worldview. Mustachians are high ability people who drop out of the labor force and drastically reduce their lifetime tax burden, while often drastically increasing their lifetime consumption of public benefits.
A quick point, the ultimate Shirker is one who never works. They go through the education system and never return the investment made in them, mustachians are not the ultimate.
Personally I believe at any give time there is an exact amount of corporate jobs available. When I retire early my job will be given to the next unemployed person. My job doesn't require great ability, it requires a person.
The other major problem with the Shirker theorem it defines the human experience in terms of utility. I personally don't believe we are just tools, our purpose in society goes far beyond what we get taxed at. From the shirker view, anyone who chooses kids over career is wrong, but what if that choice maximizes happiness in the world? Does utility beat out happiness?
I believe Americans have the right to pursue happiness, not to pursue the government mandate of maximum taxes. His world view that I must sacrifice my happiness for the sake of others is somewhat out of sync with my views. My ability says I should be in engineering, but what if my passion is for English? Do I sacrifice my own happiness for less able bodied? Do they in turn sacrifice their happiness for me too, teaching English when they would rather spend their life being an engineer?
-
I was surprised as well to find that a group of, what you would assume are fiscally conservative people, mostly lean left. But if you consider the demographic of the readership I don't think the split is surprising at all.
Most people here have either ample income or investments and are college educated which is just a recipe for being at least more socially liberal at a minimum. Though almost none of us are "rich", in terms of yearly income. Those that could have been income rich have also chosen to somewhat forgo that path in the interest of buying more personal time and freedom.
This kind of goes against the general consumer motivate American entrepreneurial spirit that drives many educate people to lean more conservative as they become more entrenched in the world of government regulations or high tax brackets.
This seeking of optimization over excess I think also lines up with people who have a strong logical mind set which means you see a lot more engineering and science minded types around here, both of which are groups that are overwhelming liberal. I certainly know good and even great engineers who are super religious, or strong free market constitutional conservatives but they are a minority.
When your goal is living well and not necessarily getting rich, and you are far enough out of poverty to study the nuances of personal finance, it is easy to see that there are many different paths to living well financially some of which could involve higher taxes and better public services. Most college graduates and people working at multinational companies see so many Europeans getting so much more out of their government socially than we do that it is hard not to say the grass is greener in some respects.
But don't get me wrong. I think to a degree young left leaning people turn too much of a blind eye to the high levels of inefficiency in government and it is worth remaining skeptical of the brilliance of new laws and programs that sound good on paper. I think in general in government there is too much focus on intent and not enough on analyzing fairly actual results.
For me personally being center left, I think the current Repubs, especially under DJT simply have too much nationalist, religious and anti-environmental regulation baggage for me to get behind. Also I am kind of brown, I may get mistaken for an Italian since I have a lot of Euro features, but in the Midwest I could also be mistaken for a Muslim and get fucked with. I am sure that fear is partly irrational but I do have to grapple with the reality that too much anti immigrant nationalism could eventually negatively impact me because I don't look "white".
I would rather for now deal with the failings of the Democrats. I think from a purely logical and economic perspective there are a lot of interesting conservative ideals surrounding economics and smaller government. But I think the current Repub party is mostly a bastardization of that philosophy bent on helping our wealthiest citizens a bit too much, at the cost of our environment most helpless citizens.
Agree. Amusingly, I am of Sicilian descent and therefore kind of brownish olive skinned and have the same concerns. After having lived in Colorado, Midwest and South, I get mistaken for Hispanic in Colorado and Muslim or if I am really tan for mixed race in the South. The difference was that in Colorado it was rarely rude and the South was almost always rude. Iranians all over will occasionally ask if I'm Persian which is code for Iranian.
-
Disclaimer: I am fiscally conservative and strongly believe a good efficient government can provide a solid safety net for those in need. Not for moochers and leaches of society but for people who really need the help.
I'm curious - how do you determine which is which?
-
People that earn significantly less than their ability implies are called "shirkers" in the literature. They are seen as shirking their duty to earn money, which can then be taxed and redistributed to people with a higher marginal utility for a dollar. Shirkers decrease total utility at the expense of less able people. A Mustachian who retires early is the ultimate shirker under this worldview. Mustachians are high ability people who drop out of the labor force and drastically reduce their lifetime tax burden, while often drastically increasing their lifetime consumption of public benefits.
A quick point, the ultimate Shirker is one who never works. They go through the education system and never return the investment made in them, mustachians are not the ultimate.
Personally I believe at any give time there is an exact amount of corporate jobs available. When I retire early my job will be given to the next unemployed person. My job doesn't require great ability, it requires a person.
The other major problem with the Shirker theorem it defines the human experience in terms of utility. I personally don't believe we are just tools, our purpose in society goes far beyond what we get taxed at. From the shirker view, anyone who chooses kids over career is wrong, but what if that choice maximizes happiness in the world? Does utility beat out happiness?
I believe Americans have the right to pursue happiness, not to pursue the government mandate of maximum taxes. His world view that I must sacrifice my happiness for the sake of others is somewhat out of sync with my views. My ability says I should be in engineering, but what if my passion is for English? Do I sacrifice my own happiness for less able bodied? Do they in turn sacrifice their happiness for me too, teaching English when they would rather spend their life being an engineer?
I think technically you have to work for at least a little while to "show your ability," and then drop out of the labor force in order to be a shirker under this theory. The social planner can't tell whether someone who never works has very low ability, very high ability, or something in between.
Also, I you've confused the meaning of the term "utility" as it's used here—it means something like "happiness" or "well-being." But I'm with you—I'm not a utilitarian, and I don't believe people should be forced to work in high-paying jobs just because they have the skills to do so.
-
I was surprised as well to find that a group of, what you would assume are fiscally conservative people, mostly lean left. But if you consider the demographic of the readership I don't think the split is surprising at all.
Most people here have either ample income or investments and are college educated which is just a recipe for being at least more socially liberal at a minimum. Though almost none of us are "rich", in terms of yearly income. Those that could have been income rich have also chosen to somewhat forgo that path in the interest of buying more personal time and freedom.
This kind of goes against the general consumer motivate American entrepreneurial spirit that drives many educate people to lean more conservative as they become more entrenched in the world of government regulations or high tax brackets.
This seeking of optimization over excess I think also lines up with people who have a strong logical mind set which means you see a lot more engineering and science minded types around here, both of which are groups that are overwhelming liberal. I certainly know good and even great engineers who are super religious, or strong free market constitutional conservatives but they are a minority.
When your goal is living well and not necessarily getting rich, and you are far enough out of poverty to study the nuances of personal finance, it is easy to see that there are many different paths to living well financially some of which could involve higher taxes and better public services. Most college graduates and people working at multinational companies see so many Europeans getting so much more out of their government socially than we do that it is hard not to say the grass is greener in some respects.
But don't get me wrong. I think to a degree young left leaning people turn too much of a blind eye to the high levels of inefficiency in government and it is worth remaining skeptical of the brilliance of new laws and programs that sound good on paper. I think in general in government there is too much focus on intent and not enough on analyzing fairly actual results.
For me personally being center left, I think the current Repubs, especially under DJT simply have too much nationalist, religious and anti-environmental regulation baggage for me to get behind. Also I am kind of brown, I may get mistaken for an Italian since I have a lot of Euro features, but in the Midwest I could also be mistaken for a Muslim and get fucked with. I am sure that fear is partly irrational but I do have to grapple with the reality that too much anti immigrant nationalism could eventually negatively impact me because I don't look "white".
I would rather for now deal with the failings of the Democrats. I think from a purely logical and economic perspective there are a lot of interesting conservative ideals surrounding economics and smaller government. But I think the current Repub party is mostly a bastardization of that philosophy bent on helping our wealthiest citizens a bit too much, at the cost of our environment most helpless citizens.
Agree. Amusingly, I am of Sicilian descent and therefore kind of brownish olive skinned and have the same concerns. After having lived in Colorado, Midwest and South, I get mistaken for Hispanic in Colorado and Muslim or if I am really tan for mixed race in the South. The difference was that in Colorado it was rarely rude and the South was almost always rude. Iranians all over will occasionally ask if I'm Persian which is code for Iranian.
Yeah I have been pretty lucky living in California San Diego. People assume things here but I have never ran into really overt racism directed at me. Its a shame this place is so damn expensive...
I think generally in the cities people are reasonably used to diversity and most rural folk get over the foreigner look once I speak and sound like a white kid...
I don't particular mind having people in a small town being curious what I am a mix of especially if it is pretty homogeneous and gets infrequent outsiders. It would just be nice if our media and political parties weren't fueling fear and racism causing more and more of them to jump immediately to negative conclusions.
-
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause. Even your local school system will accept money, directly from you, over and above what your pre-determined share already is. If you'd gladly pay more for education, go right ahead and endow a scholarship, write the check to the PTA, pay for your nearest Jr. High to get new Marching Band uniforms or equipment in the biology lab. Whatever public good that is mostly funded by tax dollars will also take your money. Library, Public Health Center, Senior Center, Veterans Affairs, Foster Care System, you name it.
Well, but I do that? I write checks (big ones) to the PTA, library, homeless shelter, veterans groups, etc.
But, you know, my friends who couldn't get insurance due to pre existing conditions, can I, alone, pay their $20k to $40k a year premiums? Well, no. I can't.
-
A mustachian is a person who rejects the notion that a person must be a consumer and spend almost (if not) all their income, or even worse live in deep debt. He or she also wants to save money to be financially independent to possibly retire at a young age. Yes some people here will be quite wealthy in retirement. The notion that you have to be a right winger to be wealthy or to be good at managing your money is a false notion. The notion that left-wingers are poor is also false. The poorest states in this country are very red states. The poorest counties of poor states had the highest % of Trump voters. So to assume that a wealthy left-winger must be a hypocrite seems a very foolish assumption.
-
Tl;dr: Politics are about what I think our system should be. Mustachianism is about best navigating the system that we are currently stuck with.
Excellent post. I don't share 100% of your views, but I like the succinct way you have put it in the quoted part.
That being said, I think the OP raises some interesting questions. I do feel some uneasiness at the aggressive tax avoidance/minimisation strategies that some Mustachians engage in and even brag about. I am a tax lawyer by trade and in my experience that the line between what's legal and not can be blurred. Moreover, I do not subscribe at all to the view that just because it's legal, it's ethical - it's perfect legal to cheat on your spouse, I don't think it's ethical; similarly, some tax minimisation strategies may be legal but that doesn't mean they're automatically ethical. (Also note that some tax minimisation strategies may be legal according to the black letter of the law but could subsequently be held to be illegal by a court because they violate the "spirit" of the law and therefore breach an anti-avoidance rule - although I doubt most Mustachians are doing these kinds of strategies themselves; usually it is large corporations or at least extremely high net worth individuals that do this.)
I don't really understand the US tax system well enough to form any developed judgements about some of the strategies discussed on these forums. What I understand about maxing out your 401k I find perfectly acceptable as it's completely in line with what I expect the law's intent was; "tax loss harvesting" sounds way more iffy but that could just be the name, I admit I don't understand how it works. Sometimes it seems like these millionaire retirees pay nothing or almost nothing in taxes, which sounds like a pretty screwed up system to me.
What about immigrants that are both lazy criminals but also hard workers who steal jobs from Americans. What is that, Schrodinger's immigrant?
Best quote in this thread so far.
-
<...>
People that earn significantly less than their ability implies are called "shirkers" in the literature. They are seen as shirking their duty to earn money, which can then be taxed and redistributed to people with a higher marginal utility for a dollar. Shirkers decrease total utility at the expense of less able people. A Mustachian who retires early is the ultimate shirker under this worldview. Mustachians are high ability people who drop out of the labor force and drastically reduce their lifetime tax burden, while often drastically increasing their lifetime consumption of public benefits.
Personally I don't believe optimal income tax theory has much to offer real world policymakers, and I think many of its assumptions are unrealistic or at least incomplete. It just struck me that Mustachians, shirkers that they are or aspire to be, are the optimal income tax theorists' worst nightmare! But many prominent economists subscribe to the theory [see here for further reading: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezNBER12handbook.pdf]. I say vive les shirkers!
Some time ago, a Norwegian newspaper had an article on how retired people gave back enormous amounts of free labour in the form of volunteer work. This was saving the community for billions that should have been spent if people hadn't volunteered. Therefore shirking is not covering the whole truth.
-
I'll use every legal means to reduce my taxes. I would also vote to raise my taxes for life saving programs like single payer.
Ah, but how much!?
As a libertarian myself I see single payer as a somewhat more freedom causing policy. As in- people are free to work/notwork/start a company/be a bum without being forced to work for health care.
As a libertarian I have a limit to what I would spend on these as well. What if it cost 50% payroll tax increase? 20%? 10%? 2%?
I would vote for a 50% payroll tax. :D Could fund a lot of projects with that. I might be pretty liberal, though.
-
All of this is a really interesting discussion about political theory, but it seems to me that whether one is a hypocrite rests on the answer to this question:
Should a person of your income level, living under our current political system, with all its flaws and imperfections, pay more money in taxes than you currently do?
If your answer is yes, then taking legal tax breaks is inconsistent with this principle. If it is no, then legal tax breaks are not at all hypocritical. It's as simple as that.
What's interesting is a lot of this thread has been about why the answer to that question is no. Which begs the next question: should anyone be paying more? If yes, who? But it seems to me like that's a whole separate, more complicated, discussion.
-
All of this is a really interesting discussion about political theory, but it seems to me that whether one is a hypocrite rests on the answer to this question:
Should a person of your income level, living under our current political system, with all its flaws and imperfections, pay more money in taxes than you currently do?
If your answer is yes, then taking legal tax breaks is inconsistent with this principle. If it is no, then legal tax breaks are not at all hypocritical. It's as simple as that.
What's interesting is a lot of this thread has been about why the answer to that question is no. Which begs the next question: should anyone be paying more? If yes, who? But it seems to me like that's a whole separate, more complicated, discussion.
Not quite, believing that everyone should pay more and that you shouldn't pay more than the law requires you to aren't necessarily opposing beliefs. The only belief that would actually be an opposing belief is thinking everyone should pay more, but I shouldn't have to pay more(given that I am part of everyone). If you would vote for people who say they will raise your taxes then you obviously don't believe you shouldn't have to pay more so no opposing belief.
However even if it were to be the case people can easily hold opposing beliefs and just put a higher priority on one belief over another. For example the belief that FIRE would be beneficial to their and potentially their family's wellbeing and that this is more important than the well being of others. This doesn't mean you aren't concerned with the well being of others, just that your own or your family's wellbeing has a higher priority.
-
All of this is a really interesting discussion about political theory, but it seems to me that whether one is a hypocrite rests on the answer to this question:
Should a person of your income level, living under our current political system, with all its flaws and imperfections, pay more money in taxes than you currently do?
If your answer is yes, then taking legal tax breaks is inconsistent with this principle. If it is no, then legal tax breaks are not at all hypocritical. It's as simple as that.
What's interesting is a lot of this thread has been about why the answer to that question is no. Which begs the next question: should anyone be paying more? If yes, who? But it seems to me like that's a whole separate, more complicated, discussion.
While I understand your argument, I think people may be wording their beliefs incorrectly; I would be willing to pay more than I do for the government services I receive. I would like to pay nothing for the services I receive; but sometimes I have to, and I am fine with that.
-
Mostly, we don't do these things. We acknowledge the need; spout some idealistic stuff with the full expectation that someone else ought to pay. And then we strategize to keep as much as we possibly can for our own benefit or the well being of our own. That's why I call BS on claims of willingness to pay more. We're each paying exactly what we are willing to pay, and not one cent more.
If this were true, there wouldn't be such a political bifurcation. There wouldn't be all of this whining and moaning about the Democrats wanting to raise taxes to pay for services for welfare queens because there wouldn't be a Democratic party at all, or at least there wouldn't be one trying to increase taxes for social services. Clearly there are some people supporting the Democratic party policies since they keep getting elected. That's why I call BS on your calling BS. It's not hypocritical to want everyone to pay more taxes yet not "write a check to the IRS" for $18.5k.
This is obviously an attempt for those not willing to provide social services to assuage their guilt. They can claim that no one wants to provide services, because otherwise it'd already be done, so therefore it's ok for me to support less funding for school lunches or to cut funding for community colleges. It's a way to feel good about the "fuck you; I got mine" belief system all too prevalent among those who started on 3rd and feel like they hit a home run.
-
The Roth IRA and all its backdoors and the HSA was created by republicans. These are 2 of the most important vehicles for mustachians. I don't know who created the 401K but would not be shocked if it was a Republican. I am a proud Republican and Trump supporter. As long as the ACA replacement includes increasing HSA MAX then it's all good to me.
-
I think technically you have to work for at least a little while to "show your ability," and then drop out of the labor force in order to be a shirker under this theory. The social planner can't tell whether someone who never works has very low ability, very high ability, or something in between.
Also, I you've confused the meaning of the term "utility" as it's used here—it means something like "happiness" or "well-being." But I'm with you—I'm not a utilitarian, and I don't believe people should be forced to work in high-paying jobs just because they have the skills to do so.
I meant utility as an expression of usefulness to society as deemed by the bureaucracy. The shirker view seems to treat people like a tool, the happiness theorem treats them as individuals. Sorry for any confusion.
As for abilities, the social planner could make you take standardized test and assign you to the trades or advanced education paths at an early age; some countries do precisely that. Before high school you get your path and your destiny is written out. In the USA I understand the SAT's are meant to weed out poor college applicants based on their abilities, dreams get crushed early on. The shirker would be someone who scores well on a SAT and then proceeds to live in their parents basement.
I'm still struggling to see why being left wing and MMM are opposed, I'm interested in learning. Hopefully we don't get too off topic, the main topic is intriguing.
-
All of this is a really interesting discussion about political theory, but it seems to me that whether one is a hypocrite rests on the answer to this question:
Should a person of your income level, living under our current political system, with all its flaws and imperfections, pay more money in taxes than you currently do?
If your answer is yes, then taking legal tax breaks is inconsistent with this principle. If it is no, then legal tax breaks are not at all hypocritical. It's as simple as that.
What's interesting is a lot of this thread has been about why the answer to that question is no. Which begs the next question: should anyone be paying more? If yes, who? But it seems to me like that's a whole separate, more complicated, discussion.
Nope, not at all. I am willing to pay more in taxes to fund programs that don't exist. E.g., I am a fan of ACA and have been fine paying the surcharges that fund that. I would vote to tax myself more heavily to fund shoring up SS. Etc. Where the government has elected not to pursue those priorities, I will pursue on my own through charity vs. voluntarily sending more money to the government.
I think there is a real false dichotomy here that being liberal means that you must either voluntarily devote all your resources to others, and if you say "enough," you're a hypocrite. That's bullshit, in the same way that "conservatives are just greedy bastards who want to keep all their money for themselves" is. The key for every individual, liberal or conservative, is to figure out the appropriate balance in your life between what you dedicate to your own private good and what you dedicate to the public good. And the "public good" portion of that includes both goverment and charity, and it includes contributions that are made via both money and time.
I think there are liberal/conservative splits under all aspects of this. I suspect the clearest liberal/conservative split is whether the "public good" should be accomplished through government efforts vs. private charity. I suspect there is also somewhat of a liberal/conservative split on the overall question of how we apportion resources between public good vs private good overall (e.g., the libertarian view that the best way to achieve public good is to maximize individual autonomy); however, I think this latter category varies more by individual (e.g., I know many conservatives who believe very strongly in small government and low taxes, but who contribute generously to charity).
Personally, I am a liberal, and I believe there should be more government action vs relying on private charity. I also pay probably 1/3 my gross income to the public good, between the taxes that I pay and the charitable donations that I make. But there's no magic number here -- no, "whew, I'm safely out of the Hypocrite Zone" level, or "damn, I'd better up my game" threshold. Personally, I'd be willing to shift that 1/3 higher to shore up SS or institute single-payer health care. But we don't have those things, and so I think that balance is quite sufficient for now, thanks very much. OTOH, if the ACA goes away, then I probably have to tip the balance more towards the "private good" aspect, because that means I need to save more for my own future medical cost. Etc. YMMV.
And it doesn't beg the question, it raises it. ;-)
-
Mostly, we don't do these things. We acknowledge the need; spout some idealistic stuff with the full expectation that someone else ought to pay. And then we strategize to keep as much as we possibly can for our own benefit or the well being of our own. That's why I call BS on claims of willingness to pay more. We're each paying exactly what we are willing to pay, and not one cent more.
I see what you're saying but I think your statement is incomplete. A more accurate statement is: "We're each paying exactly what we are willing to pay given the system that we are currently in." That is not inconsistent with "We would be willing to pay more if the system we are in changes."
-
I don't know who created the 401K but would not be shocked if it was a Republican.
It was created by some accountant or HR type person that read the deferred income law uniquely. The 401k as we know it wasn't specifically an act of Congress.
-
Some time ago, a Norwegian newspaper had an article on how retired people gave back enormous amounts of free labour in the form of volunteer work. This was saving the community for billions that should have been spent if people hadn't volunteered. Therefore shirking is not covering the whole truth.
Great pts OP!
I think eric and some other poster got into this earlier...But yes the question is once retired are you volunteeing, starting a business, and giving away what you don't need to local organizations, or are you just reading, watching tv, and globe trotting, all the while advocating others should give more?
Once retired I'll share more of the child caring duties with my wife but probably simultaneously begin to build a business. I know MMM writes about his carpentry, but the question is does he work for 60 hours two weeks in a row then reads books for the next 50 weeks? Thats not my business but that is the point of this discussion; are you doing all (within some amount of reason(say 40hrs/wk)) to add to society?
-
I'll use every legal means to reduce my taxes. I would also vote to raise my taxes for life saving programs like single payer.
Ah, but how much!?
As a libertarian myself I see single payer as a somewhat more freedom causing policy. As in- people are free to work/notwork/start a company/be a bum without being forced to work for health care.
As a libertarian I have a limit to what I would spend on these as well. What if it cost 50% payroll tax increase? 20%? 10%? 2%?
I would vote for a 50% payroll tax. :D Could fund a lot of projects with that. I might be pretty liberal, though.
The trouble is, at least in Canada, is that we (collective) don't mind a 50% payroll tax as long as we (singular) don't have to pay for it. I know widows that pay more in taxes than myself. And they pay more in taxes simply because parents are a larger pool of the voting public.
We could do so much more for the poor and downtrodden if the greedy middle class would just pay their fair share.
-
Where the government has elected not to pursue those priorities, I will pursue on my own through charity vs. voluntarily sending more money to the government.
I don't think we are disagreeing. The question was whether you believed you paid enough taxes under the political system as it currently exists. I'm reading your response to say that under the our current system you pay sufficient taxes and do not feel an obligation to pay more, so you take whatever tax breaks are legally available. There's nothing inconsistent about that.
Although as a matter of policy, this means that at least for the foreseeable future, you would not support any increases in the tax rate for your particular income bracket. Which, again, is a perfectly reasonable position. Although depending on your income level it may put you more to the center or the right of the political spectrum.
I agree there is no magic number, but I think we do have to choose a rate of taxation that we support, and that number should, ideally, be consistent with our personal actions.
And it doesn't beg the question, it raises it. ;-)
OK, OK :). I could get into a whole thing about the versatility of language and the changing meaning of phrases, but that would get us WAY off topic. :-)
-
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause. Even your local school system will accept money, directly from you, over and above what your pre-determined share already is. If you'd gladly pay more for education, go right ahead and endow a scholarship, write the check to the PTA, pay for your nearest Jr. High to get new Marching Band uniforms or equipment in the biology lab. Whatever public good that is mostly funded by tax dollars will also take your money. Library, Public Health Center, Senior Center, Veterans Affairs, Foster Care System, you name it.
Well, but I do that? I write checks (big ones) to the PTA, library, homeless shelter, veterans groups, etc.
But, you know, my friends who couldn't get insurance due to pre existing conditions, can I, alone, pay their $20k to $40k a year premiums? Well, no. I can't.
Perhaps not you personally, but many of us who are fans of MMM most certainly can. This is where those of us who espouse liberal/progressive ideals while actually behaving like tea-partiers waltz far over the line to hypocrisy.
I earn 6 figures, I've figured out how to cover the basics on 1/3 of that. Do I stache the remainder away for my own desires, ala mustachianism, or do I turn it over to the collective (through taxes) for the benefit of my fellow earthlings? Many of us can absolutely take the money we'd otherwise put into 401k, IRA & 529b and pay a $20,000 expense for a poor or struggling person. Those with an annual vacation budget of $5k could pay the Community College tuition entirely for a poor person, and forgo their own enjoyment for a single year. This sort of thing is barely a blip in the total life experience of the giver, but life altering for generations to the recipient. Those of us with spare bedrooms could provide housing and shelter to a homeless person or foster child. Again, costs me very little but means everything to the homeless women I've sheltered.
Mostly, we don't do these things. We acknowledge the need; spout some idealistic stuff with the full expectation that someone else ought to pay. And then we strategize to keep as much as we possibly can for our own benefit or the well being of our own. That's why I call BS on claims of willingness to pay more. We're each paying exactly what we are willing to pay, and not one cent more.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Most people I know, when they say they are willing to pay more taxes for healthcare for all - really mean it.
But it would have to be healthcare for all, and we don't have that. So most people I know are not willing to pay more taxes to support the military industrial complex. So, what do you do when you see where your taxes go, and what comes up in the budget?
When you say "pay more taxes willingly" - these two things are not the same:
- paying an extra $20k in taxes per year just because you want to, to be divvied up into mostly-defense, some corn subsidies, and a little of of everything else
- paying an extra $20k in taxes per year when the President has put forth a budget that says "this is what I want to do and this is where the money is coming from" (and Congress passes it). And you agree with that.
You see that, right?
I'm not willing to spend $20k a year more on defense - instead of giving it to DJT and his cronies, I'm gonna give it to Planned Parenthood, the elementary school, the food bank, the homeless shelter, the library, etc.
And while I'm sure some Mustachians do all they can to limit their taxes, I think it's a stretch to say all of them, or even most of them. We do Turbo Tax, we pay the AMT every year, and we don't even spend a minute trying to figure out how to reduce our taxes. I'm sure there are loopholes. We could buy a business, or an orchard, or see an accountant...we don't do any of that.
-
These are the numbers, as of March 2016:
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
In summary, 60% of your federal tax dollars go to Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Safety Net programs. 16% goes to defense. The rest goes in small portions to transportation infrastructure, veterans benefits, education, scientific research, and "other."
Not expressing any opinion on these percentages, just thought it would be helpful to have the numbers up here.
-
The Roth IRA and all its backdoors and the HSA was created by republicans. These are 2 of the most important vehicles for mustachians. I don't know who created the 401K but would not be shocked if it was a Republican. I am a proud Republican and Trump supporter. As long as the ACA replacement includes increasing HSA MAX then it's all good to me.
I certainly don't support Trump but like many here I would assume that we would all welcome and increased limit of HSA contributions. With their current rules, HSA's are clearly a powerful bonus tool for retirement and health expenses.
HSA's and housing are also to major issues are starting to get me frustrated with our Democratic leaders in California...
The Republicans have also certainly introduced financial tools that are of great use to many of us.
If I were to single issue vote on health and I were to solely consider what would help me, the net effect of the ACA and revised ACA have had and will have nearly zero impact on me. I might gain better HSA access but we may also see our insurance drop some contraceptive coverage that was added by the ACA because the Republicans have weird views on contraception.
I think generally the cohort here is pretty insulated from changes at the Fed level simple because we can thrive under various rule sets because of strong incomes. I haven't been negatively effected by this administration yet so i will reserve some judgment about how outraged to be.
It seems fairly evident that over the next 8 years things are going to get a bit harder for people in the bottom 20% of earners and probably a fair chunk of lower middle class people as well if not just due just to the ACA changes shifting funding away from low earners and elderly people. I guess if that happens they'll vote different next time.
I find many other aspects of Trumps policies and administrative style displeasing but its not worth going out and protesting him acting like a child with a twitter account. If they do do something really stupid like completely eliminating the EPA I suppose I will be able to laugh in 30 years when a handful of States that completely deregulate come whining to the federal government to do something about their poisoned water supplies and unbreathable air.
-
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause. Even your local school system will accept money, directly from you, over and above what your pre-determined share already is. If you'd gladly pay more for education, go right ahead and endow a scholarship, write the check to the PTA, pay for your nearest Jr. High to get new Marching Band uniforms or equipment in the biology lab. Whatever public good that is mostly funded by tax dollars will also take your money. Library, Public Health Center, Senior Center, Veterans Affairs, Foster Care System, you name it.
Well, but I do that? I write checks (big ones) to the PTA, library, homeless shelter, veterans groups, etc.
But, you know, my friends who couldn't get insurance due to pre existing conditions, can I, alone, pay their $20k to $40k a year premiums? Well, no. I can't.
Perhaps not you personally, but many of us who are fans of MMM most certainly can. This is where those of us who espouse liberal/progressive ideals while actually behaving like tea-partiers waltz far over the line to hypocrisy.
I earn 6 figures, I've figured out how to cover the basics on 1/3 of that. Do I stache the remainder away for my own desires, ala mustachianism, or do I turn it over to the collective (through taxes) for the benefit of my fellow earthlings? Many of us can absolutely take the money we'd otherwise put into 401k, IRA & 529b and pay a $20,000 expense for a poor or struggling person. Those with an annual vacation budget of $5k could pay the Community College tuition entirely for a poor person, and forgo their own enjoyment for a single year. This sort of thing is barely a blip in the total life experience of the giver, but life altering for generations to the recipient. Those of us with spare bedrooms could provide housing and shelter to a homeless person or foster child. Again, costs me very little but means everything to the homeless women I've sheltered.
Mostly, we don't do these things. We acknowledge the need; spout some idealistic stuff with the full expectation that someone else ought to pay. And then we strategize to keep as much as we possibly can for our own benefit or the well being of our own. That's why I call BS on claims of willingness to pay more. We're each paying exactly what we are willing to pay, and not one cent more.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Most people I know, when they say they are willing to pay more taxes for healthcare for all - really mean it.
But it would have to be healthcare for all, and we don't have that. So most people I know are not willing to pay more taxes to support the military industrial complex. So, what do you do when you see where your taxes go, and what comes up in the budget?
When you say "pay more taxes willingly" - these two things are not the same:
- paying an extra $20k in taxes per year just because you want to, to be divvied up into mostly-defense, some corn subsidies, and a little of of everything else
- paying an extra $20k in taxes per year when the President has put forth a budget that says "this is what I want to do and this is where the money is coming from" (and Congress passes it). And you agree with that.
You see that, right?
I'm not willing to spend $20k a year more on defense - instead of giving it to DJT and his cronies, I'm gonna give it to Planned Parenthood, the elementary school, the food bank, the homeless shelter, the library, etc.
And while I'm sure some Mustachians do all they can to limit their taxes, I think it's a stretch to say all of them, or even most of them. We do Turbo Tax, we pay the AMT every year, and we don't even spend a minute trying to figure out how to reduce our taxes. I'm sure there are loopholes. We could buy a business, or an orchard, or see an accountant...we don't do any of that.
Lets be somewhat realistic though, I would not be terribly interested in paying even 5% more in Federal taxes just to help people much poorer than me. Paying more in taxes would have to be commensurate with me getting a little more of something from the Fed.
On principle I have always felt like I am for single payer health for instance. Simply because I think there are some crooked aspects of how our insurance based system works that can never be made right. Though I doubt my limited reading into the subject is adequate to draw any strong conclusions.
But when I consider the prospect that say California my home state may try to implement single payer health on our own, the idea unnerves me a bit. There would certainly be a fat payroll tax hike in state to pay for it. Then the next step would inevitably be that my employer would drop my coverage and dump me onto the state plan.
I think my insurance is pretty affordable and it gives me in network access to the best Hospitals in San Diego. The prospect of giving up my HSA to get potentially worse government homogenized health care doesn't exactly excite me. The plan would have to look incredibly good and well thought out to get my vote.
If any state or the fed ever gets a single payer system implemented that hurts the quality up the upper quintiles health coverage the blow back will be ridiculous.
I would personally like to see some dead weight cut from the Fed to fund new experimental programs. The problem is I think I deeply disagree with Republicans on what programs constitute dead weight or are in need of serious over halls or cuts.
-
What began as not an "attempt to impugn anyone's morals" quickly became "calling out ("self-righteous" behavior)." Which isn't surprizing, because calling someone a hypocrite is... a direct attempt to impugn someone's morals.
We all have a TON in common. A ton more than we have different. The unfortunate trick of echo chambers is convincing us the opposite. We can't possibly be a robust and informed citizenry with team ideologies to adhere to instead of our own informed opinions. I really like the posts about how prioritizing one thing over another does not make someone a hypocrite. It's kind of odd that we're discussing a political party making anyone a hypocrite. People are more complicated than their political party. I can have a normal conversation with nearly anyone of any party as long as I do it in person. By and large, the result is usually an interesting discussion, sometimes even surprize that I'm not in fact a degenerate, malodorous pervert. The ability to eat totally partisan news diets all day long is making these conversations more difficult, however.
Many believe in the Puritan ethos that charity must be entirely voluntary and without reward to "count," and inherited a discomfort with government evening the playing field (or a suspicion that it couldn't work). And, some (Republicans!) in Salt Lake actually gave away dwellings to homeless people and figured out it was cheaper than administering to them on an emergency basis. I wouldn't call them hypocrites for that. Results matter more than the purity of your political party's ideology. We couldn't even agree on who the left-wing is and what they're supposed to think. And... it... wouldn't matter. I'd rather debate which method gets the best results every time. That's way more helpful than which method is Rightest.™ It's also possible to test and solve most of the time.
If they do do something really stupid like completely eliminating the EPA I suppose I will be able to laugh in 30 years when a handful of States that completely deregulate come whining to the federal government to do something about their poisoned water supplies and unbreathable air.
The problem is usually not that someone would do something bad and suffer the consequences for it themselves. But even for that, we have seatbelt laws. The bigger reason we have government is in part to deal with the problem that one person's bad behavior negatively impacts other, innocent people. It would be awful to laugh at entire states that had poisoned their drinking water. For one, you know, suffering, and two, we can probably assume they didn't really understand what they were doing, and that at least a few opposed doing it.
-
These are the numbers, as of March 2016:
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
In summary, 60% of your federal tax dollars go to Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Safety Net programs. 16% goes to defense. The rest goes in small portions to transportation infrastructure, veterans benefits, education, scientific research, and "other."
Not expressing any opinion on these percentages, just thought it would be helpful to have the numbers up here.
I also recommend clicking on a related link regarding Tax expenditures
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-federal-tax-expenditures (http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-federal-tax-expenditures)
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-largest-tax-expenditures (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-largest-tax-expenditures)
The total on tax expenditures in 2015 was 1.2 Trillion dollars (almost a third of total budget expenditures). Examples of these tax expenditures are the tax subsidies and deductions for such things as health insurance, lower capital gains taxes,mortgage interest, 401k deductions etc. A majority of these go disproportionately to people in the top 20% of incomes. The total of the tax expenditures is larger than SS or medicare.
-
3) Yup, the 1% and the middle class pay for almost everything in this country. It doesn't mean that early retirees should mooch off of them. Not fair. Save enough to cover your own healthcare/insurance premiums then retire. Otherwise you are taking advantage of those willing to work. It is no different than the patient I had the other day with asthma who somehow convinced the government she is too sick to work and now on disability. I know how bad her asthma is. Get up off your ass and get a job you leach.
Yep, the top 1% of earners pay 39% of individual taxes and the top 10% of earners pay 71% of individual taxes. The other 90% pay 29%.
But you know, the rich don't pay there fair share. /s/
btw, the top 10% starts at $133,500.
2014 data.
-
I also recommend clicking on a related link regarding Tax expenditures
This is really interesting. Thanks.
-
3) Yup, the 1% and the middle class pay for almost everything in this country. It doesn't mean that early retirees should mooch off of them. Not fair. Save enough to cover your own healthcare/insurance premiums then retire. Otherwise you are taking advantage of those willing to work. It is no different than the patient I had the other day with asthma who somehow convinced the government she is too sick to work and now on disability. I know how bad her asthma is. Get up off your ass and get a job you leach.
Yep, the top 1% of earners pay 39% of individual taxes and the top 10% of earners pay 71% of individual taxes. The other 90% pay 29%.
But you know, the rich don't pay there fair share. /s/
btw, the top 10% starts at $133,500.
2014 data.
The picture appears different when we look at financial wealth or (non home) net-worth with the top 1% own 40% of the financial wealth. The next 19% own about 55% while the bottom 80% owns less than 5%. In other words, the top 20% owns 95% of financial net-worth. That is an amazing level of inequality in this country. That just tells you that pretty much all of the income of the lower 80% goes towards living expenses -- both discretionary and non-discretionary while the top 1% are able to leverage their substantial disposable incomes into a huge amount of wealth despite paying significant taxes. It's all about that disposable income.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html (http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)
IMO, we should just rid of all deductions (health insurance premiums/mortgage interest/student loan interest/401ks and IRAs, etc), and increase the standard deduction to something like $20K per person with a family max of $50K. Plus treat capital gains and dividends as regular income.
-
I also recommend clicking on a related link regarding Tax expenditures
This is really interesting. Thanks.
You are welcome. Reading about Tax Expenditures opened my eyes. Here is something that in total is larger than the largest mandatory item on the budget and there is not a peep about reforming this entitlement.
-
Yep, the top 1% of earners pay 39% of individual taxes and the top 10% of earners pay 71% of individual taxes. The other 90% pay 29%.
But you know, the rich don't pay there fair share. /s/
If one captures all of society's gains, one may have to also pay the upkeep costs. It can be difficult to concentrate wealth in a society without roads, electricity, running water, a police force...
-
I see a difference between a cog like me taking advantage of 'tax loopholes' vs. someone who's defining the budget/directions of the government making tax loopholes/benefits and then taking them.
-
" Hasn't Trump been getting crap for flying to Florida all the time? Why is better when you do it?"
And I have to jump on this. He's spent something like 10 million of tax dollars to pay the resort that he owns. I don't care if he's flying anywhere. I care that he said he wasn't going to take vacations (and is), said that he's going to divest himself from his interests (he hasn't), and is staying at the resort that he owns!
If I pay for a trip all around the world, I'm not using tax dollars to do it! I'm using my own money!
-
I'm calling out all the self righteous claims of "I'd gladly pay more taxes for __________." What people mean when they say it is they don't mind if taxes get raised on everyone to support their own pet cause. Even your local school system will accept money, directly from you, over and above what your pre-determined share already is. If you'd gladly pay more for education, go right ahead and endow a scholarship, write the check to the PTA, pay for your nearest Jr. High to get new Marching Band uniforms or equipment in the biology lab. Whatever public good that is mostly funded by tax dollars will also take your money. Library, Public Health Center, Senior Center, Veterans Affairs, Foster Care System, you name it.
Well, but I do that? I write checks (big ones) to the PTA, library, homeless shelter, veterans groups, etc.
But, you know, my friends who couldn't get insurance due to pre existing conditions, can I, alone, pay their $20k to $40k a year premiums? Well, no. I can't.
Perhaps not you personally, but many of us who are fans of MMM most certainly can. This is where those of us who espouse liberal/progressive ideals while actually behaving like tea-partiers waltz far over the line to hypocrisy.
I earn 6 figures, I've figured out how to cover the basics on 1/3 of that. Do I stache the remainder away for my own desires, ala mustachianism, or do I turn it over to the collective (through taxes) for the benefit of my fellow earthlings? Many of us can absolutely take the money we'd otherwise put into 401k, IRA & 529b and pay a $20,000 expense for a poor or struggling person. Those with an annual vacation budget of $5k could pay the Community College tuition entirely for a poor person, and forgo their own enjoyment for a single year. This sort of thing is barely a blip in the total life experience of the giver, but life altering for generations to the recipient. Those of us with spare bedrooms could provide housing and shelter to a homeless person or foster child. Again, costs me very little but means everything to the homeless women I've sheltered.
Mostly, we don't do these things. We acknowledge the need; spout some idealistic stuff with the full expectation that someone else ought to pay. And then we strategize to keep as much as we possibly can for our own benefit or the well being of our own. That's why I call BS on claims of willingness to pay more. We're each paying exactly what we are willing to pay, and not one cent more.
While acknowledging that ALL humans are to some degree hypocrites, I would absolutely pay more for single payer healthcare. The AHCA will lower my taxes and possibly give me a tax credit as well although it would probably push out my FIRE date. But, I don't want the ACA repealed even though in the short term it does not affect me and I've been calling and emailing my Republican MOCs asking them to oppose repeal. I also don't want my taxes lowered in order to throw people off Medicaid. I've known people who have gamed the system to get maternal care under Medicaid while I paid $8k out of pocket for my child because back then maternal care was excluded in individual health policies. Someone will always gain the system, no matter the system, isn't that what Trump has been doing his entire life? The same could be said for SNAP and countless other government programs. Would I and probably everyone on these boards pay an additional surcharge that would go to the SNAP program or Medicaid to ensure that people's basic needs are covered even though many people will game the system and get benefits they don't need? I know I would.
-
I question the premises that lead to your questions.
"...the focus of the mainstream American left has been: (i) reduce inequality, especially by raising taxes on the rich; ..."
Well, certainly a lot of lip service is paid to this issue, but we've had the same tax policy (pretty much) through several administrations. Sometimes we've had Democratically controlled Congresses, but no radical reform of the tax structure. I have to conclude that either the Democrats are not a party of the "left" or that the "left" isn't serious about this.
"... (ii) protect the environment to a greater extent; .."
Well, again, much talk but little action. The "left" wants to do something about global warming, but not to the extent of giving up their SUVs. Back in Nov. I lost count of the number of Honda Pilots sporting Clinton/Kaine stickers. We (I would include myself as a lefty) want someone else to do something.
"... (iii) decrease racial/gender discrimination; ...." Yes, so long as it doesn't upset the status quo between the salary class and the wage class. Female lawyers not getting paid the same as their male counterparts elicits rage, while female factory workers can loose their jobs to offshoring and are told it's inevitable in a global economy. Worry about glass ceilings but don't worry about those falling through the cracks in the floor.
"... and (iv) play defense or make incremental expansions to existing social welfare programs including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc."
Play defense while at the same time voting for exactly the same costly foreign policy that is bankrupting us for the past 16 years, then pretend to be shocked (or maybe they actually are shocked, which is sadder) when social programs are on the chopping block as we struggle to do something about our ballooning deficit.
There isn't actually much of a left in this country.
-
I question the premises that lead to your questions.
"...the focus of the mainstream American left has been: (i) reduce inequality, especially by raising taxes on the rich; ..."
Well, certainly a lot of lip service is paid to this issue, but we've had the same tax policy (pretty much) through several administrations. Sometimes we've had Democratically controlled Congresses, but no radical reform of the tax structure. I have to conclude that either the Democrats are not a party of the "left" or that the "left" isn't serious about this.
"... (ii) protect the environment to a greater extent; .."
Well, again, much talk but little action. The "left" wants to do something about global warming, but not to the extent of giving up their SUVs. Back in Nov. I lost count of the number of Honda Pilots sporting Clinton/Kaine stickers. We (I would include myself as a lefty) want someone else to do something.
"... (iii) decrease racial/gender discrimination; ...." Yes, so long as it doesn't upset the status quo between the salary class and the wage class. Female lawyers not getting paid the same as their male counterparts elicits rage, while female factory workers can loose their jobs to offshoring and are told it's inevitable in a global economy. Worry about glass ceilings but don't worry about those falling through the cracks in the floor.
"... and (iv) play defense or make incremental expansions to existing social welfare programs including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc."
Play defense while at the same time voting for exactly the same costly foreign policy that is bankrupting us for the past 16 years, then pretend to be shocked (or maybe they actually are shocked, which is sadder) when social programs are on the chopping block as we struggle to do something about our ballooning deficit.
There isn't actually much of a left in this country.
I think you are agreeing, in general, with the OP's point.
-
I question the premises that lead to your questions.
"...the focus of the mainstream American left has been: (i) reduce inequality, especially by raising taxes on the rich; ..."
Well, certainly a lot of lip service is paid to this issue, but we've had the same tax policy (pretty much) through several administrations. Sometimes we've had Democratically controlled Congresses, but no radical reform of the tax structure. I have to conclude that either the Democrats are not a party of the "left" or that the "left" isn't serious about this.
"... (ii) protect the environment to a greater extent; .."
Well, again, much talk but little action. The "left" wants to do something about global warming, but not to the extent of giving up their SUVs. Back in Nov. I lost count of the number of Honda Pilots sporting Clinton/Kaine stickers. We (I would include myself as a lefty) want someone else to do something.
"... (iii) decrease racial/gender discrimination; ...." Yes, so long as it doesn't upset the status quo between the salary class and the wage class. Female lawyers not getting paid the same as their male counterparts elicits rage, while female factory workers can loose their jobs to offshoring and are told it's inevitable in a global economy. Worry about glass ceilings but don't worry about those falling through the cracks in the floor.
"... and (iv) play defense or make incremental expansions to existing social welfare programs including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc."
Play defense while at the same time voting for exactly the same costly foreign policy that is bankrupting us for the past 16 years, then pretend to be shocked (or maybe they actually are shocked, which is sadder) when social programs are on the chopping block as we struggle to do something about our ballooning deficit.
There isn't actually much of a left in this country.
I understand what you're saying. There's a large portion of the left that agrees 100% that what's been going on for a while isn't enough. Most of them voted for Bernie and feel like the democratic party has jumped the shark.
-
Lets be somewhat realistic though, I would not be terribly interested in paying even 5% more in Federal taxes just to help people much poorer than me. Paying more in taxes would have to be commensurate with me getting a little more of something from the Fed.
I guess I would be.
-
I'd rather debate which method gets the best results every time. That's way more helpful than which method is Rightest.™ It's also possible to test and solve most of the time.
I have to bring this back up because it resonates with me so well. I feel we need engineers and scientists in government for this exact reason. It seems like so much hot air is wasted debating what is "right" with little or no references to reality. I don't care if you think that birth control is an individual right or morally repugnant. If we can agree on some basic goals such as increasing labor participation for those who want to work, decreasing maternal and infant mortality, decreasing childhood poverty, increasing educational and career attainment, then we can have a productive conversation about how birth control may or not effect those goals by running studies and looking at the evidence. As someone who works in aerospace, I can say with authority, "this isn't rocket science". If your goal and my goal is jointly to reduce abortions, we can jointly agree that free access to birth control is a good thing. It doesn't matter that you want to limit abortions because you think it is a moral sin and I want to limit them because I think a woman with autonomy over her body shouldn't end up having to choose an abortion except in extreme cases. Win-win, right?
Please, just give the facts a chance to stand on their own. How about evidence-based governing? It depresses me that this is too much to ask for in this country.
-
If your goal and my goal is jointly to reduce abortions, we can jointly agree that free access to birth control is a good thing. It doesn't matter that you want to limit abortions because you think it is a moral sin and I want to limit them because I think a woman with autonomy over her body shouldn't end up having to choose an abortion except in extreme cases. Win-win, right?
But they think that birth control is a sin too. At this point, they've realized they can say whatever they want, not have to prove it, and do whatever they want even if it contradicts what they already said. They have no accountability to voters when their campaigns are already paid for by corporations.
-
Best clickbait thread title of the year!!
Anyone who disagrees with me is a hypocrite.
-
But they think that birth control is a sin too
You are correct that I am assuming a minimal level of rational thought on the other side of this fictitious argument. That probably is the crux of most of the problems we have in this country right there.
-
If your goal and my goal is jointly to reduce abortions, we can jointly agree that free access to birth control is a good thing. It doesn't matter that you want to limit abortions because you think it is a moral sin and I want to limit them because I think a woman with autonomy over her body shouldn't end up having to choose an abortion except in extreme cases. Win-win, right?
But they think that birth control is a sin too. At this point, they've realized they can say whatever they want, not have to prove it, and do whatever they want even if it contradicts what they already said. They have no accountability to voters when their campaigns are already paid for by corporations.
Mischaracterization. They believe people have the right to bodily autonomy and bodily integrity. The disagreement is not with "choice" or birth control, it is a disagreement on when human life beings and therefore rights begin.
Going round circle, except for a primarily catholic good of people, no one is against birth control. This is what makes the mischaracterization so bad because this topic keeps coming up in public dialogue. For people you are describing, generally they are fine with birth control is fine. Aborticides they aren't. Take for example the Hobby Lobby (sp?) case. It gets portrayed as them not wanting to pay for birth control but if I recall they were willing to pay for plans that covered a wide variety of birth control but not ones that had a certain subset of aborticides.
-
Best clickbait thread title of the year!!
Anyone who disagrees with me is a hypocrite.
Maybe that can be my side hustle, writing clickbait articles!
-
I'd rather debate which method gets the best results every time. That's way more helpful than which method is Rightest.™ It's also possible to test and solve most of the time.
I have to bring this back up because it resonates with me so well. I feel we need engineers and scientists in government for this exact reason. It seems like so much hot air is wasted debating what is "right" with little or no references to reality. I don't care if you think that birth control is an individual right or morally repugnant. If we can agree on some basic goals such as increasing labor participation for those who want to work, decreasing maternal and infant mortality, decreasing childhood poverty, increasing educational and career attainment, then we can have a productive conversation about how birth control may or not effect those goals by running studies and looking at the evidence. As someone who works in aerospace, I can say with authority, "this isn't rocket science". If your goal and my goal is jointly to reduce abortions, we can jointly agree that free access to birth control is a good thing. It doesn't matter that you want to limit abortions because you think it is a moral sin and I want to limit them because I think a woman with autonomy over her body shouldn't end up having to choose an abortion except in extreme cases. Win-win, right?
Please, just give the facts a chance to stand on their own. How about evidence-based governing? It depresses me that this is too much to ask for in this country.
Unfortunately, politics isn't about enacting the proper policies. Politics is all about aggrandizing power and using that power to (i) entrench one's power; (ii) grow one's power; and (iii) benefit materially from that power. Sure, many politicians have little pet issues they like to advance, but that's marginal compared to the real goal of seizing and maintaining power. Elections act as a very weak (albeit real) limit on political aggrandizement.
My original post was about political philosophy, not electoral or real life politics.
-
I question the premises that lead to your questions.
"...the focus of the mainstream American left has been: (i) reduce inequality, especially by raising taxes on the rich; ..."
Well, certainly a lot of lip service is paid to this issue, but we've had the same tax policy (pretty much) through several administrations. Sometimes we've had Democratically controlled Congresses, but no radical reform of the tax structure. I have to conclude that either the Democrats are not a party of the "left" or that the "left" isn't serious about this.
"... (ii) protect the environment to a greater extent; .."
Well, again, much talk but little action. The "left" wants to do something about global warming, but not to the extent of giving up their SUVs. Back in Nov. I lost count of the number of Honda Pilots sporting Clinton/Kaine stickers. We (I would include myself as a lefty) want someone else to do something.
"... (iii) decrease racial/gender discrimination; ...." Yes, so long as it doesn't upset the status quo between the salary class and the wage class. Female lawyers not getting paid the same as their male counterparts elicits rage, while female factory workers can loose their jobs to offshoring and are told it's inevitable in a global economy. Worry about glass ceilings but don't worry about those falling through the cracks in the floor.
"... and (iv) play defense or make incremental expansions to existing social welfare programs including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc."
Play defense while at the same time voting for exactly the same costly foreign policy that is bankrupting us for the past 16 years, then pretend to be shocked (or maybe they actually are shocked, which is sadder) when social programs are on the chopping block as we struggle to do something about our ballooning deficit.
There isn't actually much of a left in this country.
There's a difference between what the American Left would like its elected officials to do and what the Democratic party actually does, no doubt. Doesn't mean there's no left-wing in this country. We are probably less left-wing than most western European countries though.
-
If your goal and my goal is jointly to reduce abortions, we can jointly agree that free access to birth control is a good thing. It doesn't matter that you want to limit abortions because you think it is a moral sin and I want to limit them because I think a woman with autonomy over her body shouldn't end up having to choose an abortion except in extreme cases. Win-win, right?
But they think that birth control is a sin too. At this point, they've realized they can say whatever they want, not have to prove it, and do whatever they want even if it contradicts what they already said. They have no accountability to voters when their campaigns are already paid for by corporations.
Mischaracterization. They believe people have the right to bodily autonomy and bodily integrity. The disagreement is not with "choice" or birth control, it is a disagreement on when human life beings and therefore rights begin.
Going round circle, except for a primarily catholic good of people, no one is against birth control. This is what makes the mischaracterization so bad because this topic keeps coming up in public dialogue. For people you are describing, generally they are fine with birth control is fine. Aborticides they aren't. Take for example the Hobby Lobby (sp?) case. It gets portrayed as them not wanting to pay for birth control but if I recall they were willing to pay for plans that covered a wide variety of birth control but not ones that had a certain subset of aborticides.
I'm not surprised that I (and many others) have mis-categorized what Hobby Lobby was trying to do (I haven't looked into it more than superficially). These spectrum issues are hard. 20 different people would have different definitions of what types of abortion or situations where abortion is OK.
On the mis-information based on article titles, it's just like the McDonalds coffee lady from back in the day. There's pictures of her legs, and then you realize "huh, McDonalds coffee was probably hot considering that it melted her skin". Media's going to do their best to mis-inform you and the hard part now is that there's no oversite (or its' severely lacking) on what can and can't be done during politcal campaigns. Good read on it here and I can just see it being more and more abused. https://scout.ai/story/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine (https://scout.ai/story/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine)
-
Edit: thinking about it more, I was too incomplete. We are additionally an outlier in: investment in mass transportation (high speed rail anyone?), [/quote]
The most populous state in the union, California, has invested millions in a SF to LA high speed rail project. We just don't actually lay any track with that money or have anything to show for it, but that's another story.
-
" Hasn't Trump been getting crap for flying to Florida all the time? Why is better when you do it?"
And I have to jump on this. He's spent something like 10 million of tax dollars to pay the resort that he owns. I don't care if he's flying anywhere. I care that he said he wasn't going to take vacations (and is), said that he's going to divest himself from his interests (he hasn't), and is staying at the resort that he owns!
If I pay for a trip all around the world, I'm not using tax dollars to do it! I'm using my own money!
The point was that if you're an environmentalist who is truly concerned about climate change, you shouldn't fly much, maybe never. I've seen Trump's flights criticized for their environmental impact, though I'm sure they're also criticized for cost reasons as well.
-
I question the premises that lead to your questions.
"...the focus of the mainstream American left has been: (i) reduce inequality, especially by raising taxes on the rich; ..."
Well, certainly a lot of lip service is paid to this issue, but we've had the same tax policy (pretty much) through several administrations. Sometimes we've had Democratically controlled Congresses, but no radical reform of the tax structure. I have to conclude that either the Democrats are not a party of the "left" or that the "left" isn't serious about this.
"... (ii) protect the environment to a greater extent; .."
Well, again, much talk but little action. The "left" wants to do something about global warming, but not to the extent of giving up their SUVs. Back in Nov. I lost count of the number of Honda Pilots sporting Clinton/Kaine stickers. We (I would include myself as a lefty) want someone else to do something.
"... (iii) decrease racial/gender discrimination; ...." Yes, so long as it doesn't upset the status quo between the salary class and the wage class. Female lawyers not getting paid the same as their male counterparts elicits rage, while female factory workers can loose their jobs to offshoring and are told it's inevitable in a global economy. Worry about glass ceilings but don't worry about those falling through the cracks in the floor.
"... and (iv) play defense or make incremental expansions to existing social welfare programs including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc."
Play defense while at the same time voting for exactly the same costly foreign policy that is bankrupting us for the past 16 years, then pretend to be shocked (or maybe they actually are shocked, which is sadder) when social programs are on the chopping block as we struggle to do something about our ballooning deficit.
There isn't actually much of a left in this country.
There's a difference between what the American Left would like its elected officials to do and what the Democratic party actually does, no doubt. Doesn't mean there's no left-wing in this country. We are probably less left-wing than most western European countries though.
This is partly only an artifact of our 2 party system which kind of hides the diversity among each parties common constituents. Bernie demonstrated that somewhere close to half of Democrats are more progressive than the parties leadership.
We are also significantly larger and more spread out than most Euro countries so the way our bases politics evolve to change the make up of our two major parties I suspect just moves a bit slower than smaller European countries with multi party systems.
-
Lets be somewhat realistic though, I would not be terribly interested in paying even 5% more in Federal taxes just to help people much poorer than me. Paying more in taxes would have to be commensurate with me getting a little more of something from the Fed.
I guess I would be.
And you may not be alone. But it is really difficult sell to increase taxes on average workers. Even if in theory we could use that money for something good.
Single payer health would likely have to expand and tax similarly to how medicare or social security operates. With an overt and nearly unavoidable payroll tax partly picked up by your employer. SS and Medicare currently tax their taxes before even 401k contributions are factored in, so there is not a lot you can do to shield your income from paying these taxes.
So you could imagine we would likely have at least another 6% payroll tax added to pay for it? My current employer health insurance costs me about 6% of my gross salary. That includes premiums and full funding of an HSA.
I suppose if they could keep it in that range and let me keep my doctors it may actually be a decent deal. It really depends where the cap the tax at. Typically though anyone not in the top 20% of earners feel the full weight of these taxes.
Keeping in mind that if working people were paying 6%, self employed would be paying an extra 12%. Hiking their payroll tax up to around 24%-27%. That might be a tough pill to swallow at first, maybe the high costs of ACA type programs will warm people up to the idea if it off sets a large medical cost anyway.
What would be really cool is if we could get income taxes noticeably reduced for say the bottom 99% of earners through a series of refinements and cuts to overgrown programs, and then kick off a single payer health tax, so part of the pain would be offset by a reduction in other government spending. Like maybe expanding all the lower tax brackets by $10k-$20k.
-
Lets be somewhat realistic though, I would not be terribly interested in paying even 5% more in Federal taxes just to help people much poorer than me. Paying more in taxes would have to be commensurate with me getting a little more of something from the Fed.
I guess I would be.
And you may not be alone. But it is really difficult sell to increase taxes on average workers. Even if in theory we could use that money for something good.
Single payer health would likely have to expand and tax similarly to how medicare or social security operates. With an overt and nearly unavoidable payroll tax partly picked up by your employer. SS and Medicare currently tax their taxes before even 401k contributions are factored in, so there is not a lot you can do to shield your income from paying these taxes.
So you could imagine we would likely have at least another 6% payroll tax added to pay for it? My current employer health insurance costs me about 6% of my gross salary. That includes premiums and full funding of an HSA.
I suppose if they could keep it in that range and let me keep my doctors it may actually be a decent deal. It really depends where the cap the tax at. Typically though anyone not in the top 20% of earners feel the full weight of these taxes.
Keeping in mind that if working people were paying 6%, self employed would be paying an extra 12%. Hiking their payroll tax up to around 24%-27%. That might be a tough pill to swallow at first, maybe the high costs of ACA type programs will warm people up to the idea if it off sets a large medical cost anyway.
What would be really cool is if we could get income taxes noticeably reduced for say the bottom 99% of earners through a series of refinements and cuts to overgrown programs, and then kick off a single payer health tax, so part of the pain would be offset by a reduction in other government spending. Like maybe expanding all the lower tax brackets by $10k-$20k.
About 44% of people already pay zero income tax. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/closer-look-those-who-pay-no-income-or-payroll-taxes Another ~25% of people pay very little income tax. You really have to be in ~the top 25% of income to pay any substantial amount of income tax in the U.S.
-
About 44% of people already pay zero income tax. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/closer-look-those-who-pay-no-income-or-payroll-taxes Another ~25% of people pay very little income tax. You really have to be in ~the top 25% of income to pay any substantial amount of income tax in the U.S.
The linked article does not say how much income they make. I would hazard a guess that this 44% probably just makes enough money or less and barely subsist on this income. In other words, they pretty much spend what they earn with no disposable income remaining after basic living expenses.
In contrast the top 1% likely makes a large enough income such that the disposable part is many multiples of their living expenses and thus are able to get rich by saving and investing this.
As I posted earlier in this thread, the top 20% of people have a financial net worth equal to 95% while the remaining 80% only has a financial net worth of about 5%.
-
The point was that if you're an environmentalist who is truly concerned about climate change, you shouldn't fly much, maybe never. I've seen Trump's flights criticized for their environmental impact, though I'm sure they're also criticized for cost reasons as well.
Why focus on just flying? Even driving is bad for the environment. To take your argument further, even being born and existing is bad for the environment as you will use up resources and increase pollution.
-
3) Yup, the 1% and the middle class pay for almost everything in this country. It doesn't mean that early retirees should mooch off of them. Not fair. Save enough to cover your own healthcare/insurance premiums then retire. Otherwise you are taking advantage of those willing to work. It is no different than the patient I had the other day with asthma who somehow convinced the government she is too sick to work and now on disability. I know how bad her asthma is. Get up off your ass and get a job you leach.
Yep, the top 1% of earners pay 39% of individual taxes and the top 10% of earners pay 71% of individual taxes. The other 90% pay 29%.
But you know, the rich don't pay there fair share. /s/
btw, the top 10% starts at $133,500.
2014 data.
The picture appears different when we look at financial wealth or (non home) net-worth with the top 1% own 40% of the financial wealth. The next 19% own about 55% while the bottom 80% owns less than 5%. In other words, the top 20% owns 95% of financial net-worth. That is an amazing level of inequality in this country. That just tells you that pretty much all of the income of the lower 80% goes towards living expenses -- both discretionary and non-discretionary while the top 1% are able to leverage their substantial disposable incomes into a huge amount of wealth despite paying significant taxes. It's all about that disposable income.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html (http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)
IMO, we should just rid of all deductions (health insurance premiums/mortgage interest/student loan interest/401ks and IRAs, etc), and increase the standard deduction to something like $20K per person with a family max of $50K.
Plus treat capital gains and dividends as regular income.
I don't like the idea, because as you can see by much of society, it is very difficult to save any money let alone invest it. Those that do, should be able to use it to build their future not be forced by the government to give it up.
-
3) Yup, the 1% and the middle class pay for almost everything in this country. It doesn't mean that early retirees should mooch off of them. Not fair. Save enough to cover your own healthcare/insurance premiums then retire. Otherwise you are taking advantage of those willing to work. It is no different than the patient I had the other day with asthma who somehow convinced the government she is too sick to work and now on disability. I know how bad her asthma is. Get up off your ass and get a job you leach.
Yep, the top 1% of earners pay 39% of individual taxes and the top 10% of earners pay 71% of individual taxes. The other 90% pay 29%.
But you know, the rich don't pay there fair share. /s/
btw, the top 10% starts at $133,500.
2014 data.
The picture appears different when we look at financial wealth or (non home) net-worth with the top 1% own 40% of the financial wealth. The next 19% own about 55% while the bottom 80% owns less than 5%. In other words, the top 20% owns 95% of financial net-worth. That is an amazing level of inequality in this country. That just tells you that pretty much all of the income of the lower 80% goes towards living expenses -- both discretionary and non-discretionary while the top 1% are able to leverage their substantial disposable incomes into a huge amount of wealth despite paying significant taxes. It's all about that disposable income.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html (http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)
IMO, we should just rid of all deductions (health insurance premiums/mortgage interest/student loan interest/401ks and IRAs, etc), and increase the standard deduction to something like $20K per person with a family max of $50K.
Plus treat capital gains and dividends as regular income.
I don't like the idea, because as you can see by much of society, it is very difficult to save any money let alone invest it. Those that do, should be able to use it to build their future not be forced by the government to give it up.
Why should the government give a tax break for those that invest in the stock market? What about those that save but put their money in the bank or buy bonds?
Using your own words, those that save money but put it in a bank or buy bonds etc. are being forced by the government to pay higher taxes so that those who invest in the stock market can pay lower taxes.
Somehow the phrase "forced by the government" rubs me the wrong way. We in the US do not live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The government is you, me, and every other citizen of this country.
People living in free countries such as the US who complain and use the phrase "being forced by the government" have absolutely no clue what "being forced by the government" really is. It is an insult to those that live under tyrannical and despotic regimes.
-
3) Yup, the 1% and the middle class pay for almost everything in this country. It doesn't mean that early retirees should mooch off of them. Not fair. Save enough to cover your own healthcare/insurance premiums then retire. Otherwise you are taking advantage of those willing to work. It is no different than the patient I had the other day with asthma who somehow convinced the government she is too sick to work and now on disability. I know how bad her asthma is. Get up off your ass and get a job you leach.
Yep, the top 1% of earners pay 39% of individual taxes and the top 10% of earners pay 71% of individual taxes. The other 90% pay 29%.
But you know, the rich don't pay there fair share. /s/
btw, the top 10% starts at $133,500.
2014 data.
The picture appears different when we look at financial wealth or (non home) net-worth with the top 1% own 40% of the financial wealth. The next 19% own about 55% while the bottom 80% owns less than 5%. In other words, the top 20% owns 95% of financial net-worth. That is an amazing level of inequality in this country. That just tells you that pretty much all of the income of the lower 80% goes towards living expenses -- both discretionary and non-discretionary while the top 1% are able to leverage their substantial disposable incomes into a huge amount of wealth despite paying significant taxes. It's all about that disposable income.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html (http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)
IMO, we should just rid of all deductions (health insurance premiums/mortgage interest/student loan interest/401ks and IRAs, etc), and increase the standard deduction to something like $20K per person with a family max of $50K.
Plus treat capital gains and dividends as regular income.
I don't like the idea, because as you can see by much of society, it is very difficult to save any money let alone invest it. Those that do, should be able to use it to build their future not be forced by the government to give it up.
Why should the government give a tax break for those that invest in the stock market? What about those that save but put their money in the bank or buy bonds?
Using your own words, those that save money but put it in a bank or buy bonds etc. are being forced by the government to pay higher taxes so that those who invest in the stock market can pay lower taxes.
Somehow the phrase "forced by the government" rubs me the wrong way. We in the US do not live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The government is you, me, and every other citizen of this country.
People living in free countries such as the US who complain and use the phrase "being forced by the government" have absolutely no clue what "being forced by the government" really is. It is an insult to those that live under tyrannical and despotic regimes.
You can certainly put together a chain of logic that says we are forced to pay these things, but like you I think it is a semi unimportant exaggeration. Every society forces us to follow some rules to get the perks we would never get if it didn't exist. You wouldn't even have a job or business to make earnings and get taxed if it wasn't for the government...
All the same the incentives of our current tax structure may not be the most fair. Generally taxes and policies shouldn't strive for equality but for social mobility. We want to avoid tax structures that reduce mobility for low earners. If saving is a tool for mobility among the working poor then we should reward those with the discipline to save.
Sadly critically analyzing and changing anything about our system is ridiculously difficult. No matter how f'ed up a system is there is almost always a group benefiting from it that doesn't want it to change.
-
About 44% of people already pay zero income tax. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/closer-look-those-who-pay-no-income-or-payroll-taxes Another ~25% of people pay very little income tax. You really have to be in ~the top 25% of income to pay any substantial amount of income tax in the U.S.
The linked article does not say how much income they make. I would hazard a guess that this 44% probably just makes enough money or less and barely subsist on this income. In other words, they pretty much spend what they earn with no disposable income remaining after basic living expenses.
In contrast the top 1% likely makes a large enough income such that the disposable part is many multiples of their living expenses and thus are able to get rich by saving and investing this.
As I posted earlier in this thread, the top 20% of people have a financial net worth equal to 95% while the remaining 80% only has a financial net worth of about 5%.
It may not show income but you could take an easy guess. The bottom 18% in that chart are paying 0 payroll tax due to offset from credits. Generally being in the bottom 20% of earners is considered below the poverty line. These people are living in the worst areas in section 8 housing or living with family.
To be in the bottom 18% or 20% you have to be earning around $20k a year. Considering the cost of housing and food, its not really any surpise that we don't get any taxes out of people in this group.
The next group that doesn't pay income tax apparently is getting around $45k a year max.
But this really depends more on earnings relative to living situation. A family of 4 making $45k with two earners is likely in the 0 income tax group.
A single person making $45k is probably paying income tax.
Its probable my concern about tax breaks for people making lower amounts of money doesn't adequately take into consideration that many already get a lot of breaks.
-
I think whether a leftie Mustachian is a hypocrite only if they believe that a special math applies to running a government that isn't related to the math of running an individuals finances.
Mustachianism really just boils down to simple math in many ways. If you think it's bad for individuals to spend their money like drunken pirates but it's just fine and dandy when the US gov does it, then you are indeed a hypocrite.
Now if you believe in implementing certain leftie policies, say healthcare reform, and you can present pragmatic, math based reasoning for implementing said polices, I don't think that's hypocrisy.
-
You can certainly put together a chain of logic that says we are forced to pay these things, but like you I think it is a semi unimportant exaggeration. Every society forces us to follow some rules to get the perks we would never get if it didn't exist. You wouldn't even have a job or business to make earnings and get taxed if it wasn't for the government...
All the same the incentives of our current tax structure may not be the most fair. Generally taxes and policies shouldn't strive for equality but for social mobility. We want to avoid tax structures that reduce mobility for low earners. If saving is a tool for mobility among the working poor then we should reward those with the discipline to save.
Sadly critically analyzing and changing anything about our system is ridiculously difficult. No matter how f'ed up a system is there is almost always a group benefiting from it that doesn't want it to change.
Agree wholeheartedly with almost everything you say!
However sometimes policies such as preferential tax rates on capital gains and make no sense to me. How many working lower income people own stocks? I would say that the people who benefit the most from these are those who get most of their income from investments. This is most likely people who are significantly wealthy. I do not see this policy as improving social mobility in any way.
-
Agree wholeheartedly with almost everything you say!
However sometimes policies such as preferential tax rates on capital gains and make no sense to me. How many working lower income people own stocks? I would say that the people who benefit the most from these are those who get most of their income from investments. This is most likely people who are significantly wealthy. I do not see this policy as improving social mobility in any way.
The most common rationale for preferential tax rates on capital gains is that increased investment in a country is good, we want to attract investment into our country, capital is mobile, and taxing capital too heavily will cause it to flee to lower-tax jurisdictions. Basically, tax competition between countries. Countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong have done very well with low tax rates, and have attracted foreign investment that they might not have attracted had tax rates been higher.
The aim is not about social mobility, nor to "keep down the poor", but the unfortunate effect is that wage earners bear a proportionately greater burden (because labour is less mobile than capital).
-
I'm taking 'are left-wing Mutachians hypocrites' as an attack rather than some legitimate request for information. Just because we aren’t complete Buddhist renunciates and giving up all possessions, giving up all electricity use or perfect, how dare we talk about protecting the environment, having more egalitarian society or health care system. How dare these liberals say, maybe we could live our lives in a way more compatible with long term care for future generations of the planet, use more renuables, have health care for all citizens, while we also earn and amass personal wealth as efficiently as possible.
A large part of Mutachianism seem to be finding logical, efficient, rational ways of living personally, financially and as a society. The same desire for efficient living personally also applies to wanting society to work efficiently. Sartre viewed morality as emerging out of this choice of making ethical decisions as if you were having to decide for all people, as no morality exists a priori, with freedom and responsibilty. Aside from ethical concerns, having universal healthcare for all is actually cheaper for society because of the costs of having preventative medicine rather that untreated severe problems requiring help. Many other countries seem to be able to do it cheaper and more effectively, with the added bonus of caring for our fellow citizens is ethical. I work with frequent users of the ER and the hospitals, preventative care would save everyone a lot of resources. So helping people treat early problems before they become diabetics, have more severe cancer, and show up repeatedly at your ER’s is cheaper for society. Educate and feed people, give prenatal care rather than imprison or care for them later. If you don’t believe in the utility of preventative care, stop brushing your teeth.
Sometimes collectively buying things is cheaper for society, in the same way that a bunch of us buying several large pizzas with coupons is much cheaper per person than buying your own small pizza, even if a few of our friends didn’t bring cash to chip in. While we are trying to live effectively and do well financially, we can still hold the view that higher taxes overall would be good for society and the economy, as better off poor and middle class spend more money and create more jobs/services with higher velocity of money, than having wealth concentrated with just a few very rich.
I can try to do my best under the current rules of the game amass wealth, out of worry for myself and family, while also strongly believing there is a better way for society that I would be glad to adapt to. I believe that wealth allows investments, investments appreciate and generate income faster than work. Thus stocks and real estate generate income greatly eclipsing what income I could earn on my own. Thinking that this ‘Capital Gains’ should be taxed at a higher NOT lower rate as wealth inequality grows worse, while continuing to increase my own investments I believe makes me honest and moral, not a hypocrite. Saying we should try as a society and individual to pollute less, while still driving and only getting 46 miles per gallon, rather than sitting inside without electricity, I think makes me an adult with a sense of responsibility aware of my own failings or areas of my life I would like to improve, not a hypocrite. It is possible to believe our Country worked better after the New Deal social programs of the 30's than during the periods of the Robber Barrons and Gilded Age, while out of concern for my own personal and family wealth trying to earn as much as possible, out of fear things will get pushed much worse, the safety nets will get further eroded.
I would be ok if my taxes were higher, and the very rich had level of taxes they might have paid 30 years ago, but we get to keep school lunch programs, funding for the arts, better infrastructure, and other things. I would love those services and as a bonus think jobs are created, rather than having some philosophical supply-side purity that says it's criminal to ask the Walton family to pay a bit more in taxes or pharmaceutical companies profiteering get reigned in.
The US previously had much higher tax rates particularly on the rich, real wages have stagnated in the past 40 years for all but the very top and taxes have gone down. I believe the economy works better when wealth is better distributed, laws protect the environment, and that government projects despite inefficiencies like paying decent wages work better than corporatist greed. The fact I hold these beliefs while not being an ascetic doesn’t cause me too much cognitive dissonance. Warren Buffet amassing wealth while calling for higher taxes on the rich and giving to charity, makes him more moral than the Walton family advocating for lower taxes, not a ‘hypocrite’. Holding a nuanced rather than simplistic black and white, polarized stance is part of thinking about issue, and how we can all come together. I’ll refrain from starting a thread, asking about right wing Mustachians with some pejorative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM)
-
I'm taking 'are left-wing Mutachians hypocrites' as an attack rather than some legitimate request for information.
I don't think this is necessary, and I think it's a shame that political discourse is almost always reduced to this. Although, to be fair, I get that the title is provocative.
But I think the question forces people to compare their actions to their ideals, which is always useful. I'm way to the left on the spectrum. Voted for Bernie, support single payer, even think reparations in some form are worth thinking about. Most important, I believe that taxes should be higher for people who make over 150k a year, as I do. Not necessarily a huge hike, but somewhat higher. And I believe that even though I don't agree 100% with the current allocations on spending, and I also know that some is wasted.
In this situation taking tax deductions (which I do) is inconsistent with my principals and policy ideals. While advocating for higher taxes on my bracket as a whole, I am reducing my own tax burden. No way that you can argue that this is principled action.
Ultimately, without laws demanding it, I don't always act as altruistically as I believe I should. Which is the same for almost everyone. Which is why liberals advocate for laws that will help conform our actions to the ideals that we believe will provide the most public benefit. I don't necessarily think there's anything hypocritical or wrong about this. It's a realistic acknowledgement of human nature.
But I think a person of perfect principals, in my position, would not take tax breaks. I am just not that guy, and few are.
-
There's a difference between social and personal policies.
If you're publically all about weight loss and eat nothing but cheeseburgers, sure, that's still suspect.
However, if you believe social policy should be one thing, and as long as it isn't, you don't voluntarily mimic that thing (which would probably be a negligible effect at significant cost), you are not necessarily a hypocrite, because your mimicry could not create the social reality you want via policy. We don't live in a binary world of "self actualized or hypocrite." If you can't recycle a handful of aluminum cans without a 20 mile drive, are you a hypocrite for throwing them away, or did other factors play into your consideration, like driving a car 20 miles and spending most of an hour of your life to do it? Are you lame somehow if you advocate for policies to require people to recycle them, which would also put in recycling centers that would make it a 1 mile walk for most people, thereby easing the priority strain necessary for recycling? If we insist having more than one interacting priority must mean "hypocrisy," we will get very, very little done, ever.
"You're for recycling??? But I saw you throw out cans! You're under arrest, Hypocrite!"
The flip side of going from social to personal is even more obviously flawed.
"I just marathon exercise through my colds because I'm a badass!" Hey, awesome for you! "Ok so now that's what everyone has to do!" Uhh... "But you said it was awesome! Don't be a hypocrite!"
This is the Bill O'Reilly school of "calling liberals out for not walking the walk." Oh, you must not actually care like you say you do because you don't have a foster home filled with children and Muslim refugees. Gee Bill, careful not to think of applying this to a religious group your party thinks it has co-opted. They'll be upset with you.
Trump claimed the tax code was riddled with issues that he took full advantage of and would use this knowledge to fix. I think both parties could easily have accepted that if, you know, it ever happened.
-
because your mimicry could not create the social reality you want via policy.
But isn't that an argument for doing almost nothing altruistic at all? I could drive an SUV all day long and feel fine because me riding a bike, alone, does nothing to abate climate change. I could stop all my charitable contributions because 100 bucks a month does almost nothing to change the world.
As for recycling, it would be hypocritical is you expected others in your situation (ten miles away from a recycling center) to recycle, and advocated for laws forcing them to do so, yet didn't do it yourself. If you believed that such a thing is difficult and therefore should not be expected or required, then no.
Which is why the most important thing about this question is whether you'd advocate for someone of your tax bracket to pay more. If you do, and still take breaks, it's inconsistent. But for the reasons I talked about earlier, I don't think this is either terrible or unexpected, and it doesn't make it any less logical to advocate for laws that would force imperfect people like myself into actions that are advantageous for society.
The acknowledgement that people are imperfect and require government oversight is a key tenet of liberalism. It shouldn't be hard to admit. If everyone was naturally efficient, rational, and altruistic, we wouldn't need any government at all.
-
" Hasn't Trump been getting crap for flying to Florida all the time? Why is better when you do it?"
And I have to jump on this. He's spent something like 10 million of tax dollars to pay the resort that he owns. I don't care if he's flying anywhere. I care that he said he wasn't going to take vacations (and is), said that he's going to divest himself from his interests (he hasn't), and is staying at the resort that he owns!
If I pay for a trip all around the world, I'm not using tax dollars to do it! I'm using my own money!
The point was that if you're an environmentalist who is truly concerned about climate change, you shouldn't fly much, maybe never. I've seen Trump's flights criticized for their environmental impact, though I'm sure they're also criticized for cost reasons as well.
I hadn't seen the environmental arguments but again, it's a numbers game. Taking a trip every couple of years is very different than flying every weekend and the overhead of af1 in all types of costs (money and environmental) are going to be way more than a regular airliner.
-
because your mimicry could not create the social reality you want via policy.
The acknowledgement that people are imperfect and require government oversight is a key tenet of liberalism. It shouldn't be hard to admit. If everyone was naturally efficient, rational, and altruistic, we wouldn't need any government at all.
This doesn't really mesh with your supposition that I was making an argument "against altruism."
Of course it's not an argument for doing nothing altruistic. It's an argument for acknowledging almost no one is altruistic, and that's no reason NOT to do good things yourself, and advocate for good policy socially, but you don't have to crucify yourself every time these things don't line up 100%.
I'm saying that one's opinion on social policy and one's integrity are not the same thing, and calling them out instead of discussing them just pushes people apart. Republicans donate to charity but try to destroy TANF or SNAP or whatever every single year. Are they all asshats who hate the poor, or do they believe it's not good social policy, even though they think it's good personal policy?
Liberals don't donate as much to charity. Is that because they have no integrity and bad personal policy, or because they believe it's not effective as personal policy, and want social policy to take care of a problem much bigger than they believe any individual charity can solve?
If we untie accusations of who is Rightest, we get two teams too numb to realize their behaviors are attempts to address similar problems, and we can go back to talking about the methods of solving those particular problems. It's amazing that both teams assume some cost to them to address these social problems is justifiable!
I would happily pay more in taxes for the same reason I pay taxes now - I like roads, clean air, good drinking water... and no, I would not just donate the same money to a private road building fund, because either it doesn't exist or, if it does, I wouldn't trust it to use the money properly. Republicans feel the reverse about government and private enterprize. If we discuss who is Rightest about this instead of applying what we KNOW to individual problems, we'll have...
Oh, our modern Congress.
-
Haven't read through this thread yet but I'd like to chime. Ill get caught up tomorrow.
To answer the question, Yes most left wingers are hypocrites. It's always irked me how so many on here avoid taxes like the devil, at the same time try to take advantage of programs that are meant as safety nets. If you think these safety nets should be expanded universally than put your money where your mouth is. And I don't buy into the argument that you paid large amount of taxes during your working years. Look into the breakdown of who actually pays taxes. Middle income pays very little. The top 10% pays 68% of the federal income tax. People making 250k+ pay over 50% of the tax. Most people are getting a deal and will benefit more than what they contributed (roads, education, military, parks, safety nets such as welfare and healthcare).
-
Haven't read through this thread yet but I'd like to chime. Ill get caught up tomorrow.
To answer the question, Yes most left wingers are hypocrites. It's always irked me how so many on here avoid taxes like the devil, at the same time try to take advantage of programs that are meant as safety nets. If you think these safety nets should be expanded universally than put your money where your mouth is. And I don't buy into the argument that you paid large amount of taxes during your working years. Look into the breakdown of who actually pays taxes. Middle income pays very little. The top 10% pays 68% of the federal income tax. People making 250k+ pay over 50% of the tax. Most people are getting a deal and will benefit more than what they contributed (roads, education, military, parks, safety nets such as welfare and healthcare).
Wrong. If the system is broken, you don't fix it by throwing more money at it. You fix it by changing the system. Universal healthcare is not something that will happen by me donating to charity, no matter how worthy/good the charity is.
-
I’ll refrain from starting a thread, asking about right wing Mustachians with some pejorative.
I'm all in favor of an "are right-wing Mustachians hypocrites?" thread.
-
I disagree about how much the top 1% pays in taxes. Great, you made lots of money. You did that because of the elegance of a society you inherited - you didn't build that, or fight in WWII for that, and it's okay to tax your unbelievable gains from it to give it back to that society, because the presence of that society made your fortune more than you did. I know that's unpopular with some folks, but you're not making billions of dollars in Zamibia because there aren't billions of dollars to make there.
This. Although, "You didn't build that" might have been taken as well as "clinging to Bibles and guns" it is true! I don't give a flying shit that the top 1% pay over half the taxes. Really, I don't care that they can now only afford to garage 3 Bentleys instead of 4. The top 1% also earns 20% of the income. The top one percent aren't overrun by today's equivalent of peasants with pikes in their hands-not yet anyway. The bottom line is-you're born here, you got the opportunity to bust your ass, now contribute so that others from a different socio-economic background may do the same.
WRT to mustachians being hypocrites, I lol at that assertion. First, mustachians are contributing to society by spending more time with their kids rather than slaving away for megacorp. These kids will grow up with their parents backing, able to go to college without crushing debt or their parents stupid debt hangover. Second, I recall a thread where the closing of the mega backdoor Roth was being bandied about in congress-and met with support from THIS crowd of mustachians who acknowledge the exaggerated benefit it has for rich folk. Mustachians are not hypocritical in the least. Avoiding taxes is celebrated, yes. As compared to Donald Trump's swindling ways? Screwing people and companies over, then avoiding the bills and tax man in bankruptcy ain't business acumen....nor is anything like it celebrated here.
-
If your goal and my goal is jointly to reduce abortions, we can jointly agree that free access to birth control is a good thing. It doesn't matter that you want to limit abortions because you think it is a moral sin and I want to limit them because I think a woman with autonomy over her body shouldn't end up having to choose an abortion except in extreme cases. Win-win, right?
But they think that birth control is a sin too. At this point, they've realized they can say whatever they want, not have to prove it, and do whatever they want even if it contradicts what they already said. They have no accountability to voters when their campaigns are already paid for by corporations.
Mischaracterization. They believe people have the right to bodily autonomy and bodily integrity. The disagreement is not with "choice" or birth control, it is a disagreement on when human life beings and therefore rights begin.
Going round circle, except for a primarily catholic good of people, no one is against birth control. This is what makes the mischaracterization so bad because this topic keeps coming up in public dialogue. For people you are describing, generally they are fine with birth control is fine. Aborticides they aren't. Take for example the Hobby Lobby (sp?) case. It gets portrayed as them not wanting to pay for birth control but if I recall they were willing to pay for plans that covered a wide variety of birth control but not ones that had a certain subset of aborticides.
That is not accurate. They did not want to cover things that had decided were aborticides, even though they were not in reality. So they wanted their opinions to override facts and reality.
-
This is a really interesting discussion, so I just wanted to toss in my 2 cents. I consider myself left-wing, because I have lived a very difficult life and without FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, I may not have survived to adulthood. My parents made some very bad choices -- mostly for religious reasons but also because of ignorance -- and then I made a lot of my own bad choices and when you live in poverty a single bad choice can lead to destruction without a social safety net to save you.
That being said, I also needed to listen to what Republicans say about self-reliance and agency, because if I had never internalized those messages I never would have escaped from poverty. That's just reality. If you want to be successful, you have to learn to trust yourself, be confident, and act with a certain amount of self-interest, because let's be honest here. Most people do not have the well being of other people in mind when they make decisions about their lives. You have to depend on yourself, because almost nobody is going to do anything to help you.
Mustachianism saved me. I don't think it's hyperbole when I say that.
-
This is a really interesting discussion, so I just wanted to toss in my 2 cents. I consider myself left-wing, because I have lived a very difficult life and without FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, I may not have survived to adulthood. My parents made some very bad choices -- mostly for religious reasons but also because of ignorance -- and then I made a lot of my own bad choices and when you live in poverty a single bad choice can lead to destruction without a social safety net to save you.
That being said, I also needed to listen to what Republicans say about self-reliance and agency, because if I had never internalized those messages I never would have escaped from poverty. That's just reality. If you want to be successful, you have to learn to trust yourself, be confident, and act with a certain amount of self-interest, because let's be honest here. Most people do not have the well being of other people in mind when they make decisions about their lives. You have to depend on yourself, because almost nobody is going to do anything to help you.
Mustachianism saved me. I don't think it's hyperbole when I say that.
Great post and good point. Mustachianism assumes human agency and does not view hardship as intolerable (at least what passes for "hardship" in the First World). One common left-wing narrative is that besides a few people getting lucky, the U.S. might as well be a caste system. There is no economic mobility. "Stop blaming the poor for being poor" and "check your privilege" are the types of things you'll hear.
But Mustachians think that the typical middle-class person can retire after 10 - 20 years if they stop being a consumerist sucka and practice a little frugality. Surely that same logic applies to the poor in the U.S. as well? Maybe they can't RE, but 10 - 20 years of Mustachian living could surely make someone not poor anymore, right? [excepting people with severe disabilities]
Hence if you believe that people can materially, even drastically, alter their economic situation through Mustachianism, you don't really buy one of the common stories told by the Left. That's a bit awkward if you consider yourself left-wing, though not exactly hypocritical. And you wouldn't necessarily expect people's beliefs to map exactly onto a pre-determined set of beliefs anyway.
-
I disagree about how much the top 1% pays in taxes. Great, you made lots of money. You did that because of the elegance of a society you inherited - you didn't build that, or fight in WWII for that, and it's okay to tax your unbelievable gains from it to give it back to that society, because the presence of that society made your fortune more than you did. I know that's unpopular with some folks, but you're not making billions of dollars in Zamibia because there aren't billions of dollars to make there.
This. Although, "You didn't build that" might have been taken as well as "clinging to Bibles and guns" it is true! I don't give a flying shit that the top 1% pay over half the taxes. Really, I don't care that they can now only afford to garage 3 Bentleys instead of 4. The top 1% also earns 20% of the income. The top one percent aren't overrun by today's equivalent of peasants with pikes in their hands-not yet anyway. The bottom line is-you're born here, you got the opportunity to bust your ass, now contribute so that others from a different socio-economic background may do the same.
WRT to mustachians being hypocrites, I lol at that assertion. First, mustachians are contributing to society by spending more time with their kids rather than slaving away for megacorp. These kids will grow up with their parents backing, able to go to college without crushing debt or their parents stupid debt hangover. Second, I recall a thread where the closing of the mega backdoor Roth was being bandied about in congress-and met with support from THIS crowd of mustachians who acknowledge the exaggerated benefit it has for rich folk. Mustachians are not hypocritical in the least. Avoiding taxes is celebrated, yes. As compared to Donald Trump's swindling ways? Screwing people and companies over, then avoiding the bills and tax man in bankruptcy ain't business acumen....nor is anything like it celebrated here.
I feared that referencing T**** would raise hackles and cause people to veer off-topic, like you did in your post and many others did as well. Should have trusted my gut and kept T****'s name out of it.
-
This is a really interesting discussion, so I just wanted to toss in my 2 cents. I consider myself left-wing, because I have lived a very difficult life and without FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, I may not have survived to adulthood. My parents made some very bad choices -- mostly for religious reasons but also because of ignorance -- and then I made a lot of my own bad choices and when you live in poverty a single bad choice can lead to destruction without a social safety net to save you.
That being said, I also needed to listen to what Republicans say about self-reliance and agency, because if I had never internalized those messages I never would have escaped from poverty. That's just reality. If you want to be successful, you have to learn to trust yourself, be confident, and act with a certain amount of self-interest, because let's be honest here. Most people do not have the well being of other people in mind when they make decisions about their lives. You have to depend on yourself, because almost nobody is going to do anything to help you.
Mustachianism saved me. I don't think it's hyperbole when I say that.
Great post and good point. Mustachianism assumes human agency and does not view hardship as intolerable (at least what passes for "hardship" in the First World). One common left-wing narrative is that besides a few people getting lucky, the U.S. might as well be a caste system. There is no economic mobility. "Stop blaming the poor for being poor" and "check your privilege" are the types of things you'll hear.
But Mustachians think that the typical middle-class person can retire after 10 - 20 years if they stop being a consumerist sucka and practice a little frugality. Surely that same logic applies to the poor in the U.S. as well? Maybe they can't RE, but 10 - 20 years of Mustachian living could surely make someone not poor anymore, right? [excepting people with severe disabilities]
Hence if you believe that people can materially, even drastically, alter their economic situation through Mustachianism, you don't really buy one of the common stories told by the Left. That's a bit awkward if you consider yourself left-wing, though not exactly hypocritical. And you wouldn't necessarily expect people's beliefs to map exactly onto a pre-determined set of beliefs anyway.
Your error is that you assume that "the left" is a monolithic group of people that all believe the exact same things. Which is false. Just like "the right" is not a monolithic group of people that all believe the exact same things.
-
The point was that if you're an environmentalist who is truly concerned about climate change, you shouldn't fly much, maybe never. I've seen Trump's flights criticized for their environmental impact, though I'm sure they're also criticized for cost reasons as well.
Why focus on just flying? Even driving is bad for the environment. To take your argument further, even being born and existing is bad for the environment as you will use up resources and increase pollution.
Because you can argue that you have to drive sometimes, but no one has to fly, especially in retirement. And flying is particularly bad for the environment. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html
And I know people who have refused to procreate because of their environmental beliefs. Really tragic IMO. But that is the end game of a certain brand of hardcore environmentalism--kill yourself or you're really not that committed.
-
This is a really interesting discussion, so I just wanted to toss in my 2 cents. I consider myself left-wing, because I have lived a very difficult life and without FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, I may not have survived to adulthood. My parents made some very bad choices -- mostly for religious reasons but also because of ignorance -- and then I made a lot of my own bad choices and when you live in poverty a single bad choice can lead to destruction without a social safety net to save you.
That being said, I also needed to listen to what Republicans say about self-reliance and agency, because if I had never internalized those messages I never would have escaped from poverty. That's just reality. If you want to be successful, you have to learn to trust yourself, be confident, and act with a certain amount of self-interest, because let's be honest here. Most people do not have the well being of other people in mind when they make decisions about their lives. You have to depend on yourself, because almost nobody is going to do anything to help you.
Mustachianism saved me. I don't think it's hyperbole when I say that.
Great post and good point. Mustachianism assumes human agency and does not view hardship as intolerable (at least what passes for "hardship" in the First World). One common left-wing narrative is that besides a few people getting lucky, the U.S. might as well be a caste system. There is no economic mobility. "Stop blaming the poor for being poor" and "check your privilege" are the types of things you'll hear.
But Mustachians think that the typical middle-class person can retire after 10 - 20 years if they stop being a consumerist sucka and practice a little frugality. Surely that same logic applies to the poor in the U.S. as well? Maybe they can't RE, but 10 - 20 years of Mustachian living could surely make someone not poor anymore, right? [excepting people with severe disabilities]
Hence if you believe that people can materially, even drastically, alter their economic situation through Mustachianism, you don't really buy one of the common stories told by the Left. That's a bit awkward if you consider yourself left-wing, though not exactly hypocritical. And you wouldn't necessarily expect people's beliefs to map exactly onto a pre-determined set of beliefs anyway.
Your error is that you assume that "the left" is a monolithic group of people that all believe the exact same things. Which is false. Just like "the right" is not a monolithic group of people that all believe the exact same things.
I recognize that there are differences between, say, a Marxist and mainstream Progressive. But there's got to be some overlap in beliefs, or "the Left" ceases to be a meaningful concept (same with "the Right"). That said, I'm sure you're correct that certain leftists have different feelings about free will, aggressive tax avoidance, and environmentalism than others.
-
I'll use every legal means to reduce my taxes. I would also vote to raise my taxes for life saving programs like single payer.
Ah, but how much!?
As a libertarian myself I see single payer as a somewhat more freedom causing policy. As in- people are free to work/notwork/start a company/be a bum without being forced to work for health care.
As a libertarian I have a limit to what I would spend on these as well. What if it cost 50% payroll tax increase? 20%? 10%? 2%?
I would vote for a 50% payroll tax. :D Could fund a lot of projects with that. I might be pretty liberal, though.
The trouble is, at least in Canada, is that we (collective) don't mind a 50% payroll tax as long as we (singular) don't have to pay for it. I know widows that pay more in taxes than myself. And they pay more in taxes simply because parents are a larger pool of the voting public.
We could do so much more for the poor and downtrodden if the greedy middle class would just pay their fair share.
I would say this is true in the 'States, as well. Everytime a tax hike goes into effect 'for the middle class' it's such an outcry; sad to think of the good that could be done with that money.
-
Because you can argue that you have to drive sometimes, but no one has to fly, especially in retirement. And flying is particularly bad for the environment. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html
Yes, air travel is probably the single worst thing an average person, and an average mustachian, is going to do to the environment. Doesn't stop people from celebrating their cross-planet polluting sprees, though.
But that is the end game of a certain brand of hardcore environmentalism--kill yourself or you're really not that committed.
Make sure you spike some trees first, though. :D
-
I feared that referencing T**** would raise hackles and cause people to veer off-topic, like you did in your post and many others did as well. Should have trusted my gut and kept T****'s name out of it.
My apologies. A pretty good discussion is being had though. Lot of it off topic, yeah, but it's civil and intelligent.
-
I agree, keep it coming.
-
Somehow the phrase "forced by the government" rubs me the wrong way. We in the US do not live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The government is you, me, and every other citizen of this country.
Thank you. We're "forced by the government" to stop at red lights. Are we really better off without traffic signals? Child pornographers are "forced by the government" to give up their hobby. Is that really such a bad thing?
When people things like "forced by the government" or "pay taxes at the point of a gun" what they are really saying is "I can't think of an argument, so I will appeal to emotion."
-
Moderator: Doesn't the topic of this thread violate rule 4 of the forum:
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.
If not, I'm going to start a thread titled "Are right-wing Mustachians idiots"
I wouldn't say that the conversation has been disrespectful (but I am no moderator). And I do think someone should start a thread asking whether right wing MMMers are hypocrites (not idiots). Just some thoughts on the flip side of the OP's question. And since the OP used Trump as the anti-thesis of the left we can use him and the poster child of the right - with similar accuracy:
-Right wing is against big government but your Mustachian lifestyle relies on all sorts of government programs: roads, the existence of qualified retirement plans, social security, obamacare, etc
-Right wing is against high taxes but again you benefit from all those government programs
-Right wing is against immigration but how many of you are immigrants or want to take advantage of other county's residency policies (ex pats)
-Right wing bans travel from certain countries, but you travel
-Right wing supports conservative christian values, but how many of you tithe (some, but not all)
-etc
The real point is the OP's question takes something that is a continuum, casts it as black and white, and then claims people are hypocrites if they are not extremists. The same kind of question is constantly rehashed about why Christians don't give away all their wealth and live like paupers.
I lean left wing. I am not an extremist, nor am I a hypocrite.
-
I personally think the ultimate Mustachian policy would be a flat consumption/national sales tax. Those who consume more, pay more - on all transactions - cars, homes, stuff to go in homes, etc. That will make the rich hedge fund guys pay their fair share as they buy lots of crazy expensive stuff.
Flat (income) taxes are a way to raise taxes on roughly 90% of the taxpayers while lowering it for the top 10% of taxpayers. Flat taxes are extremely regressive because they hurt low income workers the most while giving a tax cut to the highest income earners.
As for consumption taxes, again, I've seen tons of data showing that the poorest 1/5 of Americans spend something like 90-95% of their money on taxable goods and services, so sales taxes, rent taxes, vehicle license taxes, property taxes, etc are all taxes that they are paying. Meanwhile the richest often invest upwards of a third of their money, thus going untaxed, and furthermore the richer someone is, the easier it is for them to avoid sales taxes by playing games like living in a state with no income tax and making a big purchase in states with no sales tax. For the ultra-rich, we saw things like yacht sales go from being mainly in Florida (where they became subject to a luxury tax) to yachts suddenly all being built & sold a couple hour boat ride away in the Bahamas tax-free.
Our current tax system actually does work pretty well because the lowest income workers pay the least percentage of their income in income tax, although they are still getting hit harder by sales tax than the wealthy.
That's all for me - I am extremely anti-flat tax and anti-national sales tax because of its regressive nature and the fact that consumption taxes are more easily avoided the more wealthy someone is.
-
Moderator: Doesn't the topic of this thread violate rule 4 of the forum:
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.
If not, I'm going to start a thread titled "Are right-wing Mustachians idiots"
OP here. I've already welcomed a right-wing counterpart thread. Have at it. And if you read through this (admittedly) very long thread, nearly all the comments have been respectful.
In case you're wondering, I would guess that hypocrisy is pretty evenly distributed between Left and Right.
-
As for consumption taxes, again, I've seen tons of data showing that the poorest 1/5 of Americans spend something like 90-95% of their money on taxable goods and services, so sales taxes, rent taxes, vehicle license taxes, property taxes, etc are all taxes that they are paying.
Virtually all the states exempt rent, groceries, prescription drugs, and medical services from sales tax. Many states also exempt clothing from sales tax. How could the poor spend 90% - 95% on taxable goods? If you don't own property you don't pay property tax. I've never heard of a rent tax--please give me an example of a state that taxes residential rent payments. The poor certainly pay taxes, but I don't think your assertions are quite correct.
-
OP here. I've already welcomed a right-wing counterpart thread. Have at it. And if you read through this (admittedly) very long thread, nearly all the comments have been respectful.
In case you're wondering, I would guess that hypocrisy is pretty evenly distributed between Left and Right.
If that's true, why not title the thread "Are Mustacians Hypocrites?" Why specify only left (or only right, for that matter)? Do you feel that left wing hypocrisy is somehow worse than right wing hypocrisy?
-
OP here. I've already welcomed a right-wing counterpart thread. Have at it. And if you read through this (admittedly) very long thread, nearly all the comments have been respectful.
In case you're wondering, I would guess that hypocrisy is pretty evenly distributed between Left and Right.
If that's true, why not title the thread "Are Mustacians Hypocrites?" Why specify only left (or only right, for that matter)? Do you feel that left wing hypocrisy is somehow worse than right wing hypocrisy?
Mostly because I wasn't able to come up with reasons--during the admittedly short time I thought about it--for why Mustachianism is incompatible with right-wing views. As I noted, I think there are plenty of hypocrites on the Right, but being Mustachian seems compatible with being right-wing. It would be interesting to hear arguments for why right-wing Mustachians are hypocritical.
-
Seems some mustachians are a bit sensitive. Calling a group of people hypocritical is miles away from calling them idiots. It's a shame the PC police can't let a decent discussion go on without raising the "I'm offended!" flag....
-
I find the PC police comical, looking for any little thing and call out shenanigans. PC police is a way to stifle free speech. We are having a very reasonable discussion. No need to get the cops involved.
I am not a republican, I am fiscally conservative though and will defend my views.
-Right wing is against big government but your Mustachian lifestyle relies on all sorts of government programs: roads, the existence of qualified retirement plans, social security, obamacare, etc
-Right wing is against high taxes but again you benefit from all those government programs
-Right wing is against immigration but how many of you are immigrants or want to take advantage of other county's residency policies (ex pats)
-Right wing bans travel from certain countries, but you travel
-Right wing supports conservative christian values, but how many of you tithe (some, but not all)
-etc
1) Government programs: I save in a way that will not require social security. I do not expect it and do not plan for it. If it comes I will take it because I payed into it, but would rather have paid less (to help cover some of the destitute seniors) and get nothing at all. If my taxes were lower and there were no 401k I would be thrilled with that. Infrastructure and defense is the core responsibility of the government and what our taxes should go to. And lastly I am not a fan of Obamacare.
2) I am against increasing taxes. I think our government has way too much waste and a spending problem rather than an income problem. Clean up government and make it more efficient before even thinking about taking another percent of my hard work.
3) I am not against immigration especially being an immigrant myself. I am against allowing criminals into this country. In reality our country has a very rigorous 18-24 month refugee acceptance program. Those people are vetted very well in my opinion. Maybe there is room for improvement, but I do not know the process well enough to give suggestions. I do have a problem allowing in people who believe homosexuality is punishable by death, that women have no freedom and can be killed for adultery or for even being raped. I strongly have a problem when people think that insulting Islam is punishable by violence. I can't imagine a single person conservative or liberal who would want anyone like that living next door and neither do I and therefor agree with a strong vetting process. I am not against legal immigration of people into this country.
4) Banning travel yet I travel: I honestly don't see the comparison. People who believe that Sharia Law should be the law of the land also believe in some very hateful criminal behavior as well. After all, it is part of Sharia Law. I have no criminal intent or beliefs and therefor pose no risk to others. I can and will travel at will.
5) I do not support conservative Christian values. I believe religion is a form of brainwashing to gain control, power and money. I have no intent in donating to any religious organization.
The reality is I am not right wing. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I think people have the right to do whatever they want to themselves as long as they do not hurt others. That includes, Abortion, drugs, sexual preferences, genital mutilation, or whatever else they fancy on themselves. I am a proponent of free speech, even speech that makes fun of or insults other groups. I have the right to speak and other have the right to walk away and not listen.
My biggest issue with our government is that the left thinks we need to tax people more to help out others and I think there is no limit to how much people want and will take for help therefor there is no limit to taxation. We need to draw a line as a society. If we want everyone to have access to healthcare, then make it more affordable. If a person can't afford premium healthcare, then it will be rationed out based on severity of illness. People will need to wait in lines, when admitted they should not have private rooms, they should not get the newest or latest drugs but choose more cost effective therapies that have similar outcomes. If we want to eliminate poverty we should help the mentally ill better. Maybe empty out all those jails of non violent drug offenses and use the money to fund mental health clinics and hospitals instead.
-
Seems some mustachians are a bit sensitive. Calling a group of people hypocritical is miles away from calling them idiots. It's a shame the PC police can't let a decent discussion go on without raising the "I'm offended!" flag....
Calling out people's cognitive dissonance is a pretty effective way to elicit a defensive response. It's a common, natural human reaction, but it can be overcome with practice.
-
Calling out people's cognitive dissonance is a pretty effective way to elicit a defensive response.
Ha, indeed. I think we all need to get practicing.
-
As for consumption taxes, again, I've seen tons of data showing that the poorest 1/5 of Americans spend something like 90-95% of their money on taxable goods and services, so sales taxes, rent taxes, vehicle license taxes, property taxes, etc are all taxes that they are paying.
Virtually all the states exempt rent, groceries, prescription drugs, and medical services from sales tax. Many states also exempt clothing from sales tax. How could the poor spend 90% - 95% on taxable goods? If you don't own property you don't pay property tax. I've never heard of a rent tax--please give me an example of a state that taxes residential rent payments. The poor certainly pay taxes, but I don't think your assertions are quite correct.
I agree with you that groceries, prescription drugs, and medical services are usually exempt but as a landlord, I can assure you that tenants are paying property taxes. The amount is just baked into their rent so they don't see it but they are paying it.
-
You can't judge a book by its cover. I ride my bike to work, does this make me a leftist tree hugger? I just planted a free tree in my yard, and if I got more free one's from my son's school, I would plant those as well. I love trees, but mature ones sure take a while.
Does this tell you how I vote? My utility bills are bare bones because we use our heat and AC sparingly. I am at work right now so our HVAC units are both off right now completely.
So this perhaps is a chicken and egg argument. MMM probably attracts left leaning readers. That is fine, we all can take what we want from it.
My own personal philosophy is you work in the hand you were dealt with. I didn't create this system, and my perfect world would probably be closer to Pre-China Hong Kong. However, I happily live here, as an adult and by my own free will. Given my US citizenship, many in the world would love to have the luxury of the work opportunities I have. So I try not complain, and try to outsmart the system instead. It is what it is.
-
OP here. I've already welcomed a right-wing counterpart thread. Have at it. And if you read through this (admittedly) very long thread, nearly all the comments have been respectful.
In case you're wondering, I would guess that hypocrisy is pretty evenly distributed between Left and Right.
If that's true, why not title the thread "Are Mustacians Hypocrites?" Why specify only left (or only right, for that matter)? Do you feel that left wing hypocrisy is somehow worse than right wing hypocrisy?
Mostly because I wasn't able to come up with reasons--during the admittedly short time I thought about it--for why Mustachianism is incompatible with right-wing views. As I noted, I think there are plenty of hypocrites on the Right, but being Mustachian seems compatible with being right-wing. It would be interesting to hear arguments for why right-wing Mustachians are hypocritical.
I've read every article on Mr Money Moustache, and I don't think Mustachianism is right-wing at all. Mustachianism is anti-political except for the single issue of environmentalism / better urban planning. And the right-wing is working to gut the EPA right now. I don't recall this site ever having articles about "mustachianism is anti-abortion", "mustachianians like guns". The guy is Canadian for Christ sakes.
Unless you think that the central philosophy of being right wing is being self sufficient and working independently to achieve your goals and all left wing people would rather the government take care of everything and provide universal basic income and free college, etc. for all citizens. Just know that I am a moderate democrat and don't think that philosophy represents all left-wing people, but more the fringe liberal left.
I think it was pointed out that even though many mustachians, including Pete claim to support the environment, they also celebrate and support activities that needlessly ruin it, such as regular international flights to tourist destinations, building brand new houses, etc. etc.
-
including Pete claim to support the environment, they also celebrate and support activities that needlessly ruin it
I think this one is more complicated than that. MMM and others here would advocate for reducing your carbon footprint and overall impact on the environment. It's hard to quantify, but the general principal might be: try to cause less environmental damage than the average American. I don't think the philosophy is to never negatively affect the environment.
A lot of people here are riding their bikes frequently, rarely using a car, and living in a modest sized house. Even if they then fly a little more frequently than average, I'd say their net environmental impact is still far less than the average American. In this situation people are living by their principals.
-
I don't agree that people that aspire to retire early travel on planes more than the general population does. The typical American flies on a plane often, because we are wealthy enough to go on vacations wherever, travel for work, etc. Mustachians that are accumulating for retirement are probably rationing their expensive vacation budgets to exotic locales and doing more staycations. Early retirees on a fixed income don't have the money to fly around the world, don't travel for work, and do more slow traveling.
Mustachians wouldn't need to travel more than average; they would need to care about the environment more than average, which you stated above was a tenet of mustachinism - 'environmentalism/urban planning'. Since at almost any level air travel is incredibly damaging to the environment and almost exclusively a luxury that is unneeded for quality of life, anyone who claims to honestly care about the environment while simultaneously utilizing air travel could be considered to be performing actions inconsistent with their stated views, especially if they travel more as a retiree than they did while working, (which many on this forum do) though this is not necessary. Slow travelling is just as damaging, if one takes a plane to get to where they are slow travelling.
-
OP here. I've already welcomed a right-wing counterpart thread. Have at it. And if you read through this (admittedly) very long thread, nearly all the comments have been respectful.
In case you're wondering, I would guess that hypocrisy is pretty evenly distributed between Left and Right.
If that's true, why not title the thread "Are Mustacians Hypocrites?" Why specify only left (or only right, for that matter)? Do you feel that left wing hypocrisy is somehow worse than right wing hypocrisy?
Mostly because I wasn't able to come up with reasons--during the admittedly short time I thought about it--for why Mustachianism is incompatible with right-wing views. As I noted, I think there are plenty of hypocrites on the Right, but being Mustachian seems compatible with being right-wing. It would be interesting to hear arguments for why right-wing Mustachians are hypocritical.
I've read every article on Mr Money Moustache, and I don't think Mustachianism is right-wing at all. Mustachianism is anti-political except for the single issue of environmentalism / better urban planning. And the right-wing is working to gut the EPA right now. I don't recall this site ever having articles about "mustachianism is anti-abortion", "mustachianians like guns". The guy is Canadian for Christ sakes.
Unless you think that the central philosophy of being right wing is being self sufficient and working independently to achieve your goals and all left wing people would rather the government take care of everything and provide universal basic income and free college, etc. for all citizens. Just know that I am a moderate democrat and don't think that philosophy represents all left-wing people, but more the fringe liberal left.
I think it was pointed out that even though many mustachians, including Pete claim to support the environment, they also celebrate and support activities that needlessly ruin it, such as regular international flights to tourist destinations, building brand new houses, etc. etc.
I don't agree that people that aspire to retire early travel on planes more than the general population does. The typical American flies on a plane often, because we are wealthy enough to go on vacations wherever, travel for work, etc. Mustachians that are accumulating for retirement are probably rationing their expensive vacation budgets to exotic locales and doing more staycations. Early retirees on a fixed income don't have the money to fly around the world, don't travel for work, and do more slow traveling.
I don't think it's correct to say that the typical American flies on a plane often. In 2015, only 45% of Americans flew somewhere (domestic or international). And I would guess that for many of those people, they only took one flight the whole year. In 2015, 19% of Americans had never taken a commercial flight in their lives. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/2016/04/14/americans-love-to-fly-they-also-complain-about-it-a-lot-but-probably-less-than-you-think/#5b8aa1446423 A relatively small percentage of people do the vast majority of the flying. Most Americans don't even have a passport (about 36% have one).
-
MetricMouse has already handled this point, but just to clarify even further, I never stated that Mustachianism is a right-wing philosophy (or a left-wing philosophy). I believe Mustachianism as preached by MMM is apolitical. The OP suggests that there are some aspects of Mustachianism that conflict with common left-wing views. But that point is not meant to imply that Mustachianism is right-wing.
-
including Pete claim to support the environment, they also celebrate and support activities that needlessly ruin it
I think this one is more complicated than that. MMM and others here would advocate for reducing your carbon footprint and overall impact on the environment. It's hard to quantify, but the general principal might be: try to cause less environmental damage than the average American. I don't think the philosophy is to never negatively affect the environment.
A lot of people here are riding their bikes frequently, rarely using a car, and living in a modest sized house. Even if they then fly a little more frequently than average, I'd say their net environmental impact is still far less than the average American. In this situation people are living by their principals.
Exactly. If the definition is to "care about the environment more than average," (see above by MM) that can be easily met by driving very little, which is 4-5 tons of CO2/year, flying ~twice from JFK-LHR, and living in a smaller house than average. As CO2 is fungible, this doesn't have to be a guessing game or a blame game.
-
especially if they travel more as a retiree than they did while working, (which many on this forum do) though this is not necessary.
While *technically* correct, it's awfully hard to care about +1-2 extra flights I *might* make in retirement when my employer consumes hundreds of seats per day for business purposes.
Can't seem to find any hard data on the breakout between business / leisure / commercial freight / military as percentages of total air traffic.
-
I'm going to fly to visit family in Germany whether I'm an MMMer or not. So that is a given impact that is not going to change. But driving less, being more energy efficient with my home, living in a modest size home, all these things do, in fact, reduce my carbon footprint.
Without MMM, I'd take the flights, PLUS living in a big house, PLUS run the AC and heater like crazy, PLUS drive around tons in my car, etc....
So, for me, doing MMM doesn't lead to perfection, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than it was before.
-
I'm going to fly to visit family in Germany whether I'm an MMMer or not. So that is a given impact that is not going to change. But driving less, being more energy efficient with my home, living in a modest size home, all these things do, in fact, reduce my carbon footprint.
Without MMM, I'd take the flights, PLUS living in a big house, PLUS run the AC and heater like crazy, PLUS drive around tons in my car, etc....
So, for me, doing MMM doesn't lead to perfection, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than it was before.
Well said. And true in more ways than just environmentally.
-
I think it was pointed out that even though many mustachians, including Pete claim to support the environment, they also celebrate and support activities that needlessly ruin it, such as regular international flights to tourist destinations, building brand new houses, etc. etc.
I haven't heard Pete or anyone else say humans should have zero impact on the environment.
-
I find the PC police comical, looking for any little thing and call out shenanigans. PC police is a way to stifle free speech. We are having a very reasonable discussion. No need to get the cops involved.
I am not a republican, I am fiscally conservative though and will defend my views.
-Right wing is against big government but your Mustachian lifestyle relies on all sorts of government programs: roads, the existence of qualified retirement plans, social security, obamacare, etc
-Right wing is against high taxes but again you benefit from all those government programs
-Right wing is against immigration but how many of you are immigrants or want to take advantage of other county's residency policies (ex pats)
-Right wing bans travel from certain countries, but you travel
-Right wing supports conservative christian values, but how many of you tithe (some, but not all)
-etc
1) Government programs: I save in a way that will not require social security. I do not expect it and do not plan for it. If it comes I will take it because I payed into it, but would rather have paid less (to help cover some of the destitute seniors) and get nothing at all. If my taxes were lower and there were no 401k I would be thrilled with that. Infrastructure and defense is the core responsibility of the government and what our taxes should go to. And lastly I am not a fan of Obamacare.
2) I am against increasing taxes. I think our government has way too much waste and a spending problem rather than an income problem. Clean up government and make it more efficient before even thinking about taking another percent of my hard work.
3) I am not against immigration especially being an immigrant myself. I am against allowing criminals into this country. In reality our country has a very rigorous 18-24 month refugee acceptance program. Those people are vetted very well in my opinion. Maybe there is room for improvement, but I do not know the process well enough to give suggestions. I do have a problem allowing in people who believe homosexuality is punishable by death, that women have no freedom and can be killed for adultery or for even being raped. I strongly have a problem when people think that insulting Islam is punishable by violence. I can't imagine a single person conservative or liberal who would want anyone like that living next door and neither do I and therefor agree with a strong vetting process. I am not against legal immigration of people into this country.
4) Banning travel yet I travel: I honestly don't see the comparison. People who believe that Sharia Law should be the law of the land also believe in some very hateful criminal behavior as well. After all, it is part of Sharia Law. I have no criminal intent or beliefs and therefor pose no risk to others. I can and will travel at will.
5) I do not support conservative Christian values. I believe religion is a form of brainwashing to gain control, power and money. I have no intent in donating to any religious organization.
The reality is I am not right wing. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I think people have the right to do whatever they want to themselves as long as they do not hurt others. That includes, Abortion, drugs, sexual preferences, genital mutilation, or whatever else they fancy on themselves. I am a proponent of free speech, even speech that makes fun of or insults other groups. I have the right to speak and other have the right to walk away and not listen.
My biggest issue with our government is that the left thinks we need to tax people more to help out others and I think there is no limit to how much people want and will take for help therefor there is no limit to taxation. We need to draw a line as a society. If we want everyone to have access to healthcare, then make it more affordable. If a person can't afford premium healthcare, then it will be rationed out based on severity of illness. People will need to wait in lines, when admitted they should not have private rooms, they should not get the newest or latest drugs but choose more cost effective therapies that have similar outcomes. If we want to eliminate poverty we should help the mentally ill better. Maybe empty out all those jails of non violent drug offenses and use the money to fund mental health clinics and hospitals instead.
I don't think the opinions you expressed here are uncommon on this site and I agree with most of them even though I would say I lean more liberal than libertarian as to how small I think the government needs to get.
You express one sentiment in particular that I think is prevalent on this site and it also speaks to why we aren't typically hardcore Democrat to the point of being reliant on their social programs. That is, most of us believe in saving as much as possible and investing to hedge our bets. We welcome government assistance to live better but we plan as if it won't be there, because well it might not. It is only prudent to plan for the worst case that social security is destroyed and the government mails out final checks to everyone and calls it a day.
I would guess at some point the more liberal voices on this site became most prominent. And the deeply religious Republican conservatives avoid many political discussions for fear of getting flamed. The libertarian minded people end up speaking up for the conservative viewpoint because they share more common ground and can generally avoid the most emotionally touchy issues.
-
In this case I think it is foolish to take the thread title as offensive given the nature of the discussion that followed. I would say it was just proactive enough to where it could go either way. But clearly the OP's initial discussion did not appear trollish or derogatory.
It is not an unreasonable question to ask though it does speak to the strength of the narrative that the Republican's and conservatives have woven that they are the voice of the "self made man".
And that the Democrats are all about big government and letting leaches take the easy way out.
If any thing this site should stand as some proof that good, fiscally intelligent, hard working people can fairly utilize a more socially liberal system of government without being leaches or feeling victimized by taxes and government overreached.
-
In this case I think it is foolish to take the thread title as offensive given the nature of the discussion that followed.
Those two things are completely unrelated.
And the deeply religious Republican conservatives almost everyone avoid(s) many political discussions for fear of getting flamed.
The bigger point:
So, for me, doing MMM doesn't lead to perfection, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than it was before.
Absolutely. Nothing leads to perfection. There isn't a perfect system or a perfect adherent to a system. We're people. If we had a perfect system, we'd mess it up anyway. Even when the goal is perfection, throwing out "anything short of" perfection is usually a terrible waste. Aim for the stars and at least you'll hit the moon.
-
In this case I think it is foolish to take the thread title as offensive given the nature of the discussion that followed. I would say it was just proactive enough to where it could go either way. But clearly the OP's initial discussion did not appear trollish or derogatory.
It is not an unreasonable question to ask though it does speak to the strength of the narrative that the Republican's and conservatives have woven that they are the voice of the "self made man".
And that the Democrats are all about big government and letting leaches take the easy way out.
If any thing this site should stand as some proof that good, fiscally intelligent, hard working people can fairly utilize a more socially liberal system of government without being leaches or feeling victimized by taxes and government overreached.
You mean the lies that the GOP has tried for years to get people to believe, that are not true. Most members of GOP are not self-made and most liberal states give more to the federal government than they take.
-
People above are offering straw men among others. To just say you are better than before is good for you, but that is not what the OP asked.
If you are an individual who promotes stricter environmental controls and greater governmental imposed social justice; then is it is hypocritical to retire (stop working/contributing to societies needs) and fly to distant locals(burning tons of fossil fuels) all they while putting a Bernie sign in your front yard (so you can look at it as you contemplate life or just netflix from your living room), or a sierra club sticker on your Samsonite luggage you will be hauling on your next trip to asia.
-
People above are offering straw men among others. To just say you are better than before is good for you, but that is not what the OP asked.
If you are an individual who promotes stricter environmental controls and greater governmental imposed social justice; then is it is hypocritical to retire (stop working/contributing to societies needs) and fly to distant locals(burning tons of fossil fuels) all they while putting a Bernie sign in your front yard (so you can look at it as you contemplate life or just netflix from your living room), or a sierra club sticker on your Samsonite luggage you will be hauling on your next trip to asia.
No, it's not.
Hypocritical would be stating, "No one should EVER fly anywhere because of the environment!" and then getting into a plane to fly across the nation.
Hypocritical would be stating, "No one should commute in an SUV!" and then driving an SUV every day to work.
Hypocritical would be stating, "Only truly poor people should take SNAP!" and then applying because your income is low, though your assets reach $2MM.
No one is stating that; therefore, no one is being hypocritical. You're offering a straw man argument.
-
People above are offering straw men among others. To just say you are better than before is good for you, but that is not what the OP asked.
If you are an individual who promotes stricter environmental controls and greater governmental imposed social justice; then is it is hypocritical to retire (stop working/contributing to societies needs) and fly to distant locals(burning tons of fossil fuels) all they while putting a Bernie sign in your front yard (so you can look at it as you contemplate life or just netflix from your living room), or a sierra club sticker on your Samsonite luggage you will be hauling on your next trip to asia.
If I don't put a Bernie sticker or Sierra Club sticker on my luggage, is it OK to fly then?
I'd also point out that your argument applies to other things like driving a car, at all. If you really, really don't want to be a hypocrite, then you should drive exactly never. And you should never run electricity in your house either (although solar panel people might get a pass). That's pretty extreme, but I don't think it's any more extreme than saying that a person should never fly anywhere either.
Some of the people on the very, very, very far left might feel that way. Most don't. Putting forth the most extreme version of a belief and then castigating anyone that doesn't meet that standard is the very definition of a straw man argument.
It would be similar to me saying "Are right wing mustacians hypocrites for accepting Social Security when they hit 65?" Some people on the right have a problem with SS, but not all of them. It's the same technique, and it's just as invalid here as it is with the original argument.
-
If you are an individual who promotes stricter environmental controls and greater governmental imposed social justice; then is it is hypocritical to retire (stop working/contributing to societies needs) . . .
I think we need to decouple the assumption that "retirement" in the way it's typically discussed on this forum means people stop contributing to society's needs.
This cannot be said loudly or often enough: the amount of money you make does not quantify your contribution to society! In many cases, the two are inversely proportional.
Additionally, numerous people of all political stripes indicate that one of the things they want to do in retirement is volunteer and contribute more to their community. I will say for myself that getting a volunteer / lower paid public interest job would definitely be contributing more to society than my current paid work.
-
I would also like to point out that early retirees do not stop contributing to society - they generally have massive amounts of money that they keep invested in things like stocks. That money funds the private sector. So I may not work a job after I retire, but my nest egg continues to work hard to benefit society even when I don't go to work every day.
-
Well, this whole thread is a thought experiment and some of the posters above were ignoring the parameters. If on the one hand you will state that you are in favor of greater EPA control of the economy while simultaneously taking a flight to the other side of globe then you are demonstrating cognitive dissonance; aka being a hypocrite.
Make an attempt to justify it or just admit that you have flabby first world habits and are not very sincere when you say you care about the environment. Sure I would like for those things to happen everyone drive electric cars or no/very little car use even happened but I know what that costs in resources and civil liberties to get there, therefore I am unwilling to demonstrate support of such measures; I am consistent.
-
Saying you are invested in index funds, therefore helping society is bull. Now, if you quit your corporate job to start a business or volunteer or whatever, that is great. Just be mindful of whether you are replacing 40hrs/week/ or amount of work/contribution to society/community, etc.
-
It would be similar to me saying "Are right wing mustacians hypocrites for accepting Social Security when they hit 65?" Some people on the right have a problem with SS, but not all of them. It's the same technique, and it's just as invalid here as it is with the original argument.
Speaking of right wing hypocrisy, right wing Mustachians use 401ks and HSAs and IRAs. Those are Big Government programs, created by the nanny state!!111! It must be tough to be a right wing Mustachian with all of that cognitive dissonance. :(
-
If on the one hand you will state that you are in favor of greater EPA control of the economy while simultaneously taking a flight to the other side of globe then you are demonstrating cognitive dissonance
As others have already pointed out, favoring increased EPA activity is not equivalent to demanding that nobody harm the environment, in any way, ever. One could take long flights but still have an environmental impact far below average by rarely driving or a whole host of other means. There is no dissonance here. This lifestyle is consistent with the policy position that America should be lowering its environmental impact through government action.
Put another way: nobody is advocating that the EPA eliminate air travel.
On the other hand, if a mustachian is driving an SUV, living in a giant house, and flying to Paris weekly, sure. But I'm pretty sure very few on this board live that life.
-
Saying you are invested in index funds, therefore helping society is bull. Now, if you quit your corporate job to start a business or volunteer or whatever, that is great. Just be mindful of whether you are replacing 40hrs/week/ or amount of work/contribution to society/community, etc.
I think you underestimate how much invested wealth helps society.
-
Well, this whole thread is a thought experiment and some of the posters above were ignoring the parameters. If on the one hand you will state that you are in favor of greater EPA control of the economy while simultaneously taking a flight to the other side of globe then you are demonstrating cognitive dissonance; aka being a hypocrite.
Is there some reason why you only make straw man arguments?
-
Only as much as right-wing Mustachians who eat anything made with corn are. Because big government subsidies, etc.
Like how I did that? Corn...straw? Straw man?
-
Thanks for the responses so far. What actually prompted my post was this realization: a person who ERs is likely to pay fairly high payroll and income taxes for 10–15 years, but will then pay almost zero income or payroll taxes the rest of their life (let's limit the discussion to federal income and payroll taxes, while admitting that most people will pay state/local sales tax and property tax during retirement).
Public Finance economists have developed an elaborate way of judging tax policy called "optimal income tax theory." This was developed by James Mirrlees, who won the Nobel prize for this work, and many other scholars. I haven't looked at this stuff for a while, but let me try to summarize.
The problem: how to maximize social utility (well-being) through the tax and transfer system while distorting economic decisions as little as possible ("efficient"). People are assumed to have a declining marginal utility for money, such that an extra dollar for Warren Buffet brings him a lot less utility than an extra dollar for a Somali peasant. People are also assumed to have both different abilities (defined here to mean "ability to earn money in the labor market") and different income levels. The tax instrument assumed to be available is essentially a wage tax; capital transactions are not part of the earliest models for simplicity.
With these assumptions and a few others, you can, through a model, mathematically define the utility functions of everyone, and how the tax-and-transfer system would impact that utility. Solving the equation for how to maximize total utility is essentially an optimization problem (hence "optimal" income tax theory).
An interesting thing that comes out of this literature is that it would be great—if you are committed to maximizing utility at all costs—if we knew people's abilities, because if we did, we could just tax them based on ability, not on earned income. A tax on ability would be maximally efficient because it wouldn't lead to any disincentive to work the way that a tax on wages does, in the same way that a head tax is efficient. But a tax on ability is better than a head tax, because it allows for differentiation in tax burdens that many consider fair, whereas under a head tax everyone pays the same.
People that earn significantly less than their ability implies are called "shirkers" in the literature. They are seen as shirking their duty to earn money, which can then be taxed and redistributed to people with a higher marginal utility for a dollar. Shirkers decrease total utility at the expense of less able people. A Mustachian who retires early is the ultimate shirker under this worldview. Mustachians are high ability people who drop out of the labor force and drastically reduce their lifetime tax burden, while often drastically increasing their lifetime consumption of public benefits.
Personally I don't believe optimal income tax theory has much to offer real world policymakers, and I think many of its assumptions are unrealistic or at least incomplete. It just struck me that Mustachians, shirkers that they are or aspire to be, are the optimal income tax theorists' worst nightmare! But many prominent economists subscribe to the theory [see here for further reading: https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezNBER12handbook.pdf]. I say vive les shirkers!
Resurrecting an old (but very interesting discussion).
I am not sure you are reading the economic theories with the proper frame of reference. The expression you used: "duty to earn money", I believe, shows where you are thinking incorrectly!!
First: You are talking about "money" as if that is something concrete with real "marginal utility" in itself.
Money is a notional construct. It's simply an abstract promise to give some share of the future economy when you choose to spend it!! It is worthless outside the context of the society that makes that promise. It has been that way since the first caveman used a piece of shiny gold nugget to buy a wild boar carcass. The shiny metal nugget he handed had no "real" value outside the societal context, especially when technology had not yet developed to figure out the teensy weensy bit of industrial uses of Gold that exists today!!
When the value of "money" is derived from society itself, and its future ability to produce economic value, it follows that the said "society" can choose how to allocate that share such as to optimize that future production and economic activity. Tools available to do so include:
1. Redistribution in various forms (a "progressive tax system, "tithe" that is a social norm to the point of being a tax etc.).
2. Inflation - a highly inefficient and regressive tool.
Bottomline: if you are a true libertarian, you would engage no economic activity other than bartering. Anything else derives it's value from society and subject to change based on collective thinking.
Coming back to the "duty" bit - nobody has any "duty". I doubt any peer reviewed economics literature ascribes such loaded meanings. Can you pleas show me?
I would work if the marginal utility of the hours I spend gives me something in return whose marginal utility is higher. If not, as Homo Economicus and a newly minted Mustachian, I won't!!
Other points:
1. Asking for reorganization of how the future value of "promises" handed out already is not same as, nor incompatible with, tax optimization.
2. Redistribution is not stealing - unless you are a true libertarian who relies 100% on bartering and don't depend on society for anything. If you derived value from society, it follows you should pay for the maintenance costs of the said "society". When and if a billionaire complains about his 15% and lower tax rate, ask him exactly how much did he benefit from the social constructs like property rights, police, military etc.
3. Data seems to show that the American left wing politicians are far more fiscally responsible than the right wing. Simply look at the budget deficit numbers from the Republican vs Dem admins and you will see what I mean. Right-wing, starting with Nixon, invented the post-truth politics where we are supposed to focus on what they say, not what they do!!
4. Conserving the environment is not a liberal cause. Conserving is a conservative cause!! The politician with the biggest contribution to conservation in the US was a conservative - Teddy Roosevelt. Of course - we are not talking about the post-truth "conservative"s.
Not only do I not think that the liberal leaning Mustachians are NOT hypocrites, it seems self evident to me that any Mustachian who does not identify with the big-tent "liberal" policies in today's US politics are hypocrites!!
-
I'm having cognitive dissonance, that self-reliance and being a hard worker and taking advantage of the economic opportunities of the US is somehow a Republican thing? When did this happen?
I mean it seems pretty common sense, that one can be hard working, self-reliant while AT THE SAME TIME would like the government or society to provide basic safety nets for those who are children, elderly, ill, or otherwise unable help themselves? And I don't care how "self-reliant" you are, if you as an individual gets cancer or some other serious health problem, you are not able to do surgery on yourself or pay out of pocket sans insurance to have your condition treated, unless you want to go back 100 years medical treatment-wise.
My Dad is a veteran, self-made man, businessman, pulled himself up by his bootstraps. Two times had devastating personal business losses but refused to declare bankruptcy (in one case worked 10 years to pay back his debts). He also believes people have the right to join a union, march for their rights, and everyone should have access to affordable healthcare. There is no dichotomy, hypocrisy, unless you think caring for those who need help, means you think everyone is helpless.
-
I'm having cognitive dissonance, that self-reliance and being a hard worker and taking advantage of the economic opportunities of the US is somehow a Republican thing? When did this happen?
I mean it seems pretty common sense, that one can be hard working, self-reliant while AT THE SAME TIME would like the government or society to provide basic safety nets for those who are children, elderly, ill, or otherwise unable help themselves?
Exactly so.
I have always been self-reliant, a hard worker, and have taken advantage of the economic opportunities of the US. At the same time, I would very much like the government/society to provide safety nets for the people in my extended family who struggle to help themselves -- almost all of whom are Republicans, by the way.
-
I'm having cognitive dissonance, that self-reliance and being a hard worker and taking advantage of the economic opportunities of the US is somehow a Republican thing? When did this happen?
I mean it seems pretty common sense, that one can be hard working, self-reliant while AT THE SAME TIME would like the government or society to provide basic safety nets for those who are children, elderly, ill, or otherwise unable help themselves?
Exactly so.
I have always been self-reliant, a hard worker, and have taken advantage of the economic opportunities of the US. At the same time, I would very much like the government/society to provide safety nets for the people in my extended family who struggle to help themselves -- almost all of whom are Republicans, by the way.
I always thought this was ironic, that states that receive the most government benefits and welfare, are Red states.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
-
I do think that Mustacians are able to recognize that our economic system is just that, a system. A system that we can learn about and optimize our efforts to be successful within. I think that's a intelligence thing, not a 'left' or 'right' thing.
On the other hand, I think that the left is much more likely to see the system as an actual system, and recognize that any system is imperfect and can be improved upon. Hence the desire for more re-distribution and being OK with programs that promote the common good. So the overlap I see with MMM is not political. The overlap is the ability to think in terms of systems and within terms of optimizing systems.
-
The idea of taxing someone based on their ability rather than their output seems coercive. Just because I'm making big money working 60hr weeks(as an example) doesn't mean I should be taxed at that level my whole life, or be expected to produce at that level my whole life.
-
I'm having cognitive dissonance, that self-reliance and being a hard worker and taking advantage of the economic opportunities of the US is somehow a Republican thing? When did this happen?
I mean it seems pretty common sense, that one can be hard working, self-reliant while AT THE SAME TIME would like the government or society to provide basic safety nets for those who are children, elderly, ill, or otherwise unable help themselves?
Exactly so.
I have always been self-reliant, a hard worker, and have taken advantage of the economic opportunities of the US. At the same time, I would very much like the government/society to provide safety nets for the people in my extended family who struggle to help themselves -- almost all of whom are Republicans, by the way.
I always thought this was ironic, that states that receive the most government benefits and welfare, are Red states.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
I always want to see a breakdown of voting by individuals in these states. Like how do those who received benefits vote vs those who don't.
I think the biggest hypocrisy within the whole MMM philosophy is that you can claim to be an environmentalist while simultaneously investing in large corporations which are the biggest polluters on the planet.
-
I always want to see a breakdown of voting by individuals in these states. Like how do those who received benefits vote vs those who don't.
Isn't that a red herring?
For the purpose of argument, let's assume that the welfare recipient's vote "liberal". This is likely true for states like Alabama where that population is mostly "minority", but likely not true for Appalachia regions - i.e. a mixed result if any. It's based on anecdotes, I have no data on this and would stand corrected if anyone has any better data.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume 100% of the welfare recipients in these "republican states" vote democrat.
Do you think that the administration - mostly right wing - and the majority population in these states - again mostly right wing - for the past few decades, and their Jim Crow policies have some blame for failing to develop their economy over the decades such that they have to depend on handouts from the "northern" states?
Rhetorical question - do "state rights" apply in reverse? Are there any "state responsibilities" also? Or are these concepts and arguments useful only where they are convenient?
Note: I do NOT think this post-truth behavior is even a republican or conservative thing. Lincoln (and indeed any other republican right up to the middle of 20th century) would likely have considered Nixon's cynical "southern strategy" a blasphemy. I'm not sure he would also have approved Reagan's "welfare queen" scare - the subject of which, by the way, was a white woman made to look black in the pictures. Reagan used this to dog-whistle "welfare dependent blacks are coming to steal your welfare money" without saying it in so many words.
I think the biggest hypocrisy within the whole MMM philosophy is that you can claim to be an environmentalist while simultaneously investing in large corporations which are the biggest polluters on the planet.
This is a good point to ponder.
Do you know of any good environment friendly way to invest?
I just joined the forum (mostly for reading) a few days ago and can stake no "ownership" of it's philosophy or message. But I doubt anyone is making any absolute claims about zero carbon footprint. Only the Sith deal in absolutes!!
-
I think the biggest hypocrisy within the whole MMM philosophy is that you can claim to be an environmentalist while simultaneously investing in large corporations which are the biggest polluters on the planet.
While this is obviously fair game, I think the fascination with the ~100 corporations responsible for pollution thing is a bit overstated. These companies (mostly oil/gas companies) aren’t just polluting for the fun of it. They’re selling gasoline to people, who burn it, turning it into CO2 and a few other nasty pollutants.
One can make a far greater environmental impact by focusing on their consumption than worrying too much about their handful of shares in oil companies they have via an index fund. That’s not to say you can’t do both, but I’m not sure the latter warrants the time necessary to rid yourself of all polluters.
-
Reviving a two-year-old post as your first post on the forum is peculiar.
But I'm mostly just posting to follow.
-
Reviving a two-year-old post as your first post on the forum is peculiar.
Apologies if it broke any forum rules. I was just reading up on the best of mmm thread (fascinating read) and found this specific thread referenced from one of the quotes quite captivating.
I'd request the moderators to take any corrective actions necessary if it broke any forum rules.
In the way of introducing (since the topic of "first post" came about) - I've been a semi-silent reader of Bogleheads for many years, from before the Great Recession, and follow the LBYM to the core. You guys seem to take it to whole another level though. I see that I waste a lot after stumbling across this forum a few months ago. I've got the investment end covered, but hoping to learn more on the mustachian end of the things and get better.
-
I think the biggest hypocrisy within the whole MMM philosophy is that you can claim to be an environmentalist while simultaneously investing in large corporations which are the biggest polluters on the planet.
While this is obviously fair game, I think the fascination with the ~100 corporations responsible for pollution thing is a bit overstated. These companies (mostly oil/gas companies) aren’t just polluting for the fun of it. They’re selling gasoline to people, who burn it, turning it into CO2 and a few other nasty pollutants.
One can make a far greater environmental impact by focusing on their consumption than worrying too much about their handful of shares in oil companies they have via an index fund. That’s not to say you can’t do both, but I’m not sure the latter warrants the time necessary to rid yourself of all polluters.
Those 100 companies are leveraging their economies of scale to stay on top, and they're certainly not going out of their way to track or monitor their environmental impact to the same degree. Survivor's dilemma exists in these companies, and an executive chasing a quarterly bonus doesn't want personal obstacles that might yield for the community.
Poor red states are interesting, and maybe they are strongly libertarian or anti-tax, which could explain part of it. Or the more moral conservative ideas might be the appeal. I've been listening to Sowell's book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" and it's been a fascinating read; I had no idea how segregated the cultures are in the US between south and north. (He outlines that much of the tragedy of black emancipation is actually rooted in poor cultural influence from Southern whites, rather than being rooted specifically in racism).
-
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, we’re all hypocrites in some way. Saul Alinsky became famous using the tactic of forcing the opposition to live up to their own book of rules/conduct. None of us live up to our personal code at all times and all circumstances. We should try of course, but expecting perfection out of people is a sure path to disappointment.
As to what is truly ”Mustachian” about these political issues, I guess I’m looking for the Mustachian traits of knowing the rules. exacting attention to detail, the reliance on mathematical facts, and the willingness to see things as they are rather than what we wish them to be.
The problem with politics, at least at the average persons level, is that the ROI stinks on ice. And mathematically, you can’t make a plausible argument that participating in politics makes any sense. I get that there is a quasi religious view that we MUST vote, we MUST participate because our voice matters! Or something like that. But when you analyze it from the perspective of what X output do I receive for my Y input of time and resources, you find that X output is paltry to nonexistent.
Reliance on mathematical facts doesn't tell you how to coexist morally across time. Politics are usually about compromises, so the "battle", so to speak, will never end.
-
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, we’re all hypocrites in some way.
This is more true than most people realize. In fact, with certain very defensible assumptions - this is a mathematical truth!!
If we assume:
1. Ideology = a "Formal System", as per Modern Algebra and Computer Science.
2. Ideology is defined by a set of assumptions (axioms as per CS/Modern Algebra) and rules of inferences.
Then - per Godel's Incompleteness theorem (super simplified) - that system is always incomplete, in that it can never solve all questions/problems that cn be posed within it!!
The theorem sounds complicated, but it's proof is so simple it was a part of a 2XX math course I took in undergrad. The proof usually involves using a mathematical technique known as diagonalization.
Let this sync in a bit!! No ideology, assuming it is codified as a set of assumptions and rules that are consistent etc.etc, can ever answer all problems you can throw at it!!
I found this mathematical theorem to be one of the most profound ever I've encountered!!
-
" If you derived value from society, it follows you should pay for the maintenance costs of the said "society". "
I agree with the above, but it doesn't follow that progressive taxation is necessarily required for this. Imagine a society costs $100 to run and there are 10 people. One way to distribute the maintenance costs is just to make everyone pay $10. Now this would never work in the real world because one person earns $50 and the others earn $3 so can't afford the $10 outlay. But my point is that it is quite possible to argue that maintenance costs ought not to be progressively levied. We don't make the winning team or winning athlete pay a greater entrance fee or stadium fee than the losers, do we?
If a successful person grew up in the same school district and same neighbourhood as an unsuccessful person why should the former pay more just because she grabbed the opportunity and the latter didn't?
-
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, we’re all hypocrites in some way. Saul Alinsky became famous using the tactic of forcing the opposition to live up to their own book of rules/conduct. None of us live up to our personal code at all times and all circumstances. We should try of course, but expecting perfection out of people is a sure path to disappointment.
As to what is truly ”Mustachian” about these political issues, I guess I’m looking for the Mustachian traits of knowing the rules. exacting attention to detail, the reliance on mathematical facts, and the willingness to see things as they are rather than what we wish them to be.
The problem with politics, at least at the average persons level, is that the ROI stinks on ice. And mathematically, you can’t make a plausible argument that participating in politics makes any sense. I get that there is a quasi religious view that we MUST vote, we MUST participate because our voice matters! Or something like that. But when you analyze it from the perspective of what X output do I receive for my Y input of time and resources, you find that X output is paltry to nonexistent.
That's not necessarily true, both socially and politically, on the local level. Plus how much time does it take to read up on local candidates and vote every 2 years? I'm not thinking it's that big of an investment compared to being able to participate in a democracy. There are some interests who are very invested in the majority of Americans tuning out and being apathetic. Think about that.
-
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, we’re all hypocrites in some way.
This is more true than most people realize. In fact, with certain very defensible assumptions - this is a mathematical truth!!
If we assume:
1. Ideology = a "Formal System", as per Modern Algebra and Computer Science.
2. Ideology is defined by a set of assumptions (axioms as per CS/Modern Algebra) and rules of inferences.
Then - per Godel's Incompleteness theorem (super simplified) - that system is always incomplete, in that it can never solve all questions/problems that cn be posed within it!!
The theorem sounds complicated, but it's proof is so simple it was a part of a 2XX math course I took in undergrad. The proof usually involves using a mathematical technique known as diagonalization.
Let this sync in a bit!! No ideology, assuming it is codified as a set of assumptions and rules that are consistent etc.etc, can ever answer all problems you can throw at it!!
I found this mathematical theorem to be one of the most profound ever I've encountered!!
While that may be mathematically correct, here’s the rub: you’ll never get folks to agree that their faith doesn’t explain pretty much everything. And I’m as guilty as the next guy; I’m unabashedly religious. I’m just not a devotee of the Church of Elephants and Donkeys.
-
I don't agree that people that aspire to retire early travel on planes more than the general population does. The typical American flies on a plane often, because we are wealthy enough to go on vacations wherever, travel for work, etc. Mustachians that are accumulating for retirement are probably rationing their expensive vacation budgets to exotic locales and doing more staycations. Early retirees on a fixed income don't have the money to fly around the world, don't travel for work, and do more slow traveling.
Mustachians wouldn't need to travel more than average; they would need to care about the environment more than average, which you stated above was a tenet of mustachinism - 'environmentalism/urban planning'. Since at almost any level air travel is incredibly damaging to the environment and almost exclusively a luxury that is unneeded for quality of life, anyone who claims to honestly care about the environment while simultaneously utilizing air travel could be considered to be performing actions inconsistent with their stated views, especially if they travel more as a retiree than they did while working, (which many on this forum do) though this is not necessary. Slow travelling is just as damaging, if one takes a plane to get to where they are slow travelling.
I haven't flown anywhere in years, and it was for work the last that I did, but I've seen quite a few people here bragging about how many places they've flown to for vacations/trips. So, I totally expected the responses from others rationalizing why it's ok for them to travel by plane. They did not disappoint. I'm planning a bicycle trip when I FIRE. Let's save the environment.
-
" If you derived value from society, it follows you should pay for the maintenance costs of the said "society". "
I agree with the above, but it doesn't follow that progressive taxation is necessarily required for this. Imagine a society costs $100 to run and there are 10 people. One way to distribute the maintenance costs is just to make everyone pay $10. Now this would never work in the real world because one person earns $50 and the others earn $3 so can't afford the $10 outlay. But my point is that it is quite possible to argue that maintenance costs ought not to be progressively levied. We don't make the winning team or winning athlete pay a greater entrance fee or stadium fee than the losers, do we?
If a successful person grew up in the same school district and same neighbourhood as an unsuccessful person why should the former pay more just because she grabbed the opportunity and the latter didn't?
The problem might be definitions!
How do you define "progressive" taxation - that higher earners should pay higher nominal value, or that higher earners should pay higher rate?
What about the concept that:
1. If you pay $X as taxes, you forfeit a marginal utility of some amount Y. This is the opportunity cost of the marginal utility you *could* have derived from the $X had you not paid it as taxes.
2. Everyone should pay an amount such that the marginal utility forfeited by those taxes are equal. i.e. everyone forfeits a marginal utility equal to Y. Of course, "forfeited marginal utility" of $1 is different for a homeless person than it is for the Mercers and Murdochs and such!!
Is the above fair?
There are volumes of academic research on this topic of fair taxation. If you use the assumptions above, the "fair" highest tax rate would be somewhere around where they used to be in US in the 50's and 60's.
There is a reason society was so much fairer back then.
[And no, economic windfall from the intact manufacturing infrastructure in the US post WW2 was not the reason. Digital/internet revolution produced higher total wealth in the last 40 years. US has not used that windfall as efficiently as the post-WW2 manufacturing windfall due to the asymmetric polarization of a certain political ideology that led to the tax system to veer faaaaaaaar away from the fair "forfeited marginal utility taxation".].
-
I don't agree that people that aspire to retire early travel on planes more than the general population does. The typical American flies on a plane often, because we are wealthy enough to go on vacations wherever, travel for work, etc. Mustachians that are accumulating for retirement are probably rationing their expensive vacation budgets to exotic locales and doing more staycations. Early retirees on a fixed income don't have the money to fly around the world, don't travel for work, and do more slow traveling.
Mustachians wouldn't need to travel more than average; they would need to care about the environment more than average, which you stated above was a tenet of mustachinism - 'environmentalism/urban planning'. Since at almost any level air travel is incredibly damaging to the environment and almost exclusively a luxury that is unneeded for quality of life, anyone who claims to honestly care about the environment while simultaneously utilizing air travel could be considered to be performing actions inconsistent with their stated views, especially if they travel more as a retiree than they did while working, (which many on this forum do) though this is not necessary. Slow travelling is just as damaging, if one takes a plane to get to where they are slow travelling.
I haven't flown anywhere in years, and it was for work the last that I did, but I've seen quite a few people here bragging about how many places they've flown to for vacations/trips. So, I totally expected the responses from others rationalizing why it's ok for them to travel by plane. They did not disappoint. I'm planning a bicycle trip when I FIRE. Let's save the environment.
How about hitch hiking? Sailing?
-
" If you derived value from society, it follows you should pay for the maintenance costs of the said "society". "
I agree with the above, but it doesn't follow that progressive taxation is necessarily required for this. Imagine a society costs $100 to run and there are 10 people. One way to distribute the maintenance costs is just to make everyone pay $10. Now this would never work in the real world because one person earns $50 and the others earn $3 so can't afford the $10 outlay. But my point is that it is quite possible to argue that maintenance costs ought not to be progressively levied. We don't make the winning team or winning athlete pay a greater entrance fee or stadium fee than the losers, do we?
If a successful person grew up in the same school district and same neighbourhood as an unsuccessful person why should the former pay more just because she grabbed the opportunity and the latter didn't?
The problem might be definitions!
How do you define "progressive" taxation - that higher earners should pay higher nominal value, or that higher earners should pay higher rate?
What about the concept that:
1. If you pay $X as taxes, you forfeit a marginal utility of some amount Y. This is the opportunity cost of the marginal utility you *could* have derived from the $X had you not paid it as taxes.
2. Everyone should pay an amount such that the marginal utility forfeited by those taxes are equal. i.e. everyone forfeits a marginal utility equal to Y. Of course, "forfeited marginal utility" of $1 is different for a homeless person than it is for the Mercers and Murdochs and such!!
Is the above fair?
There are volumes of academic research on this topic of fair taxation. If you use the assumptions above, the "fair" highest tax rate would be somewhere around where they used to be in US in the 50's and 60's.
There is a reason society was so much fairer back then.
[And no, economic windfall from the intact manufacturing infrastructure in the US post WW2 was not the reason. Digital/internet revolution produced higher total wealth in the last 40 years. US has not used that windfall as efficiently as the post-WW2 manufacturing windfall due to the asymmetric polarization of a certain political ideology that led to the tax system to veer faaaaaaaar away from the fair "forfeited marginal utility taxation".].
You've introduced a different aspect to the argument. It seems you're saying that a 'maintenance cost' should be expressed not as a nominal figure but as a function of marginal utility.
I think your argument is sound. I don't agree with the premise, simply because I'm not a utilitarian, and I think arguments based on marginal utility depend on utilitarianism.
I'm not completely against the idea. I believe in mildly progressive taxes. By progressive I refer to proportion, not absolute figures.
"Fairness" also has many definitions. Imagine you have a track and field event dominated by a couple of entrants who have genetic or environmental gifts that the others lack. Some people would say it's only fair to handicap those two. Some people would say it's fair that those couple of entrants win all the races (presuming they run well and in fact beat the other contestants). Both definitions of 'fairness' are sound. Some people prefer one definition and some the other.
-
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, we’re all hypocrites in some way. Saul Alinsky became famous using the tactic of forcing the opposition to live up to their own book of rules/conduct. None of us live up to our personal code at all times and all circumstances. We should try of course, but expecting perfection out of people is a sure path to disappointment.
As to what is truly ”Mustachian” about these political issues, I guess I’m looking for the Mustachian traits of knowing the rules. exacting attention to detail, the reliance on mathematical facts, and the willingness to see things as they are rather than what we wish them to be.
The problem with politics, at least at the average persons level, is that the ROI stinks on ice. And mathematically, you can’t make a plausible argument that participating in politics makes any sense. I get that there is a quasi religious view that we MUST vote, we MUST participate because our voice matters! Or something like that. But when you analyze it from the perspective of what X output do I receive for my Y input of time and resources, you find that X output is paltry to nonexistent.
That's not necessarily true, both socially and politically, on the local level. Plus how much time does it take to read up on local candidates and vote every 2 years? I'm not thinking it's that big of an investment compared to being able to participate in a democracy. There are some interests who are very invested in the majority of Americans tuning out and being apathetic. Think about that.
Since you brought it up, let’s talk about those apathetic masses who don’t dutifully show up to vote. We tend to dismiss them as ignorant or somehow morally deficient. But how about using economics to explain their behavior? Most of us are familiar with the idea of opportunity costs. I would argue that what’s happening here is that nonvoters are doing a sort of informal opportunity cost analysis and deciding that the time and resources spent educating themselves and voting are better spent elsewhere.
So, is it worth spending several hours of your time when the alternative is say more time spent with family or even working? Would you you trade 4 or 6 or 8 hours of your time to have a very small chance of being the one vote that decides a tied election? If so, you definitely should participate because it’s valuable to you. Other people see it differently.
-
You've introduced a different aspect to the argument. It seems you're saying that a 'maintenance cost' should be expressed not as a nominal figure but as a function of marginal utility.
...I believe in mildly progressive taxes. By progressive I refer to proportion, not absolute figures.
"Fairness" also has many definitions...
Should tax rates be defined by "belief"? or Peer Reviewed work?
There are tomes of peer reviewed work I can google up that follows the logic pattern I have tried to outline (to the best of my understanding). Peter Diamond is an economist who has done a bunch of work on this topic.
Can you please point out any fair tax theory research that is *not* utilitarian? What are it's conclusions? Do they call for the 70-80% top marginal tax rates that utilitarian assumptions and research call for?
Note: I've already looked up Supply Side "economics". It is not a field of serious Economic research. No serious peer reviewed journal would publish on this field because it is hocus-pocus most probably paid for by self-serving billionaires for obvious self interest.
-
Mate, I've said your argument is sound. That doesn't mean that one has to accept its utilitarian framework. All peer-reviewed work can do is to establish that in a utilitarian economy, moderately progressive tax rates are beneficial. I don't even deny that. But I'm not bound to accept your ethical philosophy, and frankly a lot of western countries are not particularly progressive, so it seems a lot of others are in the same boat.
Again, your definition of "fairness" seems to be a utilitarian one, or maybe a Kantian one. That's fine. I don't accept that as my definition of fairness. I've used the sporting analogy in my previous post to highlight where we offer.
It's disappointing that I can reply so neutrally to your views, which differ from mine, yet you call a whole field of economics "not serious economic research", as if anything that differs from your basic premises can't possibly be "serious". It must be "hocus-pocus" and "self-serving". It's only hocus-pocus if you start and end with the notion that utilitarianism is the only valid value system.
-
Mate, I've said your argument is sound. That doesn't mean that one has to accept its utilitarian framework. All peer-reviewed work can do is to establish that in a utilitarian economy, moderately progressive tax rates are beneficial. I don't even deny that. But I'm not bound to accept your ethical philosophy, and frankly a lot of western countries are not particularly progressive, so it seems a lot of others are in the same boat.
Again, your definition of "fairness" seems to be a utilitarian one, or maybe a Kantian one. That's fine. I don't accept that as my definition of fairness. I've used the sporting analogy in my previous post to highlight where we offer.
This part is absolutely fair and I can't contradict anything here.
It's disappointing that I can reply so neutrally to your views, which differ from mine, yet you call a whole field of economics "not serious economic research", as if anything that differs from your basic premises can't possibly be "serious". It must be "hocus-pocus" and "self-serving". It's only hocus-pocus if you start and end with the notion that utilitarianism is the only valid value system.
This I would contest.
Look at Arthur Laffer's wiki page. Note that he published slew of peer-reviewed research at the beginning of his career. Laffer Curve itself was a very notable economic concept, and very relevant when tax rates was upward of 70%.
It is reasonable to suggest that at certain tax rates, total receipt would go down!!
Note however, that there is almost no peer-reviewed economics research paper since 1992. Since then, he has published nothing that went through the scrutiny of serious peer-review. He was one of the primary advisers behind the Kansas debacle with their extreme tax cuts. And yet, his opinion - which is published widely by a certain political party, just no longer in peer reviewed research journals - is stridently absolutist. Taxation is evil! Always! At all levels!
Publication of the Laffer Curve was proper economics. The current "taxation is evil" is not. It is political demagogy. Unfortunately, this is what goes on in the name of "supply side economics" now-a-days!!
When I call supply side "economics" a "hocus pocus" - I refer to the current political activities by Arthur Laffer, and think tanks ideologically aligned with him, like Cato or Heritage etc. They are doing politics, not economics, and masquerading it as Economics.
This is an unfortunate state of affairs!! Proper research from all point of view adds a lot of value. Researchers following "Supply Side" doctrine honestly reviewing what Arthur Laffer did wrong in Kansas, as well as reviewing what went wrong in Connecticut where tax rate increase on the wealthy decreased tax receipt from them (thereby supporting Laffer Curve) would definitely add value, if anybody was doing it.
Unfortunately, nobody is doing it!!
By calling current - political - activities of supply side advocates "hocus pocus" and "not serious economics" I did not mean to question the legitimate work done in this field during the 70s and 80s. Neither was it meant to attack your point of view.
-
Thanks for your response. I understand you were never seeking to attack my point of view, but just the point of view of the "hocus pocus" economists or people propagating that line of thought.
What I would say is this - some research is undoubtedly tainted by vested interests, though I suspect this happens on all parts of the spectrum - maybe more in the conservative arena since there's more corporate backing there.
Stepping away from that, and from naked politics, there's an argument that the ends don't necessarily justify the means, when it comes to taxation. It's a counter-utilitarian argument. For example, if you pointed me to research that shows that a 50% top tax rate achieves the most in terms of overall growth or redistribution, I still wouldn't support it, because I don't believe that pure growth or redistribution (or a combination of both) is what we should be aiming for. It comes down to one's value hierarchy.
-
I always want to see a breakdown of voting by individuals in these states. Like how do those who received benefits vote vs those who don't.
Isn't that a red herring?
For the purpose of argument, let's assume that the welfare recipient's vote "liberal". This is likely true for states like Alabama where that population is mostly "minority", but likely not true for Appalachia regions - i.e. a mixed result if any. It's based on anecdotes, I have no data on this and would stand corrected if anyone has any better data.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume 100% of the welfare recipients in these "republican states" vote democrat.
Do you think that the administration - mostly right wing - and the majority population in these states - again mostly right wing - for the past few decades, and their Jim Crow policies have some blame for failing to develop their economy over the decades such that they have to depend on handouts from the "northern" states?
Rhetorical question - do "state rights" apply in reverse? Are there any "state responsibilities" also? Or are these concepts and arguments useful only where they are convenient?
Note: I do NOT think this post-truth behavior is even a republican or conservative thing. Lincoln (and indeed any other republican right up to the middle of 20th century) would likely have considered Nixon's cynical "southern strategy" a blasphemy. I'm not sure he would also have approved Reagan's "welfare queen" scare - the subject of which, by the way, was a white woman made to look black in the pictures. Reagan used this to dog-whistle "welfare dependent blacks are coming to steal your welfare money" without saying it in so many words.
I think the biggest hypocrisy within the whole MMM philosophy is that you can claim to be an environmentalist while simultaneously investing in large corporations which are the biggest polluters on the planet.
This is a good point to ponder.
Do you know of any good environment friendly way to invest?
I just joined the forum (mostly for reading) a few days ago and can stake no "ownership" of it's philosophy or message. But I doubt anyone is making any absolute claims about zero carbon footprint. Only the Sith deal in absolutes!!
I'm sure there are some "environmentally friendly" mutual funds which are comparatively better than, say, an S&P 500 index fund. Returns would likely be lower and fees higher. There are probably some opportunities in local real estate but this is obviously much more hands-on.
Folks tend to focus on the oil companies when I point this hypocrisy out but if you really start thinking about the products on the shelves of every Walmart, Home Depot, etc. and the impact of those products (and their packaging) on the environment it is mind boggling. We are all condoning this with our investment dollars.
-
I wouldn't say that the conversation has been disrespectful (but I am no moderator). And I do think someone should start a thread asking whether right wing MMMers are hypocrites (not idiots). Just some thoughts on the flip side of the OP's question. And since the OP used Trump as the anti-thesis of the left we can use him and the poster child of the right - with similar accuracy:
-Right wing is against big government but your Mustachian lifestyle relies on all sorts of government programs: roads, the existence of qualified retirement plans, social security, obamacare, etc
-Right wing is against high taxes but again you benefit from all those government programs
-Right wing is against immigration but how many of you are immigrants or want to take advantage of other county's residency policies (ex pats)
-Right wing bans travel from certain countries, but you travel
-Right wing supports conservative christian values, but how many of you tithe (some, but not all)
-etc
The GOP SAYS alot about their values but their actions frequently demonstrate the opposite.
-
From the perspective of a moderate liberal:
1. Almost all tax laws have deliberate rules that allow some people to pay less taxes and other people to pay more. Actual loopholes are oversights in the law that allow people to dodge taxes, violating the intent of the nation's tax laws. So married people get a tax break. I don't care for it as a single guy, but I understand. When deployed with the Army I got tax breaks that similarly rankled other people. This year the my federal and state taxes HAMMERED me. While I pissed and moaned about it, I paid in full. It is what it is. When it comes to tax breaks, MMM is all about making sure you know about them so you can use them. He, and no other FIRE guru I'm aware of, recommend things like off shore banks or tax shelters. Trump can't do anything without the liberal media crapping all over him. But in the liberal media's defense, the man can't tweet a thing without lying or sounding like the asshole he is.
2. I do want to travel the world. But to some degree I already have. I don't own a car and don't intend to go everywhere so the travel I do will be offset somewhat. BTW, not all Mustachians love travel. We've had at least 2 threads on the forum filled with people that HATE travel and just want to hang around their house and do projects/hobbies/read/watch TV.
3. I'm gonna address the crossed out bit. Even though Mustachians intend to drop out of the workforce, it doesn't mean we're moving to a cave in Tibet and the world can go fuck itself. Those that want social justice do so because they believe it's good for society as a whole and because they are or were victimized by toxic norms. Is there a certain busybody element to it? Yes. Are there bits of it that I personally disagree with? Yes. But there's nothing hypocritical about it.
4. Healthcare is similar to taxes. There are ways to understand the system and use it properly. Unlike taxes, the default for the rich is just to pay the outrageous costs. So a little knowledge for the not rich goes a long way. Nor does a Mustachian using that knowledge take away from health care for other people.
What might be a bit of legit hypocrisy for far left Mustachians is the means by which we usually achieve FIRE: Investing and/or Real Estate. Both are solidly capitalist ventures with potential moral/ethical downsides. Investing, my preferred method, has a tendency to push publicly owned companies to do unethical things to promote profits to mollify investors. To be sure, not all companies need to or will. But plenty do - abusing workers, producing inferior, even unsafe products, ruining the environment etc. Owning Index Funds which spread investments across a spectrum of companies virtually guarantees a Mustachian has some corp run by a sociopath in her portfolio. Real Estate is less and more susceptible to this because typically a Mustachian owns rental properties. The up side is that they get to determine what ethical decisions go into their ownership. The downside is if they do something fucked up it's not some corporate board but them personally. They are literally THE MAN or THE WOMAN.
The only real hazard for leftist to far left Mustachian is this: If we ever do have a hard core socialist or even communist society it will likely decide FIRE money and unused work time not devoted to sustaining the new socialist economy is a kind of theft. And FIRE'd people must atone with extra taxes and going back to work. But that's a highly unlikely scenario. Slightly more likely than a Zombie Apocalypse but less likely than the New York Times endorsing Trump's re-election.
-
I agree that is one way that liberals can be hypocritical, is by participating in the stock market, where you don't have control over how ethically the corporations that you are investing in, operate. For example people who are pro environmnent if they invest in the S & P 500 I'm sure are investing in fossil fuel companies as well as other companies that are undermining the environment. I don't see any easy way to avoid this.
-
https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/esg/
See also VESGX (starts rolling June 5)
-
I agree that is one way that liberals can be hypocritical, is by participating in the stock market, where you don't have control over how ethically the corporations that you are investing in, operate. For example people who are pro environmnent if they invest in the S & P 500 I'm sure are investing in fossil fuel companies as well as other companies that are undermining the environment. I don't see any easy way to avoid this.
Here's how I rationalize it :) I'm a consumer of fossil fuels as well. I'm at the root of the problem, not the companies who are supplying the consumer demand. So I try to limit my own fossil fuel consumption, and support public policies that aim to control greenhouse gases.
Additionally (I realize some people will disagree will disagree with this), strictly speaking when you invest in a company by buying stock in a mutual fund, you technically aren't investing, you are saving. The money doesn't go to the company, it goes to the previous shareholder. The only exceptions are if you bought stock in a IPO or secondary offering.
Some say that the secondary market is what gives the stock its value, and so you actually are investing in the company. But that's not strictly true either. Privately held companies commonly have stock that cannot be traded. And for that matter, stocks existed before stock markets. You don't need a public market for stocks to have value, in other words.
-
Are left-wing Mustachians hypocrites?
No. Not at all.
-
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, we’re all hypocrites in some way. Saul Alinsky became famous using the tactic of forcing the opposition to live up to their own book of rules/conduct. None of us live up to our personal code at all times and all circumstances. We should try of course, but expecting perfection out of people is a sure path to disappointment.
As to what is truly ”Mustachian” about these political issues, I guess I’m looking for the Mustachian traits of knowing the rules. exacting attention to detail, the reliance on mathematical facts, and the willingness to see things as they are rather than what we wish them to be.
The problem with politics, at least at the average persons level, is that the ROI stinks on ice. And mathematically, you can’t make a plausible argument that participating in politics makes any sense. I get that there is a quasi religious view that we MUST vote, we MUST participate because our voice matters! Or something like that. But when you analyze it from the perspective of what X output do I receive for my Y input of time and resources, you find that X output is paltry to nonexistent.
That's not necessarily true, both socially and politically, on the local level. Plus how much time does it take to read up on local candidates and vote every 2 years? I'm not thinking it's that big of an investment compared to being able to participate in a democracy. There are some interests who are very invested in the majority of Americans tuning out and being apathetic. Think about that.
I don't think spending a few hours every few years voting is a problem. I certainly question those that seem to dedicate every moment of their lives to politics and want to inject politics into everything. There was a thread a few days ago where people were discussing how to move forward with a girlfriend that handles money poorly, and someone decided to make the conversation about the president. If you can't have a normal conversation without making it about politics, you have a problem.
-
El oh el
-
Interesting thread. In response to the OPs question, we’re all hypocrites in some way. Saul Alinsky became famous using the tactic of forcing the opposition to live up to their own book of rules/conduct. None of us live up to our personal code at all times and all circumstances. We should try of course, but expecting perfection out of people is a sure path to disappointment.
As to what is truly ”Mustachian” about these political issues, I guess I’m looking for the Mustachian traits of knowing the rules. exacting attention to detail, the reliance on mathematical facts, and the willingness to see things as they are rather than what we wish them to be.
The problem with politics, at least at the average persons level, is that the ROI stinks on ice. And mathematically, you can’t make a plausible argument that participating in politics makes any sense. I get that there is a quasi religious view that we MUST vote, we MUST participate because our voice matters! Or something like that. But when you analyze it from the perspective of what X output do I receive for my Y input of time and resources, you find that X output is paltry to nonexistent.
That's not necessarily true, both socially and politically, on the local level. Plus how much time does it take to read up on local candidates and vote every 2 years? I'm not thinking it's that big of an investment compared to being able to participate in a democracy. There are some interests who are very invested in the majority of Americans tuning out and being apathetic. Think about that.
I don't think spending a few hours every few years voting is a problem. I certainly question those that seem to dedicate every moment of their lives to politics and want to inject politics into everything. There was a thread a few days ago where people were discussing how to move forward with a girlfriend that handles money poorly, and someone decided to make the conversation about the president. If you can't have a normal conversation without making it about politics, you have a problem.
Lol.
That was me.
And I wasn’t making the conversation about politics. I was commenting on another poster’s (in my mind) somewhat questionable remarks about “high quality” people (implying, I believe, that the OP’s girlfriend was not one) and pointing out that two other people I could think of use the same phrase about people in the same condescending tone —one of whom is Donald Trump.
I’m not sure that’s even injecting politics into the conversation. It’s citing an example of a superlatively crap human being who uses a kind of crappy expression to classify other people as high or low quality — and saying it’s a superlatively crap thing to do.
-
lol I would have guessed it was one of our other members, who likes to go off on Trump tirades, but I won't mention names.
-
Note: I do NOT think this post-truth behavior is even a republican or conservative thing. Lincoln (and indeed any other republican right up to the middle of 20th century) would likely have considered Nixon's cynical "southern strategy" a blasphemy. I'm not sure he would also have approved Reagan's "welfare queen" scare - the subject of which, by the way, was a white woman made to look black in the pictures. Reagan used this to dog-whistle "welfare dependent blacks are coming to steal your welfare money" without saying it in so many words.
I hope I got the quoting right. Anyhow interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylor
This is the lady Reagan titled a "Welfare Queen". She was a standout case I think.
-
Note: I do NOT think this post-truth behavior is even a republican or conservative thing. Lincoln (and indeed any other republican right up to the middle of 20th century) would likely have considered Nixon's cynical "southern strategy" a blasphemy. I'm not sure he would also have approved Reagan's "welfare queen" scare - the subject of which, by the way, was a white woman made to look black in the pictures. Reagan used this to dog-whistle "welfare dependent blacks are coming to steal your welfare money" without saying it in so many words.
I hope I got the quoting right. Anyhow interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylor
This is the lady Reagan titled a "Welfare Queen". She was a standout case I think.
wow! I somehow missed this. Abducting kids and even murder. Standout case indeed.
-
Since mustachianism is new, it's progressive, by definition, which maybe makes us the most leftwing.