why do we care how much 100k is in london for our taxes? like snax said lecter you seem to be proposing that we just tax things to make people equal insted of taxing people who actually are buying a physical something that has value. still property would be factored into cost of living would it not?

Pey, you're a poorly read--much less educated--kid...please try to refrain from opening your mouth unless you really have to. Some of us live/work outside the U.S. for sizable chunks of our careers and here's a newsflash for you: we still pay U.S. income taxes on what we earn while we're away. You finally starting to see how non-U.S. cost of living might be relevant to what I suggested? Go brush up on the Idiot's Guide to the IRC before you dig any further into this debate.

The other two sentences of your post are too incomprehensible to bother with. Though you clearly need to re-read my point about establishing relative costs of living if you think changing property values in any given location is an issue here.

no im just saying this is starting to seem like a very selfish arguement. no ones making you live in london and if you want to adjust how much you pay in taxes to the US while you are working over seas well sometimes you are just SOL

That's no more sensical than saying that the guy who only makes $25k a year wanting to pay income tax at a lower % rate than the guy who makes $250k a year does is making "a selfish argument." It's about fundamental fairness in taxing income, so called "progressive taxation"--the fundamental tenet of which is that the people realizing less income from their labor should pay at a lower rate than those who realize more income. Nobody's "making" the guy making only $25k a year earn such a small amount, either. So why don't we tax him at the same rate as those who make more?

It's not like the taxpayer is making a lifestyle choice between living in London/NYC/Washington D.C. and making $100k versus living somewhere with a much lower cost of living and making $100k. The point is that what a given job will pay in those places is vastly different than "normal" places because of the cost of living. Someone making $15/hour in Smalltown, U.S.A. usually has a pretty decent job--someone making $15/hour in New York or London is flipping burgers, scrubbing toilets, or turning the little "Stop/Slow" sign at construction sites. Work with which you, peypey, will no doubt become extremely familiar in the not too distant future.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/28237016

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-of-living-calculator.aspx

Just for fun, here what it spits out for a hypothetical worker making $100k/yr in Richmond, VA, who contemplates a move to NYC and wishes to have a similar real income:

Equivalent income in the city you are moving to: $208166.14.
Percent increase to maintain standard of living: 108.17%.


Other interesting differences:

Product Richmond VA Metro New York-White Plains-Wayne NY-NJ Metro Div. - New York (Manhattan) NY Difference
Home Price $312,683.00 $1,168,000.00 $855,317.00
Payment + Interest $1,241.58 $4,881.00 $3,639.42
Apt. Rent $941.86 $3,500.00 $2,558.14
Total Energy $190.74 $323.91 $133.17
Lipitor $147.91 $140.33 $7.58
Part. Electrical $100.31 $158.10 $57.79
Optometrist $95.00 $148.20 $53.20
Dentist Visit $93.00 $119.50 $26.50
Other Energy $90.43 $165.81 $75.38
Doctor Visit $81.25 $106.25 $25.00
Washer Repair $71.33 $85.00 $13.67
Vet. Services $41.50 $81.70 $40.20
Phone $39.99 $39.95 $0.04
Beauty Salon $33.50 $65.00 $31.50
Women's Slacks $29.75 $49.20 $19.45
Men's Shirt $23.11 $41.80 $18.69
Boy's Jeans $21.74 $29.00 $7.26
News Paper $16.65 $22.97 $6.32
Hair Cut $14.00 $13.99 $0.01
Tire Balance $11.65 $15.00 $3.35
Ibuprofen $9.93 $9.45 $0.48
Movie $9.50 $12.10 $2.60
Pizza $9.49 $9.99 $0.50
T.Bone Steak $9.12 $14.49 $5.37
Wine $8.74 $6.99 $1.75
Dry Cleaning $8.03 $11.30 $3.27
Beer $7.71 $10.24 $2.53
Cascade $6.85 $7.62 $0.77
Bowling $6.75 $9.30 $2.55
Potatoes $6.41 $5.82 $0.59
2-pc Chicken $3.98 $4.50 $0.52
Parmesan Cheese $3.90 $5.05 $1.15
Coffee $3.47 $5.43 $1.96
Sausage $3.42 $4.59 $1.17
Ground Beef $3.19 $4.12 $0.93
Canola Oil $3.16 $5.69 $2.53
Cereal $3.15 $5.73 $2.58
Potato Chips $3.14 $3.58 $0.44
Orange Juice $3.12 $4.49 $1.37
Hamburger Sandwich $2.99 $3.81 $0.82
Toothpaste $2.67 $4.73 $2.06
Frozen Meal $2.60 $4.61 $2.01
Half Gal. Milk $2.55 $2.61 $0.06
Peaches $2.28 $2.89 $0.61
Klennex $2.27 $2.75 $0.48
Sugar $2.10 $2.71 $0.61
Dozen Eggs $2.00 $2.99 $0.99
Tennis Balls $1.82 $3.61 $1.79
Bread $1.79 $2.44 $0.65
Frozen Corn $1.76 $1.94 $0.18
Gasoline $1.65 $2.11 $0.47
Lettuce $1.55 $2.39 $0.84
Coke $1.50 $1.85 $0.35
Tuna $1.15 $1.64 $0.49
Fried Chicken $1.14 $2.29 $1.15
Shampoo $1.12 $2.13 $1.01
Sweet Peas $0.90 $1.67 $0.77
Margarine $0.87 $2.09 $1.22
Bananas $0.61 $0.91 $0.30
Mortgage Rate (%) 4.88% 5.33% -0.45

You'll note that the inverse of this is that someone making $100k in NYC is at the same income level as someone making less than $50k in Richmond, VA.

Lecter, your argument is based on some dangerously shallow evaluations of the points you bring up.

Nobody's "making" the guy making only $25k a year earn such a small amount, either.

What about people with disabilities (mental or physical)? What about people who were unable to finish their degrees due to forces beyond their control (rocketing tuition fees, schools cutting programs, family deaths). What about people who come from ethnic groups that struggle mightily climbing any sort of capitalist success ladder due to societal boundaries like racism, bigotry, and simple ignorance (here in Canada First Nations peoples come to mind immediately). Etc, etc, etc.

While I understand your Libertarian values don't gel well with the ideals of social equality and fairness, it's still a weak argument to lay claim that anyone earning near the poverty line isn't being "forced" to do so, and for some strange reason just really enjoys not making any money.

What about the fact that most of what you list is about choices, not about "being able"? Quite frequently, you have people who make significantly less money than they're literally capable of earning. They don't want to work two jobs, they like seeing their families, they don't feel like putting in 80+ hour weeks. That's nice, but it's still a choice and it shouldn't have zero consequences from a tax perspective while those of us who prefer to trade our hours, days, and years in for cold hard cash bear a disproportionate share of the burden.

More importantly, you've yet to address the fundamental point I made, which is that the idea of treating a dollar earned in NYC the same way you treat a dollar earned somewhere with a 100-200% lower cost of living--or of treating a dollar earned in exchange for an hour of work the same way you treat a dollar earned in exchange for 5 minutes of work--goes counter to the avowed purpose of most modern tax codes, which is to treat those who benefit most greatly from the economic/societal system differently than those who benefit significantly less so.

I'm not espousing a Libertarian viewpoint here, I'm taking the social progressives at their word. What's your counter argument?

What about the fact that most of what you list is about choices, not about "being able"?

Did your comprehension skills take a nose dive in recent memory (head trauma perhaps?) or are you just drunk? Which one of the cases I proposed are people making choices? Was it the First Nations reference? You're saying a First Nations kid facing unimaginable social barriers made a choice at some point to be born into a segment of society that essentially faces third world conditions day in and day out while living in one of the supposedly most "progressive" countries in the world (I'm referring to Canada)?

Or was it the reference to mentally or physically disabled people? I'm sure someone with Multiple Sclerosis or Bipolar disorder made a decision at some point that either of those would just be a fantastically good time.

Oh I know, the mention of people not being able to finish their degrees due to "forces beyond their control". That must be what you're referring to.

And to be honest, I'm not arguing against the basic points of your argument because I agree with some of them. I agree that the cost of living index should be a more utilized indicator and regulator of things such as taxes, minimum wages, and the like.

The problem with the way you present your arguments though is that they reek of self-interest. The only reason you would bring this point up at all is that it would benefit your bottom line, and as such, falls in line with your ideals. Whether or not you're pedantically spewing the talking points of a socialist, your end goal is a selfish one and bears zero resemblance of someone truly interested in a "progressive" society.

Gav, you really are in fine form.

First, let's knock your second point out of the park: I'm bipolar--it runs in the family, along with alcoholism, which I've avoided to date despite the dismal statistics for lawyers--and have been functioning pretty damn well that way for going on thirty years now. Is my condition less debilitaing than bipolar disorder is for many people that have it? Apparently it is--though why that is the case is pretty hard to untangle. It does make my day to day a royal bitch at times--but knowing that my life will ultimately turn out exactly how I decide it will, I try to make the right calls regardless of how I feel about them. There's an admittedly grey line between having a condition that makes living a successful, even a normal, life more difficult--which almost everyone has at least one of, be it a lower than average IQ or attention span or physical fitness or emotional intelligence or physical attractiveness--and one which is a genuine, insurmountable disability. For the latter conditions, surely the fairer approach would be to simply have a box on the tax form to check that says "Certified: Unable To Help Self." For the rest of us, it's all about how badly we want it.

On to your first point, which is narrowly about indigenous persons, but is really an argument about cultural impediments. Is there something about Canada or the US's indigenous persons (or any other de facto but not de jure disadvantaged group: urban blacks, poor white trash, barrio kids), maybe in their genes, that makes them incapable of choosing to take advantage of innumerable opportunities that are literally actively seeking them out at every turn (ok, not so much for the poor white trash--we seem to accept that they had their shot at life regardless of socio-economic hurdles, simply because they were never discriminated against for being racially different)? No? Then it must be that the culture into which they're born is particularly difficult to grow out of. At some point that neither of us could possibly define, that sort of impediment becomes a personal choice. Nobody is literally holding these people back, despite continued prejudice among many everyday people against them.

Is it less comfortable to go out from the third world existance you knew and were at least accepted by, into a world that looks down its nose at you, and make your way? Of course. But nobody is fucking stopping you. Having suffered the acute embarrasment of bringing a college girlfriend, from a rather well off family, home to my condemned (literally, the Red Cross donated it to our landlord way back when) trailer with its lack of proper sewer connections...I bet I know more about this than you do, even if I know less about it than the worst off among us. I could go on to cover a litany of similar experiences, but that one has always been one of my least favorites, sort of up there with the Christmas that SWAT showed up to deal with one of my drunken parents. But feel free to keep babbling on about "unimaginable social barriers" all you like.

One final note on your "First Nations" argument. Keep in mind that I help with recruiting for one of the most profitable and respected law firms in the world: we bend over backwards on what can only be called affirmative action when it comes to Native Americans (the US PC term). You would not believe (OK, you would--most normal people wouldn't) how even the barest association with a tribe or nation factors into an applicant's favor here. As far as I know, major banks, corporations, and other law firms are doing the same thing. To a somewhat lesser extent, the same sort of efforts are made on behalf of black applicants, especially black men, and latino/a applicants. Take it from someone who's not entirely sold on the wisdom of the approach but has observed a lot of people who are: the people--the same people who are supposedly in that elite upper crust that is just so damn awful to the disadvantaged and diverse peoples of our "supposedly progressive countries"--who do this are not doing it so they can make a flesh-rainbow recruiting ad...they're sincerely dedicated to advancing the ball on this issue.

I won't even begin to explain what "beyond your control" really means--whether it has to do with getting a degree, or with acheiving any other goal. Your conception has to do with how difficult it is for someone to decide to do something in the first place; mine has to do with how difficult it is for someone to acheive a goal once they decide to go after it.

My favorite part of your final paragraphs is that you don't care whether I'm right or not, even according to your own precepts: all that matters is that I must be self-interested, and therefore must be opposed. That my proposal is in fact fair; that it would also benefit people like immigrants and high school drop outs/GED kids who work like dogs for their wages, some of them surprisingly high (I have a number of friends back home who made great annual incomes doing construction, but who drove themselves into the ground doing so, working hours that approached physical limits); that it would make the poverty line in urban areas a lot more realistic... none of that matters to you, because you are so fucking blinded by hate of what you think I am. I love it.

Welcome to the dark side, Gav. You are, in this moment, embodying everything you think you hate.

Wow, touch a nerve or what?

I'll try and keep this brief as you've essentially used up the daily word limit for the internet...

First, let's knock your second point out of the park: I'm bipolar...

Are you serious? You think that because you have a history of mild, functional mental illness in your family it puts you on some pedestal? Guess what bud, it's fairly common. Manic-depression here. Doesn't bother me too bad aside from the mild moodiness from time to time, but both my sister and mom are heavily medicated. And if they go off their meds, watch out. Luckily I also come from a family of artists, and a little mental illness is almost a requirement on that resume.

There's two things that both you and I have going for us that many don't. One, we're functional, and two we're diagnosed (or, on my end, my family members are, never been a big enough bother for me to go make it official). Those two combined make for a very tolerable life, a life where one has control over their future. Remove one or the other, and things often begin to deteriorate (especially if you remove the functional option). Remove both and you've got someone who has very little control over their life, let alone their ability to fulfill their lifelong dreams and desires.

Your ideas on First Nations indicate you don't have much knowledge of the barriers facing many of them here in Canada. Sub-third world living conditions, serious social issues, and top that off by parking them in the middle of nowhere, hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the nearest town. Many are accessible only by air or water. You make it sound as if it's as easy as telling your drunk dad to go to hell and hopping a bus to the nearest beacon of capitalism. I would be hesitant to suggest is some genetic issue preventing kids from escaping these hell holes, and why bother when the social, family, institutionalized, and geographic barriers are more than enough to keep an average person down for the count.

There are exceptions of course. I grew up in the Queen Charlotte islands, a place that is essentially controlled by the Haida Nation. They are by far one of the most powerful (politically and financially) nations in North America, controlling the majority of the resources there. But they are the exception to the rule here.

As to the rest of your story: If even 50% of it is true (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), then you've certainly done well for yourself given the circumstances. But how you figure that translates to another blanket consideration of others in similar circumstance is beyond me. Not everyone has a constitution of steel, nor the ability to endure pain and suffering of others in order to achieve the things they truly want.

As far as I'm concerned, your most recent post not withstanding, you've painted a picture of yourself over the years on these forums as a self-absorbed Libertarian. This may or may not be true, but given the only body of work of yours I have access to, I think it's a pretty fair assessment. I'll take your more recent post as an indication that you have plans on dispelling that notion though; if so, good for you!

Edit: And I've never indicated any sort of opinion that the majority of well off individuals are out to keep the poor down. I personally do quite well for myself, as do those around me, and at worst, I observe apathy towards issues of social equality. At best I see people who have a genuine concern for these sorts of issues, although action is something many lack. Even Karl Marx had no issue with high standards of living. The only difference between him and your run of the mill capitalist was that he wanted it for everyone. A pipe dream to be sure, but don't put words in my mouth and try and paint me as some sort of hippy-nutjob.

And for the record, my goodwill does not extend to adolescent sheep. Burn baby burn (on the bbq).

You think that because you have a history of mild, functional mental illness in your family it puts you on some pedestal?

Not hardly, but you seemed to be making an awfully big deal about that very disorder just two posts ago. Maybe your point should have stuck to uniformly crippling diseases and defects like Down's Syndrome or Canadian citizenship. I'm giving you the MS point, though; that one sucks in a major way. But I'm standing by my point that the vast majority of people living at or around the poverty line in first world countries aren't there because they're "functionally disabled." Poor choices do tend to beget further, narrower, and less appealing options--but I don't consider that to be the same thing.

only difference between him and your run of the mill capitalist was that he wanted it for everyone

Um, no. He advocated a system whereby armed force was used to take from some and give to others. As odious as I may find the business practices of many of my clients, none of them have put a gun to anyone's head (lately) and started playing Robin Hood. The one aspect of Marx's approach with which I do have some sympathy is on the subject of inherited wealth, but that's more or less a separate issue.

Anyway, having failed to hear anything but "maybe there's a point to your tax arguments about cost of living and hours worked per dollar earned, but gosh I sure think you're just advocating those positions out of (heaven and saints preserve us!) self interest so I'm going to say that's bad!", and having no wish to get into a life challenges dick measuring contest with you or anyone else (though you are correct to give me the benefit of the doubt over my veracity), it sounds like we're done here.

So, yeah: rare steak is good. And I'm likewise against overcooking adolescent sheep.

Not hardly, but you seemed to be making an awfully big deal about that very disorder just two posts ago.

I find it somewhat interesting that, someone who has a supposed first hand perspective of the situation, would think that I was referring to mild illness or disability.

Regardless, my entire first post on this topic was in regards to your vague and overly ambiguous statement as to people who earn low wages (I believe the number was $25,000).

And I do think there's a point to your tax arguments about cost of living. I don't think there's a point to your arguments about hours worked as productivity is a terribly difficult thing to quantify. What I get done in 40 hours could very well be the same amount of work that takes you 80 hours. I think that, while ultimately it would ideal to take every single social variable into account when creating certain systems such as tax collection and law, the effort required to do so in some cases is far too cumbersome and expensive to be worth the effort.

Either qualify your statements, or accept that they weren't all that persuasive in the first place.

And I fail to see how your overly general claim that it's possible for someone to be twice as productive as another is all that persuasive. First, unless you work for a government agency, if you take 80 hours to do something than anyone other than a savant could do in 40 hours, you will find yourself out of a job in short order. Second, do you really want to argue that the guy clocking 80 hours a week total, 40 each at two jobs because no one job is allowed to let him work more than that without paying overtime, or the guy working 60-80 hour weeks on a non-union job site (I'm neverendingly amused at how "work" is progressing at the WTC site, which I pass each morning on the way to work--the non-union guys I know from back home would quickly put these New Yorkers out of a job if given the chance), should pay tax at the same rate as the guy who makes the same annual income, but does so while working only 40 hours a week, never having to give up a weekend, pulling 9-5 in a nice office? Seems a bit odd to me.

As I said (comprehension is seriously becoming an issue for you), ideally I would love a system that addresses the issues you bring up. What I'm saying is that quantifying those variables from a governmental point of view would be difficult, if not impossible. And even then, do you really want a system where the government is monitoring your productivity?

You really do have a magical ability to argue the point you think you can gain the most traction on, regardless if it has any bearing on the discussion at hand.

I tend to ignore the opponent's weakest point where brevity is a concern. But, since you insist:

Gav, the employer already monitors, and often reports on, how many hours you worked, and the government, in many instances, already monitors and verifies the same information: you think they aren't enforcing mandatory overtime laws?

Here in the states, between the Bank Secrecy Act, the Patriot Act, the Social Security Act (my favorite part about that one was the explicit promise that "the SSN will never be used as an 'ID number'"), the Selective Service act, and dozens of other information collecting regimes... one more entity keeping track of how many hours you worked, rather than just how much money you made/lost, in a year? No biggie.

Also, "difficult, if not impossible"? You must be kidding. Health care? The government can administer that more fairly and efficiently than any private entity! Income earned? The government can monitor and evaluate that, no problem! Oh, man, hours worked? That would require, like, clocks and forms and stuff! Nobody can monitor that!!

You're funny, though.

You're seriously missing the point. I'm not talking about monitoring hours. I'm talking about monitoring productivity. Two related, but different things.

One is easy to quantify: Lecter checks in at Douchebags Incorporated at 8am; checks out at 5pm. One hour for lunch: 8 hours worked.

What isn't easy to quantify in many industries (creative and academic come to mind) is just how much work you produced during those eight hours. How do you put a value on douchebaggery? Douchebag units? Are you a bigger douchebag than your coworkers, and therefore able to produce a slightly bigger yield of douchbaggery than them? How do you measure a douchbag unit? Is it based on the number of people who think you're a douchebag? Or is it a combination of factors that are completely unique to your job, just like the millions of other trades out there that might have a large number of very unique factors that need to be considered to adequately define units of productivity?

Even if you could effectively monitor and quantify productivity across all sectors, it would be a force working against the very thing it was monitoring. Why the hell would you work your ass off it means you're going to pay more taxes? If you can be as big a douchebag in 2 hours as the guy next to you can in 3, your going to pay more taxes (and I certainly have faith in your work ethic). You want to buy a new car this year, well hey, if you can reduce your productivity by a half hour each day (not something people will necessarily notice, depends on the industry), you'll have quite possibly dropped yourself into a lower tax bracket by the end of the year. Bam, new douchebag-mobile! Sorry, you call it a Jaguar don't you?

Stick to your cost of living argument, it's the only one that is at all pragmatic.

I offer a modest suggestion: almost nobody logs hours at their place(s) of employment because they enjoy the time there. Indeed, the idea that someone is going to be willing to give up leisure time they'd otherwise have just to get a relatively minor tax break is laughable on its face. Plus, what makes you think they'd get away with it, given that they're supervised? Their productivity is more or less assured by their employer's self-interested incentive to show them the door absent productivity commensurate with their pay. Thus, hours worked per dollar earned is quite sufficient to be a useful proxy for how much someone at a given annual income should be paying in taxes.

Maybe you're getting at your subjective distain for the social value of some economically productive jobs?

And don't make fun of my car until you've rebuilt your engine yourself, smart ass.

I rebuilt a Toyota Corolla engine, but it was most likely quite a bit more straightforward than a Jag. I don't think I would put myself through the sort of misery involved with trying to rebuild any sort of British engineering.

And what makes you think such a subtle loss in productivity would immediately result in the need to work more hours in all cases? In the long run the time would be needed to finish any given task, but that isn't the same as "giving up leisure time". It would mean that a company is unable to get projects done in as short a time span as otherwise possible.

And I'm guessing you mean "disdain", not "distain" in your second to last comment; either way, what a ludicrous statement. If anything this very concept that you keep clinging to would have an overall negative effect on any society's productivity.

I've got a handful of other examples of how this idea is flawed, but this debate is tiresome and relatively pointless. Long story short, I disagree that simply calculating hours worked by wages earned over that time would be anything near an adequate assessment of the labour actually involved in earning said wages. If you want to go to bat for such a system though, be my guest! Good luck with it.

It's odd how you meander from food to taxes, to cars.

seeing how canadians' heads are not connected to the rest their body, while lawyers' heads are hardwired to their butts, i foresee any consensus between them daunting, at best.
---but fun to watch.