3 ms·

> As a mid-30s person who earns a decent tech salary ... you can afford it. Moreso that others. You _are_ the wealth.

by darkstar999 10y ago

antimatter 10y ago
Why are others entitled to his money?
- darkstar999 10y ago
  You are arguing against the fundamentals of taxation. Why are others entitled to his money (for healthcare)? Because we decided that we are all good people and take care of each other.
  - Apocryphon 10y ago
    And, it's more humane to pay taxes for social welfare, than it is to pay taxes to soldiers to protect you by shooting the needy who would hang you for not giving social welfare to them.
- bbcbasic 10y ago
  He is arguing that they are not entitled to his money, but others should be entitled to others (home owners) money. Or as Pink Floyd might say "share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie"
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
stvswn 10y ago
I'm in my 30s as well -- I make a great tech salary and own small house that cost me a ton to buy. I pay a lot in taxes. I support a family of four off of my salary. At the end of the day we basically live the same lifestyle that I grew up with, and my dad was a police officer, my mom a public high school teacher. Our house is smaller than the one I grew up with, the local public schools are about the same quality. I'm not complaining, because I'm staying in the Bay Area for a reason: I believe that my good tech salary can be an amazing tech salary if I build the right skills, climb the right ladders. I think it's a chance for upward mobility. But it's a tough call when I ponder what my life would be like if I took a slightly lesser paying job in a more reasonable area of the country. So, anyway, my point is that you can make the case that "you can afford it, your fellow Californians deserve it," and I'll roll my eyes because no one makes decisions that way. If I had to pay 10% more each year in taxes, I'd definitely be out of here. The other options are just way better at that point. So, there's a point where I'm simply going to move instead of pay. You can lecture me about what I ought to do all you like but I have a family to take care of, and our standard of living matters to me. Yes, we'd be fine with less money, but I want even more for my family and I really don't feel bad about it.
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  That's fine, you can join the exodus of Californians in Austin or Boulder or Portland who didn't own real estate but couldn't afford to live here either.
tylersmith 10y ago
He can afford it. Others can't. Why should he pay for them just because they have a lower value?
- cortesoft 10y ago
  So these 'lower value' people should just die when they get cancer? I find the idea that not being able to earn a high enough salary means you are unworthy of basic medical care repugnant.
  - tylersmith 10y ago
    It depends on how much the people that know how to treat your cancer want to charge and if the hypothetical person with cancer can afford it. Nowhere else in the world do we say "This person can't afford this? Oh well we'll ignore it then. cortesoft finds it repugnant!" I wouldn't call cancer treatments "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
  - brutus1213 10y ago
    If you read my post, I said I was in favor of this as long as it doesn't burden income earners. Some degree of health care and education are basic human rights in my opinion. If you want everyone to have the "Cadillac" health plan and education plan, you need to tell me how society will pay for it? And lets talk sustainable plans .. no more kicking down the can to our kids and grand kids. Finally, to all the negative commentators on my post, please read up on the difference between wealth and income. At current rents, factoring current child care costs, lack of pensions and existing tax rates, someone who makes 200K in California is worse off than someone who owns a detached house in Mountain View and a few other properties (by virtue of being here from the Orchard days), and then hides his/her income. I've seen too many people like that at this point in my life. Enough is enough.
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  To be blithe, it goes into the same ultimate goal of social welfare: to keep the not-well-off contented enough to prevent revolution. So he can either pay for programs to improve medical care in general, or he can pay for a militia to protect him should there be a class-based insurrection. That is the pragmatic principle behind taxation.

> As a mid-30s person who earns a decent tech salary ... you can afford it. Moreso that others. You _are_ the wealth.

antimatter 10y ago

Why are others entitled to his money?

darkstar999 10y ago
You are arguing against the fundamentals of taxation. Why are others entitled to his money (for healthcare)? Because we decided that we are all good people and take care of each other.
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  And, it's more humane to pay taxes for social welfare, than it is to pay taxes to soldiers to protect you by shooting the needy who would hang you for not giving social welfare to them.
bbcbasic 10y ago
He is arguing that they are not entitled to his money, but others should be entitled to others (home owners) money. Or as Pink Floyd might say "share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie"
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

stvswn 10y ago

I'm in my 30s as well -- I make a great tech salary and own small house that cost me a ton to buy. I pay a lot in taxes. I support a family of four off of my salary. At the end of the day we basically live the same lifestyle that I grew up with, and my dad was a police officer, my mom a public high school teacher. Our house is smaller than the one I grew up with, the local public schools are about the same quality. I'm not complaining, because I'm staying in the Bay Area for a reason: I believe that my good tech salary can be an amazing tech salary if I build the right skills, climb the right ladders. I think it's a chance for upward mobility. But it's a tough call when I ponder what my life would be like if I took a slightly lesser paying job in a more reasonable area of the country. So, anyway, my point is that you can make the case that "you can afford it, your fellow Californians deserve it," and I'll roll my eyes because no one makes decisions that way. If I had to pay 10% more each year in taxes, I'd definitely be out of here. The other options are just way better at that point. So, there's a point where I'm simply going to move instead of pay. You can lecture me about what I ought to do all you like but I have a family to take care of, and our standard of living matters to me. Yes, we'd be fine with less money, but I want even more for my family and I really don't feel bad about it.

Apocryphon 10y ago
That's fine, you can join the exodus of Californians in Austin or Boulder or Portland who didn't own real estate but couldn't afford to live here either.

tylersmith 10y ago

He can afford it. Others can't. Why should he pay for them just because they have a lower value?

cortesoft 10y ago
So these 'lower value' people should just die when they get cancer? I find the idea that not being able to earn a high enough salary means you are unworthy of basic medical care repugnant.
- tylersmith 10y ago
  It depends on how much the people that know how to treat your cancer want to charge and if the hypothetical person with cancer can afford it. Nowhere else in the world do we say "This person can't afford this? Oh well we'll ignore it then. cortesoft finds it repugnant!" I wouldn't call cancer treatments "basic" by any stretch of the imagination.
- brutus1213 10y ago
  If you read my post, I said I was in favor of this as long as it doesn't burden income earners. Some degree of health care and education are basic human rights in my opinion. If you want everyone to have the "Cadillac" health plan and education plan, you need to tell me how society will pay for it? And lets talk sustainable plans .. no more kicking down the can to our kids and grand kids. Finally, to all the negative commentators on my post, please read up on the difference between wealth and income. At current rents, factoring current child care costs, lack of pensions and existing tax rates, someone who makes 200K in California is worse off than someone who owns a detached house in Mountain View and a few other properties (by virtue of being here from the Orchard days), and then hides his/her income. I've seen too many people like that at this point in my life. Enough is enough.
Apocryphon 10y ago
To be blithe, it goes into the same ultimate goal of social welfare: to keep the not-well-off contented enough to prevent revolution. So he can either pay for programs to improve medical care in general, or he can pay for a militia to protect him should there be a class-based insurrection. That is the pragmatic principle behind taxation.