3 ms·

> It's very obvious I wasn't talking about salaried rich Yeah no shit, by circular definition of "doesn't pay income tax." > I was talking about "generational

> It's very obvious I wasn't talking about salaried rich Yeah no shit, by circular definition of "doesn't pay income tax." > I was talking about "generational wealth" people. That's obviously not the same word as "rich."

triceratops 2y ago
> Yeah no shit, by circular definition of "doesn't pay income tax." Ah so then you did get my meaning the first time. Which means pointing out that some people who may or may not have assets also pay high taxes on their salaried income was unnecessary. > That's obviously not the same word as "rich." High income isn't rich. "Rich" is someone who has a lot of assets and wealth. That's literally the dictionary definition of the word.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  What you tried to do was move the definition of "rich", i.e. the target of ire, to way, way, way above what most Americans consider rich. "Rich and paying no income tax" -> largely the top end of the top end. The vast majority of rich people pay lots of income tax. I'll go out on a limb and guess that you land in the category that most Americans consider rich, but you think attention should really be directed towards the ultrawealthy. Totally reasonable and capital gains obviously needs to be the center of that discussion, but let's not try to get there by just moving the line of what "rich" is and helping people delude themselves into thinking $300k+/yr is middle class.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > the definition of "rich", i.e. the target of ire, There's ire directed at high income earners who pay high income taxes? This is news to me. Why exactly? > just moving the line of what "rich" is Again that's the dictionary definition of rich. But never mind that. This segment of the "rich" (if you want to call them that) is already well-taxed on their salaried income - we both agree. What's left to say about them?
    - gruez 2y ago
      >There's ire directed at high income earners who pay high income taxes? This is news to me. Why exactly? Standard arguments about inequality? CEOs for instance attract much ire from their pay, often in the form of comparisons to their pay relative to the janitor working there or whatever.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        I thought we were talking about tax-related ire.

triceratops 2y ago

> Yeah no shit, by circular definition of "doesn't pay income tax." Ah so then you did get my meaning the first time. Which means pointing out that some people who may or may not have assets also pay high taxes on their salaried income was unnecessary. > That's obviously not the same word as "rich." High income isn't rich. "Rich" is someone who has a lot of assets and wealth. That's literally the dictionary definition of the word.

llamaimperative 2y ago
What you tried to do was move the definition of "rich", i.e. the target of ire, to way, way, way above what most Americans consider rich. "Rich and paying no income tax" -> largely the top end of the top end. The vast majority of rich people pay lots of income tax. I'll go out on a limb and guess that you land in the category that most Americans consider rich, but you think attention should really be directed towards the ultrawealthy. Totally reasonable and capital gains obviously needs to be the center of that discussion, but let's not try to get there by just moving the line of what "rich" is and helping people delude themselves into thinking $300k+/yr is middle class.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > the definition of "rich", i.e. the target of ire, There's ire directed at high income earners who pay high income taxes? This is news to me. Why exactly? > just moving the line of what "rich" is Again that's the dictionary definition of rich. But never mind that. This segment of the "rich" (if you want to call them that) is already well-taxed on their salaried income - we both agree. What's left to say about them?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >There's ire directed at high income earners who pay high income taxes? This is news to me. Why exactly? Standard arguments about inequality? CEOs for instance attract much ire from their pay, often in the form of comparisons to their pay relative to the janitor working there or whatever.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      I thought we were talking about tax-related ire.