I don't think he's wrong per se. He's just... really really really... alternatively grounded.

lol you've been poasting on 2+2 since at least 2007 and THIS was the thread that made the light bulb over your head suddenly light up??

Translation: I want to bitch about people around here not being highbrow enough but I'm too lazy to actually be highbrow myself, I just want to tell everyone that I am highbrow and that should be enough.

JFC

His household income is likely much more than 250k.....somewhere near 400k, that's based on his estimate of how much he pays in taxes....which itself could be total BS but not completely relevant for our argument.

He also goes on to say....

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/...-Im-Right.html

You really want to argue that somebody whose response to a 3% tax increase on ~1/2 their income is "I'm gonna do less ultra skilled labor for hedge funds now" isn't rich?

I've never posted in this area before. I think there was one topic on the Canadian election but my politics posting is all in the last few weeks.

This increases the likelihood that Fly's argument is even more comically wrong.

That isn't my argument. My argument is that a family making $250,000 is not rich. If we are talking a family making $400k that requires thinking about and I'd be much more will to accept that as rich.

But Flys point (at least in the OP) was about rich people who are either liars or idiots when they whine about increases in taxes. Is this professor an example of at least 1 of those?

His list is here.....just scroll down


And Flys point that this guy is just a liar is pretty obvious (I would say idiot but obv he can't be if he teaches law at Chicago)

He talks about cutting cell phones (in 2010) or consulting less for hedge funds (work he apparently doesn't mind doing as long as he is taxed a few precent less for it) as "reasonable" responses to this onerous tax increase. That doesn't make any sense.

Henry, your argument is that you want to show off how cultured and snobby you are. You have no argument. You don't understand what the grownups were talking about but you do know you like to talk about a high class lifestyle on the internet.

What political theory are you referencing here, Henry? The theory of how unless your house has a tennis court you aren't rich?

Yeah I definitely remember that being covered in Poli Sci. You know, there's like Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, then a big discussion about how embarrassing it would be to drive a 5-series BMW(can you even call that a car?). Serious political theory.

The most hilarious thing in this is,

1) Henry17 is Canadian, which means he has no idea what the tax discussion is and wouldn't be affected by any changes made to go back to Clinton era tax rates. Did Bill Clinton have an insane hatred of rich people?

2) If Henry 17 was in America, he also wouldn't be affected. Obama is not proposing to raise fictional taxes on the fictional income of internet personas, Henry. Only real dollars, in real life, that you make from a real job.

His point when arguing against me was that people did not understand how income tax works. Not only was he completely wrong but his argument is complete nonsense.

Possibly. I haven't actually defended the professor. I've simply stated that Fly's claim in the OP that $250,000 is rich is wrong. I have no opinion on if $400k is rich because I have never given that amount any consideration.I will take a look at the guy's list later and I might conclude the guy is a idiot but that conclusion will be based on his list rather than just a general hate for people who have more things than I do.

Obviously I am not going to defend or agree with that but that isn't what I defended. My position is simply that $250,000 as a family income is not rich -- nothing more than that. If someone is actually claiming that they need to reduce cell phone costs over a tax increase then I have a feeling I'm going to disagree with the guy strongly because that is an absurd statement to make.

wtf does this have to do with anything? You swore off exchanging in serious discussion on the internet, not the 2+2 politard forum.

Also the fact that you are SURE $250k isn't rich but you'd have to think about $400k reveals you're not even approaching this question with anything remotely similar to a different perspective than the people you're attempting to belittle.

I mean, we're talking about less than a onefold difference here. This is just window dressing over a meaningless distinction.

This forum is not about Locke and Rousseau. I can't see how your ability to quote intellectuals impacts day to day political issues. That's more of a philosophy argument that does not get discussed here often if at all. I am sure you can get that in SMP.

Although, I don't know why you would do it. I don't know why you would have the number of posts you have right now. Many of which have the result of educating people about various topics, mostly OOT stuffs. So I think you've already proved yourself to be an internet forum masochist.

The claim that it isn't even double fails to grasp how personal finances work. There are certain fixed costs required for life and then there is disposable income. A family making $250,000 has very little left after their fixed costs are covered. A family making $400k doesn't have a increase in their monthly nut that is proportional to the income difference. Quite the contrary the difference in fixed costs is negligible. All the difference is in disposable income and as such the difference in ability to spend is drastically different.

I learned about Locke and Rousseau(and Hobbes, Mill, etc.) in high school.

Perhaps that is just because we don't need to devote so much curriculum space to dogsled maintenance or elk skinning in the States.

Because policy should be based on more than what you like or want. Policy should be based on first principles and positions should be argued for from principles. Simply saying I like X so I want policy to reflect that I like X is illegitimate.

It's still irrelevant.

Both the 250k guy and the 400k guy are almost certainly grinding. They can't get off the treadmill.

The guys who can, regardless of their income, are the ones that are rich.

****, Bill Gates makes $400k or something dumb like that (or did when he was actively working at microsoft).

I mean lol at the idea that what separates the rich from the proles is what website they use to book plane tickets.

Henry, how do families that make $150k or $50k pay those fixed costs?

They make sacrifices. If you are willing to commute for the sticks you can usually cut your housing costs by more than 50%. You buy lower quality food and clothing. You don't go out. You supplement your income with credit. You basically have the lifestyle of someone who makes that. Do you really need it explained to you that we are not talking about what the minimum it is to stay alive but what it means to be rich. People can survive without being rich so why are you making this straw-man argument?

I actually find this argument offensive. Yes families with $50k can feed themselves The people who make little money do without. They don't go to the dentist unless it is absolutely necessary and when they do they extract their teeth rather than get the root canal because it is cheaper. Their kids don't get braces. Yes they might be able to afford a movie but even that is a major expense and they certainly are not going to a nice restaurant. They drive a ****ty car that in the end eats up a **** load of their money because it needs to be serviced. It means being shy at Christmas because you can't afford gifts. It means your kids are picked on because they can't dress like their friends. What is wrong with you that you think that because people can survive by sacrificing that anything above that is rich. Honestly WTF happened to you that you have this ****ed up view of reality?

So those fixed costs... aren't... you know... fixed?

Also, I know people who make $50k and their kids have braces and they even go to private school!

Yeah. In like Alabama.

They do drive beaters though.

They also don't get bottle service. Not sure how they muddle through.