CJ McCollum estimates 1/3 of players live paycheck to paycheck

[abark]

Hell no; you think it's fair that someone who gets paid $8 million only actually receives $4?

> athletes are fiscally irresponsible
> Here you go federal government spend half my income, I'm sure you'll spend it responsibly

The problem isn't the taxes, it's how they are spent. Especially in the US, where that money is spent on war and not on the people. That is the result of having politicians that are bought and paid for by corporations.

But you need that money to build a functioning society with proper education, healthcare, infrastructure, a social safety net and more.

Look at "high tax" societies in Scandinavia. They perform the highest in basically every metric of societal health. They even have the highest "happiness index," so they seem to enjoy the societies those taxes have built.

I'm sure they'd also love the idea of keeping all their money. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can either have a functioning society, or rugged individualist capitalism where the rich prosper and everyone else struggles to survive.

The reason Scandinavia doesn't have to spend much on defense is because we spend money on defending them. Their entire social democrat utopia sits under the umbrella of protection that U.S. military spending provides. It also exists on top of a prosperous capitalist economy. These countries were economically prosperous even before adopting social welfare policies. Bureaucratic corruption isn't unique to capitalist systems anyway, as anyone who's lived in a socialist state can tell you.

But none of this has much to do with the fact that it's ludicrous for the government to be taking half of what someone has earned.

Hell no; you think it's fair that someone who gets paid $8 million only actually receives $4?

> athletes are fiscally irresponsible
> Here you go federal government spend half my income, I'm sure you'll spend it responsibly

The US has some of the lowest personal tax rates in the developed world but a lower quality of living for its poor.

Either way tax rates should be increased for larger corporations like Amazon who pay little to no federal taxes.

1, the U.S. has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, meaning the very rich shoulder 80%+ of the total tax burden.
2. How much do you know about the way corporations are taxed? I can tell you for a fact that the oft-repeated myth that Amazon pays 0 in taxes is misleading. It's actually good that companies pay less tax, they can reinvest that money to grow the business, purchase more assets, pay more workers, etc. There's another tax associated with all those acts.

Lol. The reason the rich pay such a high percentage of the taxes is because they have all the money. The US easily has the highest level of income inequality of any "first world nation." Only South Africa, China, India, Costa Rica, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Turkey are worse.

The top 1% owns 40% of the USA's wealth, while the top 10% own 75%. Everone else has crumbs in comparison. Half the country makes $30,000 a year or less. How much do you think they can contribute in taxes? Obviously the rich are going to pay the vast majority of taxes when they have all the money.

And guess when this trend toward increasing income inequality began. It was when Reagan instituted "trickle down economics," and significant lowered taxes on the rich. And we have basically remained at the same significantly reduced level ever since.

And you are just laughably wrong that the US has the most progressive tax system. The top marginal tax rate of the US is 37%, which is nowhere near the top. Not even close. In Denmark, that number is 56%. Many countries have a more progressive system.

And overall the US is an very low tax country to begin with, with our tax revenue only accounting for 24% of our GDP. That ranks us number 32 of the 36 OECD countries. Granted some of that has to do with many top earning corporations not paying taxes, but you seem to think that's a great idea.

[RememberLu]

The problem isn't the taxes, it's how they are spent. Especially in the US, where that money is spent on war and not on the people. That is the result of having politicians that are bought and paid for by corporations.

But you need that money to build a functioning society with proper education, healthcare, infrastructure, a social safety net and more.

Look at "high tax" societies in Scandinavia. They perform the highest in basically every metric of societal health. They even have the highest "happiness index," so they seem to enjoy the societies those taxes have built.

I'm sure they'd also love the idea of keeping all their money. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can either have a functioning society, or rugged individualist capitalism where the rich prosper and everyone else struggles to survive.

The reason Scandinavia doesn't have to spend much on defense is because we spend money on defending them. Their entire social democrat utopia sits under the umbrella of protection that U.S. military spending provides. It also exists on top of a prosperous capitalist economy. These countries were economically prosperous even before adopting social welfare policies. Bureaucratic corruption isn't unique to capitalist systems anyway, as anyone who's lived in a socialist state can tell you.

But none of this has much to do with the fact that it's ludicrous for the government to be taking half of what someone has earned.

The US has some of the lowest personal tax rates in the developed world but a lower quality of living for its poor.

Either way tax rates should be increased for larger corporations like Amazon who pay little to no federal taxes.

1, the U.S. has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, meaning the very rich shoulder 80%+ of the total tax burden.
2. How much do you know about the way corporations are taxed? I can tell you for a fact that the oft-repeated myth that Amazon pays 0 in taxes is misleading. It's actually good that companies pay less tax, they can reinvest that money to grow the business, purchase more assets, pay more workers, etc. There's another tax associated with all those acts.

Lol. The reason the rich pay such a high percentage of the taxes is because they have all the money. The US easily has the highest level of income inequality of any "first world nation." Only South Africa, China, India, Costa Rica, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Turkey are worse.

The top 1% owns 40% of the USA's wealth, while the top 10% own 75%. Everone else has crumbs in comparison. Half the country makes $30,000 a year or less. How much do you think they can contribute in taxes? Obviously the rich are going to pay the vast majority of taxes when they have all the money.

And guess when this trend toward increasing income inequality began. It was when Reagan instituted "trickle down economics," and significant lowered taxes on the rich. And we have basically remained at the same significantly reduced level ever since.

And you are just laughably wrong that the US has the most progressive tax system. The top marginal tax rate of the US is 37%, which is nowhere near the top. Not even close. In Denmark, that number is 56%. Many countries have a more progressive system.

And overall the US is an very low tax country to begin with, with our tax revenue only accounting for 24% of our GDP. That ranks us number 32 of the 36 OECD countries. Granted some of that has to do with many top earning corporations not paying taxes, but you seem to think that's a great idea.

A person making $30,000 a year also pays next to nothing in taxes. According to the IRS, the top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom half of this country pays 3%. Our tax system is one of the most progressive in the world regardless of the marginal tax rates. The top 5% shoulder more of the total tax burden now, with a lower marginal tax rate, than they did 40 years ago when the top marginal tax rate was twice what it is today. The bottom 50% shoulder less of the total income tax burden now than they did 40 years ago. You also take into account a lot of other taxes that wealthier people pay, like estate taxes.

[abark]

The reason Scandinavia doesn't have to spend much on defense is because we spend money on defending them. Their entire social democrat utopia sits under the umbrella of protection that U.S. military spending provides. It also exists on top of a prosperous capitalist economy. These countries were economically prosperous even before adopting social welfare policies. Bureaucratic corruption isn't unique to capitalist systems anyway, as anyone who's lived in a socialist state can tell you.

But none of this has much to do with the fact that it's ludicrous for the government to be taking half of what someone has earned.



1, the U.S. has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world, meaning the very rich shoulder 80%+ of the total tax burden.
2. How much do you know about the way corporations are taxed? I can tell you for a fact that the oft-repeated myth that Amazon pays 0 in taxes is misleading. It's actually good that companies pay less tax, they can reinvest that money to grow the business, purchase more assets, pay more workers, etc. There's another tax associated with all those acts.

Lol. The reason the rich pay such a high percentage of the taxes is because they have all the money. The US easily has the highest level of income inequality of any "first world nation." Only South Africa, China, India, Costa Rica, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Turkey are worse.

The top 1% owns 40% of the USA's wealth, while the top 10% own 75%. Everone else has crumbs in comparison. Half the country makes $30,000 a year or less. How much do you think they can contribute in taxes? Obviously the rich are going to pay the vast majority of taxes when they have all the money.

And guess when this trend toward increasing income inequality began. It was when Reagan instituted "trickle down economics," and significant lowered taxes on the rich. And we have basically remained at the same significantly reduced level ever since.

And you are just laughably wrong that the US has the most progressive tax system. The top marginal tax rate of the US is 37%, which is nowhere near the top. Not even close. In Denmark, that number is 56%. Many countries have a more progressive system.

And overall the US is an very low tax country to begin with, with our tax revenue only accounting for 24% of our GDP. That ranks us number 32 of the 36 OECD countries. Granted some of that has to do with many top earning corporations not paying taxes, but you seem to think that's a great idea.

A person making $30,000 a year also pays next to nothing in taxes. According to the IRS, the top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom half of this country pays 3%. Our tax system is one of the most progressive in the world regardless of the marginal tax rates. The top 5% shoulder more of the total tax burden now, with a lower marginal tax rate, than they did 40 years ago when the top marginal tax rate was twice what it is today. The bottom 50% shoulder less of the total income tax burden now than they did 40 years ago. You also take into account a lot of other taxes that wealthier people pay, like estate taxes.

Yes, and this has to do with the extreme income inequality that are the direct result of over 40 years of low tax rates on the rich. If you change the laws to let the rich keep more more of their money, the result will be that they will get richer. Because there is a finite amount of money to go around, logic would dictate there would be less money for everyone else.

(That is unless you buy into the nonsense "trickle down" myth, where somehow the economy will grow so much that everyone will get richer. Obviously 40 years of testing this hypothesis has shown it to be bull****.)

I acknowledge that a person that makes $30,000 dollars pays very little in taxes, because they can't. But half of the damn country makes that amount or less.

You are focusing on the total amounts that the poor and rich contribute in determining how progressive our tax system is. That's not how it works. The tax RATES are what determine this.

Fourty years ago our income distribution was much more even. We had the strongest middle class in the entire world and the richest people were nowhere near as comparatively rich as they are today. This is why the rich did not contribute as high a percentage and the bottom half contributed more.

I don't get how you are not seeing this is a direct result of increased income inequality. I don't know how to put it more plainly. Let's create a ridiculous hypothetical where we keep all the tax laws the same but there is one single person that made ALL of the country's money in one year. That person would be paying %100 of the country's income tax. Did the tax system become even more progressive or is that number a result of a change in the distribution of wealth?

[Jay 20]

Were you intentionally paraphrasing Patrick Ewing, or was that a glorious coincidence?

Gonna be honest, I have no idea what your referring to so I'm going to have to say glorious coincidence.

As union president during the lockout Patrick said NBA players make a lot but they spend a lot too.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Got it. That lockout was before I was basketball sentient.

[SecondTake]

4 million is more than most will earn in their lifetime... You make it seem like after taxes they got nothing

When I watched the 30 for 30 documentary “Broke”, the combination of bad investment, trusting in the wrong people with their money and their own fancy life style, money can disappear just as quick as they earn it.

Also, taxes play a huuuuuge part as well. Just because the contract said 8 million a year, you’ll probably take home closer to 4 million dollars

Sent from my SM-G950W using RealGM mobile app

[mtron929]

I find it interesting that there is a hidden assumption by both the critics and supporters of athletes that money spent on family/friends is "wasted". And I think I share this bias as well. As such, if an NBA player supports family/friends and help them out a lot, the family/friends will not be frugal with this money, but they will spend it on stupid **** as well. Because if that is not the case and these family/friends really make usage of money, then the perception that we have of athletes supporting family/friends would be completely different. It would be akin to them donating all that money to charity (and in fact, it is akin to charity if we view family/friends as being needy).

But somehow that is not the case. We think that family/friends will waste the money on stupid ****. And perhaps that assumption is indeed true.

[DowJones]

So let's assume Paschall's take home pay is $425,000 for this year. That seems reasonable. That means his monthly income would be over $35,000. You can get a really nice 2 bedroom apartment in Oakland for $5,000 a month. That represents just 14% of how monthly income. That gives him over $30,000 for the rest of the months expenses. The percentages just get smaller and smaller for him over the next 2 years. Eric Paschall will have a VERY nice life in the Bay area over the next 3 years living within his means.

The point you're making should still hold true, but your math is not taking taxes into account, so is way off. If he makes $425,000 a year, after tax he probably sees more like $225,000. That is more like $18-19k a month. At that rate you should still be able to live well in the Bay Area, including $5k on rent. He'll be comfortable, and should be able to save some money for the years ahead. But he likely isn't buying a house, a stable of cars, etc.

He made about $900k this year. I factored tax and agent fees in. Next year he will make $1.5 million and $1.8 million the year after that.

[DowJones]

I find it interesting that there is a hidden assumption by both the critics and supporters of athletes that money spent on family/friends is "wasted". And I think I share this bias as well. As such, if an NBA player supports family/friends and help them out a lot, the family/friends will not be frugal with this money, but they will spend it on stupid **** as well. Because if that is not the case and these family/friends really make usage of money, then the perception that we have of athletes supporting family/friends would be completely different. It would be akin to them donating all that money to charity (and in fact, it is akin to charity if we view family/friends as being needy).

But somehow that is not the case. We think that family/friends will waste the money on stupid ****. And perhaps that assumption is indeed true.

Again, it goes back to learning how to live within your means. Nobody is saying you shouldn't spend money on family or friends but if you are going to do that then make sure you offset it with sacrifices in other areas of your life that aren't essentials or savings.

I guess the easiest thing to do is go to a financial planner from a reputable company like Charles Schwab. They can have a team of people working on your portfolio so you know you aren't being ripped off. All NBA players have the financial resources to make sure they live a comfortable life provided they make reasonable choices.

[Wallace_Wallace]

4 million is more than most will earn in their lifetime... You make it seem like after taxes they got nothing

When I watched the 30 for 30 documentary “Broke”, the combination of bad investment, trusting in the wrong people with their money and their own fancy life style, money can disappear just as quick as they earn it.

Also, taxes play a huuuuuge part as well. Just because the contract said 8 million a year, you’ll probably take home closer to 4 million dollars

Sent from my SM-G950W using RealGM mobile app

The lifestyle that some of these players have, combined with some of the entourages they hire, it's a little bit better to have 8 than 4. Even though I don't feel bad about them going broke, but they shouldn't be taking care of 10+ people without them paying you back. People coming to you like, "You know, I have this idea that's going to make you a lot of money, all I need is 500k. Business proposal? LLC formation? What the hell are those? Just give me the money."

Those players might as well start a non-profit organization, pay those people thru the company and use them as a tax deduction.

Spoiler:

Just my two cents, that's how rich/wealthy people avoid taxes, thru non-profit charities and off-shore accounts. They don't need to be giving free handouts to anyone knowing that they'll feel entitled and they'll blow it right away.

[HotelVitale]

I find it interesting that there is a hidden assumption by both the critics and supporters of athletes that money spent on family/friends is "wasted". And I think I share this bias as well. As such, if an NBA player supports family/friends and help them out a lot, the family/friends will not be frugal with this money, but they will spend it on stupid **** as well. Because if that is not the case and these family/friends really make usage of money, then the perception that we have of athletes supporting family/friends would be completely different. It would be akin to them donating all that money to charity (and in fact, it is akin to charity if we view family/friends as being needy). But somehow that is not the case. We think that family/friends will waste the money on stupid ****. And perhaps that assumption is indeed true.

Good point, and think it say a lot about what stories spark us and how things that piss us off stick longer than small positive things. I work a lot in Coatesville PA, a small-ish city where Rip Hamilton is from, and I know that Rip gave money to a lot of people and things there. A lot of it was undeniably good, paying a medical bill or paying for a wedding, helping his extended family be more comfortable, etc. Most of that stuff is small and it's not really news, but even if I was reading about it (and didn't know Coatesville), I'd gloss over it and assume the story was one of those corny feel-good pieces. If I didn't spend time in Coatesville I don't think I'd even know it, and I'm not sure it's really newsworthy for people outside of Coatesville. It also passes quickly--the wedding happens and life goes on, the bills get paid and another one comes--and nothing lasting comes of it, it just made peoples' lives better and less stressful for a minute.

But when I hear stories about how Derrick Coleman blew like a couple million investing in his Detroit friend's hopeless record labels or Eddy Curry let his driver extort him with crazy accusations, it sticks. It seems ridiculous and so out of touch with the world and makes me think of how I manage my own money etc, and it just reaches deeper down. I'm a pretty conventionally "nice" and understanding person--used to be a teacher and work with people in prison now and do a lot of community work--and I still have that thing that strong urge to condemn things that are petty and ridiculous. When I read these stories I don't think 'well that money still paid rent and employed contractors and made life a little better for everyone involved' or whatever, I just think 'man that's crazy those dudes gave away a lifetime fortune for nothing.'

[HotelVitale]

A person making $30,000 a year also pays next to nothing in taxes. According to the IRS, the top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom half of this country pays 3%. Our tax system is one of the most progressive in the world regardless of the marginal tax rates. The top 5% shoulder more of the total tax burden now, with a lower marginal tax rate, than they did 40 years ago when the top marginal tax rate was twice what it is today. The bottom 50% shoulder less of the total income tax burden now than they did 40 years ago. You also take into account a lot of other taxes that wealthier people pay, like estate taxes.

Trying to respect you here but it seems like you're being disingenuous. Other guy made the obvious point that over the past 70 years the top 5% simply own and control WAY more of the money than they did before--hence it's not 'progressive' that they're paying slightly more when they're pulling in several times more. We can't have a real discussion that doesn't start with that fact, otherwise it seems like you're trying to win a semantic argument while dodging the larger meaningful context.

Also if you make 30k a year a) you still have to pay taxes, b) you don't get nearly as much from your taxes as in other countries, and c) you really don't have any money to pay taxes with. I made that amount for years and you still end up paying at least 15-20% or so in taxes, and I also had to pay student loans and pay for crappy health insurance, and overall my monthly bills were like 75% of my check. I didn't have kids so I survived and wasn't going to food banks or anything, but it's not like I felt grateful to the wealthy for not making me pay more taxes than I already did.

[RememberLu]

A person making $30,000 a year also pays next to nothing in taxes. According to the IRS, the top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom half of this country pays 3%. Our tax system is one of the most progressive in the world regardless of the marginal tax rates. The top 5% shoulder more of the total tax burden now, with a lower marginal tax rate, than they did 40 years ago when the top marginal tax rate was twice what it is today. The bottom 50% shoulder less of the total income tax burden now than they did 40 years ago. You also take into account a lot of other taxes that wealthier people pay, like estate taxes.

Trying to respect you here but it seems like you're being disingenuous. Other guy made the obvious point that over the past 70 years the top 5% simply own and control WAY more of the money than they did before--hence it's not 'progressive' that they're paying slightly more when they're pulling in several times more. We can't have a real discussion that doesn't start with that fact, otherwise it seems like you're trying to win a semantic argument while dodging the larger meaningful context.

Also if you make 30k a year a) you still have to pay taxes, b) you don't get nearly as much from your taxes as in other countries, and c) you really don't have any money to pay taxes with. I made that amount for years and you still end up paying at least 15-20% or so in taxes, and I also had to pay student loans and pay for crappy health insurance, and overall my monthly bills were like 75% of my check. I didn't have kids so I survived and wasn't going to food banks or anything, but it's not like I felt grateful to the wealthy for not making me pay more taxes than I already did.

Whether a tax system is considered progressive has to do with how income is taxed, not with who controls the majority of wealth. The way to prevent accumulation of wealth is through estate taxes, not federal income taxes. We still have one of the most progressive income tax systems in the world, and trends show it's only steadily gotten more progressive. When assessing economic health there are many metrics to judge aside from who controls the majority of wealth. There is a high degree of socioeconomic mobility in this country. Poor and middle class people commonly jump up into the top marginal tax brackets, and millionaires or hundred-thousandaires in the top marginal tax brackets often fall to a lower economic rung. According to one Pew research poll, 93% of children from the poorest households surpassed the average earnings of their parents. This country creates the most millionaires by far. There are more millionaires in America than there are in the next 8 countries combined. 40% of all the world's millionaires are made in America.

It's not the wealthy who make you pay more taxes, the tax code is written by Congress and the trends over the past four decades have lessened the tax burden on people like you, not increased it. The tax burden has increased on the top 20%, not the bottom 50%. If you make $30,000 you're in the 12% marginal tax bracket. Imagine you hit the lottery and win $1 million, suddenly you're in the top marginal tax bracket and the government wants to take $400,000 of that before you even get your hands on it. How much does that prevent you from rising in socioeconomic status? It's a significant impediment to upward mobility.

[Promezclan]

I mean, probably the same amount of people on here do too.

How many of you have 3-4 month of expenses in your bank?

Well, the whole point is they make millions, but STILL live paycheck-to-paycheck. Most of us make less than $200k/year, so nothing surprising (although obviously the average American is very bad with his finances as well).

[dhsilv2]

I find it interesting that there is a hidden assumption by both the critics and supporters of athletes that money spent on family/friends is "wasted". And I think I share this bias as well. As such, if an NBA player supports family/friends and help them out a lot, the family/friends will not be frugal with this money, but they will spend it on stupid **** as well. Because if that is not the case and these family/friends really make usage of money, then the perception that we have of athletes supporting family/friends would be completely different. It would be akin to them donating all that money to charity (and in fact, it is akin to charity if we view family/friends as being needy).

But somehow that is not the case. We think that family/friends will waste the money on stupid ****. And perhaps that assumption is indeed true.

While there might be some bias there, that's not really the issue. Most nba players will be retired before 30 and they'll have likely only had 3-5 years to earn a lifetimes earnings. They'll likely make plenty of money to be set or at least set such that they need little more earnings the rest of their life. But if they spend money on others, despite it seeming they have so much, they'll be left broke.

[D.Brasco]

I mean, probably the same amount of people on here do too.

How many of you have 3-4 month of expenses in your bank?

Well, the whole point is they make millions, but STILL live paycheck-to-paycheck. Most of us make less than $200k/year, so nothing surprising (although obviously the average American is very bad with his finances as well).

For almost everyone, living on even the rookie minimum of $582 K would be a crazy dream.

If you are making millions but are living cheque to cheque because you're supporting 10 of your homies, have bought 4+ cars, and 2 properties you never spend any time in, that's fully on you.

[Wallace_Wallace]

I mean, probably the same amount of people on here do too.

How many of you have 3-4 month of expenses in your bank?

Well, the whole point is they make millions, but STILL live paycheck-to-paycheck. Most of us make less than $200k/year, so nothing surprising (although obviously the average American is very bad with his finances as well).

So what you are saying is players should live responsibly, investment wisely in order to maintain/grow, without give his 10 other homeys free money. I totally agree with your point. In that case, do you think should the government tax the rich more so more people can receive free handouts?

[tondi123]

A person making $30,000 a year also pays next to nothing in taxes. According to the IRS, the top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom half of this country pays 3%. Our tax system is one of the most progressive in the world regardless of the marginal tax rates. The top 5% shoulder more of the total tax burden now, with a lower marginal tax rate, than they did 40 years ago when the top marginal tax rate was twice what it is today. The bottom 50% shoulder less of the total income tax burden now than they did 40 years ago. You also take into account a lot of other taxes that wealthier people pay, like estate taxes.

Trying to respect you here but it seems like you're being disingenuous. Other guy made the obvious point that over the past 70 years the top 5% simply own and control WAY more of the money than they did before--hence it's not 'progressive' that they're paying slightly more when they're pulling in several times more. We can't have a real discussion that doesn't start with that fact, otherwise it seems like you're trying to win a semantic argument while dodging the larger meaningful context.

Also if you make 30k a year a) you still have to pay taxes, b) you don't get nearly as much from your taxes as in other countries, and c) you really don't have any money to pay taxes with. I made that amount for years and you still end up paying at least 15-20% or so in taxes, and I also had to pay student loans and pay for crappy health insurance, and overall my monthly bills were like 75% of my check. I didn't have kids so I survived and wasn't going to food banks or anything, but it's not like I felt grateful to the wealthy for not making me pay more taxes than I already did.

If you make 30k you will pay at most $1900 in federal income taxes, which is roughly 6.3%. Of course you also pay a variety of other taxes at both the state and federal level. You may feel like you dont get much for your money but you are getting more of a free ride than pretty much anybody else who pays taxes. Imagine paying 20k a year in federal taxes, or 200k a year, or 2 million a year all to receive the same govt benefits you seem dissatisfied with. Taxes suck but the answer to that isn't more taxes (always on other people of course), it's less government.

[InTheNBADraft]

If they live paycheck to paycheck with that kind of money, it's their fault.

[HotelVitale]

Trying to respect you here but it seems like you're being disingenuous. Other guy made the obvious point that over the past 70 years the top 5% simply own and control WAY more of the money than they did before--hence it's not 'progressive' that they're paying slightly more when they're pulling in several times more. We can't have a real discussion that doesn't start with that fact, otherwise it seems like you're trying to win a semantic argument while dodging the larger meaningful context. Also if you make 30k a year a) you still have to pay taxes, b) you don't get nearly as much from your taxes as in other countries, and c) you really don't have any money to pay taxes with. I made that amount for years and you still end up paying at least 15-20% or so in taxes, and I also had to pay student loans and pay for crappy health insurance, and overall my monthly bills were like 75% of my check. I didn't have kids so I survived and wasn't going to food banks or anything, but it's not like I felt grateful to the wealthy for not making me pay more taxes than I already did.

If you make 30k you will pay at most $1900 in federal income taxes, which is roughly 6.3%. Of course you also pay a variety of other taxes at both the state and federal level. You may feel like you dont get much for your money but you are getting more of a free ride than pretty much anybody else who pays taxes. Imagine paying 20k a year in federal taxes, or 200k a year, or 2 million a year all to receive the same govt benefits you seem dissatisfied with. Taxes suck but the answer to that isn't more taxes (always on other people of course), it's less government.

Hmm, might want to re-read my post. It wasn't complaining about the government services I get for my taxes, it was saying that my taxes DIDN'T pay for things like school and health insurance that a) are good for the larger economy and that it benefits from and b) that basically every worker in other advanced economies get. Most of the money I made was going to that, plus rent and car bills, etc. I wasn't proposing an answer there, but your proposal that I should pay fewer taxes and expect less from the government definitely isn't one. (Also I make more money now, that was like 6 years ago.)

I also honestly can't relate to the impulse to be angry--and stick with that anger after thinking about it--about paying $1m in taxes if I'm also making like $3m that year. If you feel like you're not getting what you need to live alright at $2m a year, I don't know what to tell you. I've known millionaires before and get the desire to keep the money you have, but it's not justifiable or anything. It's just hoarding, ego, and keeping-up-with-the-jones stuff that I honestly can't imagine living for. Even the understandable impulse to control the world can't really be satisfied with any amount of money, and it isn't really something I feel like we should be re-arranging society to make sure that rich people can indulge.

[Saint Lazarus]

The taxes really are criminal, we should probably stop letting the government take half our income.

For sake of both of us, I hope you're just joking.

Hell no; you think it's fair that someone who gets paid $8 million only actually receives $4?

> athletes are fiscally irresponsible
> Here you go federal government spend half my income, I'm sure you'll spend it responsibly

Unless you are an athlete, your use of "our" is very dubious. You're aware that the average American is only taxed with an effective rate of 14%? Even including sales tax, it goes to around 20%.

Also, if you're the libertarian type, I wouldn't mind buying up the road in front of your house and charging a million dollar toll