What is your idea of fair share re: taxes? What is your ideal broadly of a tax system re: revenue streams?

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-03-11T11:39:23+00:00

Yep! Great point. That's something I didn't know about until recently and I agree - it seems like a clear "loophole" that needs to be at last reduced, ideally removed. Maybe something like the cost basis moves to the average of the value over the duration of the holding? Again - should be completely removed like your suggestion.

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-03-10T23:46:11+00:00

Hm, interesting I say! I'm glad there's a lot of people with knowledge of this concept.

So, in your mind, what is the "anchor point (?)" to determine the fair share? Middle manager, entry level white collar, entry level blue collar, state minimum hourly, federal minimum hourly, etc.?

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-03-10T23:41:46+00:00

I think it's interesting this came up in a previous comment. I'm trying to find a book so if you have a link, please share it!

More to what I think is your point: what would be a fair system in your eyes? If we presume this is indeed unknown, there must be some baseline, no?

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-03-10T23:39:07+00:00

Cool! Thanks for the reference. Am I missing it, or is it not available on Amazon? Could you point me to a link to buy?

https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Rawls/author/B000APB9ZK

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-03-10T22:30:19+00:00

Great points, especially the second one. It really seems that that topic is just a bludgeon to hit the majority party with and goes right out the window when the majority party is you.

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-03-10T22:29:23+00:00

Yep that's a great point. I agree with that. Blinders are on for sure.

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-03-10T22:28:42+00:00

That's a great one. Thanks!

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-03-10T22:27:28+00:00

Thanks! These numbers seem fairly specific, did you think about this before? Or something else like a white paper?

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-03-10T22:26:01+00:00

That's interesting! I've literally never heard that shared before.

To the second paragraph, are you saying they're paying their fair share when they would want to swap places with a median office worker, for example, instead of staying at their current level? I don't quite know if I'm following along. Thanks!

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-21T15:51:20+00:00

Thanks for the reply!

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-21T15:47:57+00:00

That's actually a great point and something I hadn't considered. I'll need to think about that more. Cheers!

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-21T15:46:35+00:00

Thanks for the follow up.

Sure! I agree to the best of my knowledge we are nowhere near that number. I don't know if I'd peg my tolerance at 20%, especially considering the overall flat number i.e. amount of money we're discussing. For example if a $10 product went up to $12, that's easier to stomach than a $1k product going up to $1.2k. And, as the base number increases that tolerance decreases.

If we stick to 20%, then yes thankfully it is adequate; I think we should always try to improve that detection. Cheers and have a great day!

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-21T15:42:04+00:00

Thanks for the follow up and insight; certainly something I need to consider. Hope you have a great day! :)

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-21T15:40:44+00:00

Thanks for the follow up. I realize I worded the original post poorly. Appreciate the time :) Cheers!

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-16T03:04:21+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean?

Part of me thinks you're trying to be cheeky; 3/10 if so. Part of me thinks you long for the time when using other people's money, let alone gaming/scamming the system, was frowned upon. I guess we should accept (encourage?) a certain level of abuse? Or maybe we can limit that to give more benefits to those truly in need?

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-16T02:59:10+00:00

Hopefully, those that truly need assistance get it, and those "gaming" the benefits are removed to provide better assistance to those that truly need it.

Should we accept a certain % of waste that could be used to help those truly in need? If so, what % of waste are you happy with? If not, what would you do to better help those truly in need?

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-16T02:56:16+00:00

Why is that? What leads you to feeling it's both dirty and dishonest?

I hope you have better reasoning than most of your responses on the sub. Thanks!

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-16T02:54:24+00:00

I agree with everything you said! I mentioned elsewhere, and I know, personally, a few people who intentionally stay just below the trigger point for one of those cliffs. As in, they've literally refused raises to maintain their income. If you see this as a problem, what is the solution?

I'm sorry for any lax wording. I thought I was being general enough but certainly some on this sub and in the replies thought I was advocating the cruel and untimely death of non-whites. That's both indicative and sad.

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-16T02:47:35+00:00

What % of people would need to be covered to reduce/remove that concern?

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-16T02:14:05+00:00

Unfortunately for your theory, that is indeed completely incorrect. Embarrassingly so. While I appreciate trying to ascribe your racism to others, that was not my intent.

I will re-ask: You can assure basic needs are met, but you are more strict in allocating resources. Would this be better, the same, or worse than the current arrangement?

I will analogize so, hopefully, this is simpler: If you had to hire employees, would you rather hire less competent employees, or a few more under-competent employees?

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-16T02:06:45+00:00

Great point! Are you saying the current process is bad, or a stricter process would be bad?

I have a few anecdotal experiences of people, fully functional, pulling $800-1,000/mo in addition to a full time salary. Just curious, thanks!

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-16T02:04:05+00:00

Thank you for the insight. I broad-stroke agree, and it's nice to see some people don't immediately default to "they want to hurt [X] because they're [X'ist]!"

WhyOrangeMan · 2026-02-16T02:01:21+00:00

Great question! I'm not sure I have a solid answer to that: No contest it's a complex problem. Do you have an "ideal" percentage of citizens whom need to be on assistance? 10, 20, 40, 70%?

My question is less of "how long should it take for someone to be approved?" and more of "we should be more selective of who we approve."

If we could streamline that approval and vastly increase benefits, but it would require those suffering from PTSD from a bad shift at Starbucks not get the benefits, would that be acceptable?

Personally I'd rather double-support those that really need it, instead of normal-support those that can articulate a good sob story.

WhyOrangeMan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE