leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Neither. I am just saying if you can't live on 250 and bring all the finer things to your life... You are in trouble by spending too much or in the wrong area. I think the problem is that people must have huge mortgages out there??? Yet... If I had to pick... I can still live with higher tax rates... Especially for the ones over 250. Fair enough, and I respect your right to your opinion. However..let's assume my income hits the magic number, but instead of 1500 sf and a home purchased in the suburbs of Chicago, I choose to buy a house in my neck of the woods that is 3500 sf and taxes exceed $11,000. Suppose further that my state's personal income tax was among the highest in the country. How much of your 20% savings would you be willing to forgo saving to help me help the country? Would you be agreeable to scaling your savings back to 5% to get us back on track? Let's say your commitment needs to last 7-10 years or so. In exchange for your contribution, my fair share (already substantially greater than your contribution) only has to go up 2% instead of 6%. Thoughts? Edited January 11, 2011 by timmo1805
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Fair enough, and I respect your right to your opinion. However..let's assume my income hits the magic number, but instead of 1500 sf and a home purchased in the suburbs of Chicago, I choose to buy a house in my neck of the woods that is 3500 sf and taxes exceed $11,000. Suppose further that my state's personal income tax was among the highest in the country. How much of your 20% savings would you be willing to forgo saving to help me help the country? Would you be agreeable to scaling your savings back to 5% to get us back on track? Let's say your commitment needs to last 7-10 years or so. In exchange for your contribution, my fair share (already substantially greater than your contribution) only has to go up 2% instead of 6%. Thoughts? I am not sure what you are getting at... Please rephrase. Why would I need to help you get back on track... You would be rich enough to get yourself back on track... We are talking two grossly different lifestyles here... One is that you are rich and over spent. On another note... I am very anti-salary cap in sports and very much pro-small market... Figure that one out.
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 On another note... I am very anti-salary cap in sports and very much pro-small market... Figure that one out. We figured that out long ago: you're nuts.
3rdnlng Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Neither. I am just saying if you can't live on 250 and bring all the finer things to your life... You are in trouble by spending too much or in the wrong area. I think the problem is that people must have huge mortgages out there??? Yet... If I had to pick... I can still live with higher tax rates... Especially for the ones over 250. http://fedupusa.org/2010/06/17/top-100-school-administrators-salaries-and-pensions-illinois-2007/ What do you think of the information provided in the link? It's your deeply blue state.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 http://fedupusa.org/...-illinois-2007/ What do you think of the information provided in the link? It's your deeply blue state. I think it sucks and every single one of those fat-cats are draining their communities. There can be rent control... There is no reason why there can't be salary control... Especially at the top! Oh... And I am all for pulling the rug out from those fat-cats ala the "European Retirement Thread" started in this forum. Kick them to the curb... And bring in fresh young blood that has heart and the willingness to serve their community OVER themselves.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) I am not sure what you are getting at... Please rephrase. Why would I need to help you get back on track... You would be rich enough to get yourself back on track... We are talking two grossly different lifestyles here... One is that you are rich and over spent. On another note... I am very anti-salary cap in sports and very much pro-small market... Figure that one out. Sorry for the confusion. Well I'm not sure that our lifestyles are different. I make more money (I'm assuming from yourexample), but much of that is going back to pay off the substantial debt I incurred in building my income to the current level. I lost a boatload of investment money with the takeover of GM by the gov't. I have 5 children, a stay at home spouse and a parent in need of assistance thus the larger house. I'm upside down on my mortgage for reasons largely out of my control, taxes are out of control before we even talk of income tax. Your tax situation sounds much more manageable. It seems to me that if you're blessed with the good fortune of being able to set aside 20% of your household income, with a very manageable mortgage on a very nice home, and are able to send your children to private schools, you're pretty well off in spite of the difference in our income. It occurs to me that you could reduce the savings contributions from 20% to the 5-8% range and probably not notice any difference at all in your lifestyle. You could do more, I suppose, if you put your children into public schools but that's asking a lot. If you'd agree to do that, hypothetically anyway, the greater good would be served and I'd be able to continue without shouldering more of the burden. Would you be willing to save less if it would help others (like me) down on their luck? Would you agree to send that extra 12-15% to the government to supply it with much-needed revenue so I wouldn't have to? As for the salary cap stand, it makes sense, I suppose. If player x gets $10 m or so, he'd be taxed accordingly as a man of great wealth. Edited January 12, 2011 by timmo1805
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Sorry for the confusion. Well I'm not sure that our lifestyles are different. I make more money (I'm assuming from yourexample), but much of that is going back to pay off the substantial debt I incurred in building my income to the current level. I lost a boatload of investment money with the takeover of GM by the gov't. I have 5 children, a stay at home spouse and a parent in need of assistance thus the larger house. I'm upside down on my mortgage for reasons largely out of my control, taxes are out of control before we even talk of income tax. Your tax situation sounds much more manageable. It seems to me that if you're blessed with the good fortune of being able to set aside 20% of your household income, with a very manageable mortgage on a very nice home, and are able to send your children to private schools, you're pretty well off in spite of the difference in our income. It occurs to me that you could reduce the savings contributions from 20% to the 5-8% range and probably not notice any difference at all in your lifestyle. You could do more, I suppose, if you put your children into public schools but that's asking a lot. If you'd agree to do that, hypothetically anyway, the greater good would be served and I'd be able to continue without shouldering more of the burden. Would you be willing to save less if it would help others (like me) down on their luck? Would you agree to send that extra 12-15% to the government to supply it with much-needed revenue so I wouldn't have to? As for the salary cap stand, it makes sense, I suppose. If player x gets $10 m or so, he'd be taxed accordingly as a man of great wealth. Yes. And I am making chump change nowhere near 250k. Just as Ralph Wilson helped out Al Davis and the Sullivan's early on in the league for the sake of the league... Just don't screw me in the end for living modestly and force my team out of BFLO when I croak.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 and this is what i argue is the real reason many people who won't immediately gain from conservative policy support it: they believe someday they will. in most cases that's an unrealistic expectation (and of course i have no way to guess in tom's case). and what then is the reason "limousine liberals" support policies that will undoubtedly hurt them financially? i would argue that it's compassion and a sense of fairness. what do you conservatives think the motivation is? i think rkfast was heading that way but i couldn't discern his meaning. No. You are projecting your own "I don't make crap, and Obamacare means I will make more, so I support it" low-end doctor viewpoint on others. And you have it wrong, again, doctor, "limousine liberals" rely on their wealth, NOT INCOME. Their wealth is applied in investments. They lose/gain and are able to write off all sorts of expenses in the effort. And ultimately, anything they do gain they merely pay capital gains tax, which has been at least 15 points lower than income tax...while paying nothing state or local, except property tax. We keep hearing about taxing $250k of income, but nothing about taxing $250k of capital gain. Why? Because the Democratic Party is made up of the very wealthy, and mostly people who make less than $250k. Neither of these groups will be personally effected by any increase/decrease in the income tax. "compassion and sense of fairness"? Horseshit. The wealthy and the low income are supporting what is best for them = screw the middle. No different than your support for Obamacare, it's all about what is best for them personally, and they don't care if it screws other people. "compassion and a sense of fairness" is the lie that the wealthy like telling the useful idiots like yourself.
GG Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 and what then is the reason "limousine liberals" support policies that will undoubtedly hurt them financially? i would argue that it's compassion and a sense of fairness. what do you conservatives think the motivation is? i think rkfast was heading that way but i couldn't discern his meaning. In my observations of limousine liberals it's false compassion by transferring the obligation to the government away from the individual. As opposed to the direct charitable contributions or direct involvement in any particular cause, they view that the government is best served in solving problems and if something is broken, the best solution is to throw more money at it. Then they are shocked at stories where the people are failed by the system, so the response is to throw more money at it. My view is also colored by the observation that most limousine liberals don't know how things work, don't want to be bothered to do basic math and have things magically appear on their doorstep.
RkFast Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Neither. I am just saying if you can't live on 250 and bring all the finer things to your life... WHERE YOU LIVE that might be true. Where I live, it isnt true. Like I said, Im doing OK, and Im not even making 250. But if I was, Id STILL not be "rich." Upper Middle class, at best. Certainly not "wealthy."
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Yes. And I am making chump change nowhere near 250k. Just as Ralph Wilson helped out Al Davis and the Sullivan's early on in the league for the sake of the league... Just don't screw me in the end for living modestly and force my team out of BFLO when I croak. Exiled! Excellent answer. I generally encounter folks who suggest they can't do more while taking care of themselves, that it's only the rich who need to dig deeper. The one teensy weensy little wrinkle in your answer if that where there's a will, there's a way--and you could likely do more right this moment to fund the greaster good without being forced to. Send a seperate check, start a foundation, whaever, but it can be done now. My issue is, was, and always will be that until the government shows some respectable level of restraint when it comes to spending and taxation, I prefer my tax rate be as low as possible. I'll do my charitable giving on my own, thank you, and when they speak of me doing more of my fair share---it's like finding out your wife is cheating on you and having her ask to drop by the CVS and pick up an extra box of magnums. When you account for all levels of taxation levied, we should be able to fund the country, eliminate the debt, and give the good people of Haiti and extra billion or two. Taxation is fine, and patriotic if administered properly, but that ship sailed along time ago. Tim
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 WHERE YOU LIVE that might be true. Where I live, it isnt true. Like I said, Im doing OK, and Im not even making 250. But if I was, Id STILL not be "rich." Upper Middle class, at best. Certainly not "wealthy." Then move! Let the market take care of things! Just like I am anti-salary cap... If small market Ralph is not having a good go at it, then he can move somewhere else... If he is a wise businessman, than he keeps going where he is. Another semi-tied in note: On the other end, if the large markets want to overspend (and lose on the field), they kill themselves... Caps only protect the big and wealthy from themselves. If you can't make a go on it at that amount, there are places that you can move that will enable you to. In the end, it all works out for the best. Exiled! Excellent answer. I generally encounter folks who suggest they can't do more while taking care of themselves, that it's only the rich who need to dig deeper. The one teensy weensy little wrinkle in your answer if that where there's a will, there's a way--and you could likely do more right this moment to fund the greaster good without being forced to. Send a seperate check, start a foundation, whaever, but it can be done now. My issue is, was, and always will be that until the government shows some respectable level of restraint when it comes to spending and taxation, I prefer my tax rate be as low as possible. I'll do my charitable giving on my own, thank you, and when they speak of me doing more of my fair share---it's like finding out your wife is cheating on you and having her ask to drop by the CVS and pick up an extra box of magnums. When you account for all levels of taxation levied, we should be able to fund the country, eliminate the debt, and give the good people of Haiti and extra billion or two. Taxation is fine, and patriotic if administered properly, but that ship sailed along time ago. Tim I know that and it breaks my heart! Does service in the community help?
birdog1960 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 No. You are projecting your own "I don't make crap, and Obamacare means I will make more, so I support it" low-end doctor viewpoint on others. And you have it wrong, again, doctor, "limousine liberals" rely on their wealth, NOT INCOME. Their wealth is applied in investments. They lose/gain and are able to write off all sorts of expenses in the effort. And ultimately, anything they do gain they merely pay capital gains tax, which has been at least 15 points lower than income tax...while paying nothing state or local, except property tax. We keep hearing about taxing $250k of income, but nothing about taxing $250k of capital gain. Why? Because the Democratic Party is made up of the very wealthy, and mostly people who make less than $250k. Neither of these groups will be personally effected by any increase/decrease in the income tax. "compassion and sense of fairness"? Horseshit. The wealthy and the low income are supporting what is best for them = screw the middle. No different than your support for Obamacare, it's all about what is best for them personally, and they don't care if it screws other people. "compassion and a sense of fairness" is the lie that the wealthy like telling the useful idiots like yourself. yup that's me, a "low end doctor", my value determined by really high end, smart folks like you . your post is so misguided, ungrounded, inflammatory, and uninformed that it deserves no further reply.
Chef Jim Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Then move! Let the market take care of things! Give me a rational (the key is rational) explanation as to why I should be "punished" and pay a higher percentage of my income just because I make more than you?
GG Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Give me a rational (the key is rational) explanation as to why I should be "punished" and pay a higher percentage of my income just because I make more than you? I dunno, because you make more than him?
Booster4324 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Give me a rational (the key is rational) explanation as to why I should be "punished" and pay a higher percentage of my income just because I make more than you? Because you have more disposable income and can afford to invest it more efficiently. The actual percentage of taxes (all taxes) paid after a bare minimum cost of living is deducted from base salaries make it far closer percentage wise than people who only talk about the "fifty percent who do not pay taxes."
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Then move! Let the market take care of things! Just like I am anti-salary cap... If small market Ralph is not having a good go at it, then he can move somewhere else... If he is a wise businessman, than he keeps going where he is. Another semi-tied in note: On the other end, if the large markets want to overspend (and lose on the field), they kill themselves... Caps only protect the big and wealthy from themselves. If you can't make a go on it at that amount, there are places that you can move that will enable you to. In the end, it all works out for the best. I know that and it breaks my heart! Does service in the community help? Service in the community was assumed. Why would anyone with any sense not serve their own community! I was speaking of the extra you could bring to the table, but then, I see from your responses that you knew that. Good stuff, you had me going for a bit.
jjamie12 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Give me a rational (the key is rational) explanation as to why I should be "punished" and pay a higher percentage of my income just because I make more than you? Here are two (not that I necessarily agree with the points): 1- You (the figurative 'you' -- the person making more than $250K) have (obviously, given your current stature on the money-making scale) benefitted more from the infrastructure (security, roads, bridges, educational system, etc) built from the tax base than those who make less than you. Therefore, a somewhat larger percentage of your taxes should go toward continuing to maintain or build more of the infrastructure. 2- We're all better off (including you) when the population at large is healthier, when there is a social saftey net so that people don't have to turn to stealing or begging for money, when the population at large is more educated (you know, so that they can go out and make more money so they can invest it with you). Edited January 13, 2011 by jjamie12
Chef Jim Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Here are two (not that I necessarily agree with the points): 1- You (the figurative 'you' -- the person making more than $250K) have (obviously, given your current stature on the money-making scale) benefitted more from the infrastructure (security, roads, bridges, educational system, etc) built from the tax base than those who make less than you. Therefore, a somewhat larger percentage of your taxes should go toward continuing to maintain or build more of the infrastructure. 2- We're all better off (including you) when the population at large is healthier, when there is a social saftey net so that people don't have to turn to stealing or begging for money, when the population at large is more educated (you know, so that they can go out and make more money so they can invest it with you). So people who make over $250k drive more and use the educational system more? There are plenty of people who make tons of money that work from home, 5 minutes from home and have no kids. Other than my wife and I we have not even used the educational system seeing we have not kids. I think it's safe to say that the lower income scale squeezes out more puppies and send their kids to public schools than wealthy people .
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Here are two (not that I necessarily agree with the points): 1- You (the figurative 'you' -- the person making more than $250K) have (obviously, given your current stature on the money-making scale) benefitted more from the infrastructure (security, roads, bridges, educational system, etc) built from the tax base than those who make less than you. Therefore, a somewhat larger percentage of your taxes should go toward continuing to maintain or build more of the infrastructure. 2- We're all better off (including you) when the population at large is healthier, when there is a social saftey net so that people don't have to turn to stealing or begging for money, when the population at large is more educated (you know, so that they can go out and make more money so they can invest it with you). Exactly. When did progressive tax go into existance... Long before Chef Jim was a glimmer in his parent's eyes... Take it up with the historians Jim. "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." So people who make over $250k drive more and use the educational system more? There are plenty of people who make tons of money that work from home, 5 minutes from home and have no kids. Other than my wife and I we have not even used the educational system seeing we have not kids. I think it's safe to say that the lower income scale squeezes out more puppies and send their kids to public schools than wealthy people . What is your modest proposal? Eat 'em?
Recommended Posts