login
Cliffmas........... (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-12-04 4:19 PM in reply to: #4521878 |
Champion  34263     Chicago |  Subject: RE: Cliffmas...........tuwood - 2012-12-04 4:15 PM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 3:48 PM tuwood - 2012-12-04 3:45 PM "... I would venture to guess that 85%+ of the people who live in my fairly affluent neighborhood are paycheck to paycheck. If you cut their pay by hundreds of dollars a month it will be ugly." Tony. Dude. All I'll say is that anyone bringing down $250K+ a year and having to live paycheck to paycheck on a monthly basis needs to take a serious lesson from "great generation" Grandpa and Grandma on how to live within their means! That's some SERIOUS nasty greed and living high on the hog! I sure hope you don't fall into that crowd. I've been downsized in corporate failuers and reductions enough to know what it's like to go several months with no job. I don't earn even half of you, but we live life about 50% under that. Got money going for retirement, kids' college, Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, weddings, and minimum 6-month safety net in case the hammer drops again. And on top of that, we still donate some money, but mostly time and energy) to needy charities. I come from school teacher stock, so there ain't no inheritence coming to our rescue. "Bringing down $250K+ a year and having to live paycheck to paycheck." Sorry, but I'm having a really hard time wrapping my head around that one. I guess we poor, just don't understand.
lol, when you say it that way it sounds really bad. I own a business. My business made over $250k in profit last year. It is an S-Corp so all of that profit hits me for tax purposes. However, my actual take home pay (W-2) was way less than half that amount because I had to leave the profit in the company for cash flow purposes. Therefore I get nailed in a bad way on taxes as one of the "rich dudes" but I'm really not. Heck, you probably make more money than I do. I get really frustrated with the tax laws because I get nailed by all the "rich guy" taxes and lose out on exemptions (child tax credit) because of my top line income. However, I don't make even half of what my top line income is so I'm paying the rich guy taxes on the middle income guy salary. I'd say most households in my neighborhood have income between $80k-$120k per year and when you throw in all the taxes (30%+) house payment ($300-400k houses) two car payments, 3 kids, sports, one vacation a year etc... they're all pretty much broke. Oh. Well I thought you meant YOU made $250,000 yourself, too. And I wish I lived on Omaha's cost of living without actually living in Omaha! I love my hometown and love visiting and seeing friends and family and such, but can't see myself living there ever again. |
| 2012-12-05 1:14 AM in reply to: #4520896 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 3:21 PM You ASSUME that they reinvest in this country and economy. What? No one has invested in China at all or other emerging and developing countries that could earn them a much higher rate of return? You assume that if taxes go up, they suddenly will stop reinvesting?! And do what, put their money into gold or under their mattress because they don't want to pay higher taxes? God I hate this trickle-down economics argument. It's NEVER WORKED! Investment doesn't relate to tax rates. To quote Warren Buffet, "If I told you about this amazing investment opportunity that would earn a high rate of return and looks sound, are you going to hesitate because you want to know how it will affect the amount of taxes that you pay?" A very large percentage of those 2%ers do reinvest in the US. Every always hears about the rich and picture Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney. Guys who have more money than they can spend who invest all over the world. But in reality the 2% is made up of mostly people who are making just over $250,000 a year. Many of them are small business owners. Most of those, like me, have no interest or ability to invest overseas. They invest in their backyard. Just like Tuwood I'm a business owner who on paper makes more than $250k a year. But that's as a pass thru and I keep a lot of my "income" in the company to keep it going. So yeah, raising my taxes on that $250k affects me more than you'd think. So at some point someone said it amounted to $420 a month (I'll just take this one face value and go with it). OK. So let's say I take a $420 a month hit. So now to get back to even I take $420 a month out of the company just so I can live the same way as before. I pay about that to lease a piece of equipment we use. So now can I really still afford that equipment? Or maybe I was going to hire a cleaning service. Or maybe I was going to spend this $420 in any number of ways. By not spending it I am not investing in my company to make it grow. As it stands now I AM investing. Raise my taxes and the investment is going to get smaller. Buffet's argument falls apart when you don;t have the money to invest in this "terrific investment" in the first place. Also, in a climate where the small business owners are the first to take the tax lick it doesn't look like such a terrific investment anyway. Besides I have a hard time taking advice from a guy who says the rich should pay higher taxes and then still owes the IRS over $1 billion.
Edited by TriRSquared 2012-12-05 1:16 AM |
| 2012-12-05 9:05 AM in reply to: #4521759 |
Elite 3515  Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... mr2tony - 2012-12-04 3:30 PM Meulen - 2012-12-04 3:00 PM I dont hear you complaining about he tax loopholes you're taking advantage of to lower your tax liability. tuwood - 2012-12-04 2:45 PM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 1:32 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-04 1:43 PM I do not know why it should be the "2%"s responsibility to pay for it. That is my major objection to this idea. You want the bennies, pay for them, do not vote yourself largess out of someone elses pocket! x2 ...but but FAIR share! Let's talk a little about fair. Now if you set aside, "I earned it, it's mine." and "redistribution of wealth." and just accept the fact that one role of "government" is to redistribute monies from those who earn a lot to those have less and need some form of help. That a wealthy person's "fair share" is percentage higher than a poorer person's "fair share"... Taxes are never simple and numbers can be made to sway arguments in many decisions. But in very simplistic terms, if you compare these four people: 'Poor", "Middle", "Upper", "Wealthy", and "Rich". These number are of course very general and rough estimates: Poor earns $35K a year, about $1,800 a month net on a 15% tax bracket. If we talk about "my 2K" or about $2,000 a year in tax increases, roughly 2% tax rate increase. Poor pays $60 more per month off of $1,800 and takes a HUGE hit. The increase may be the same across the board. But since the cost of living and inflation have raised prices while wages have remain stagnant, the poorer you are, the more every dollar counts. A 2% hike to someone earning $35,000 per year means food. A 2% hike to Mr./Mrs. Wealthy and Rich doesn't mean as much. When you earn more to where taxes are a financial number and don't equate to lifestyle, but "extras" - that's what we're talking about. What is so wrong with? Poor pays no more per month off of $1,800. Oh and... Mr./Mrs. Ultra-Rich who earns dividends and interest on $200 million, pulls in $4 million a year from that and only pays 15% taxes... Now that's just robbery! I WISH I were in the top 2% and could afford to pay an extra $250-$1,000 more per month in taxes! And yes, if that were me, I would want and demand my government to be efficient with my money and demand that they reduce spending as well. If my government wants me to pay more to pay down the deficit to benefit my children's future, than yes, I would demand that it actually pay down the deficit and not be used to prop up current spending levels. That side of the argument was and remains valid IMHO.
Is the bolded part in the constitution somewhere? I must have missed that part. Because of the way my business is structured I fall into your "wealthy" category and I can tell you without a doubt an extra $420/mo. would hurt us immensely. In fact it would directly come out of money we give to local charities and quite likely we wouldn't take a vacation and I most certainly would cut a few Tri races off my schedule. I'm on every bit as much of a budget as I was when I was making $35k/year and taking $420/mo. today would hurt every bit as much as taking $60/mo. would have hurt back then. Could I afford it in the sense of would I be out on the street if my taxes went up? Yes I could afford it, but it would be extremely painful. I would venture to guess that 85%+ of the people who live in my fairly affluent neighborhood are paycheck to paycheck. If you cut their pay by hundreds of dollars a month it will be ugly. I've also done the math on the actual Cliff. If it takes effect I personally will have to pay close to $10,000 more in additional taxes which is over $800/mo. Granted the fiscal cliff isn't anyone's proposal per se' but it would not be pretty. I just can't wrap my head around the liberal mindset when it comes to hammering the supposed rich. I paid close to $30,000 in just federal taxes last year (personally), but it's not enough. I am sick and tired of people telling me I need to pay my "fair share" when half the population paid $0.
this to me is key, most of the people complaining don't pay anything!
you weren't listening. |
| 2012-12-05 9:17 AM in reply to: #4522682 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... Meulen - 2012-12-05 9:05 AM mr2tony - 2012-12-04 3:30 PM Meulen - 2012-12-04 3:00 PM I dont hear you complaining about he tax loopholes you're taking advantage of to lower your tax liability. tuwood - 2012-12-04 2:45 PM Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 1:32 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-04 1:43 PM I do not know why it should be the "2%"s responsibility to pay for it. That is my major objection to this idea. You want the bennies, pay for them, do not vote yourself largess out of someone elses pocket! x2 ...but but FAIR share! Let's talk a little about fair. Now if you set aside, "I earned it, it's mine." and "redistribution of wealth." and just accept the fact that one role of "government" is to redistribute monies from those who earn a lot to those have less and need some form of help. That a wealthy person's "fair share" is percentage higher than a poorer person's "fair share"... Taxes are never simple and numbers can be made to sway arguments in many decisions. But in very simplistic terms, if you compare these four people: 'Poor", "Middle", "Upper", "Wealthy", and "Rich". These number are of course very general and rough estimates: Poor earns $35K a year, about $1,800 a month net on a 15% tax bracket. If we talk about "my 2K" or about $2,000 a year in tax increases, roughly 2% tax rate increase. Poor pays $60 more per month off of $1,800 and takes a HUGE hit. The increase may be the same across the board. But since the cost of living and inflation have raised prices while wages have remain stagnant, the poorer you are, the more every dollar counts. A 2% hike to someone earning $35,000 per year means food. A 2% hike to Mr./Mrs. Wealthy and Rich doesn't mean as much. When you earn more to where taxes are a financial number and don't equate to lifestyle, but "extras" - that's what we're talking about. What is so wrong with? Poor pays no more per month off of $1,800. Oh and... Mr./Mrs. Ultra-Rich who earns dividends and interest on $200 million, pulls in $4 million a year from that and only pays 15% taxes... Now that's just robbery! I WISH I were in the top 2% and could afford to pay an extra $250-$1,000 more per month in taxes! And yes, if that were me, I would want and demand my government to be efficient with my money and demand that they reduce spending as well. If my government wants me to pay more to pay down the deficit to benefit my children's future, than yes, I would demand that it actually pay down the deficit and not be used to prop up current spending levels. That side of the argument was and remains valid IMHO.
Is the bolded part in the constitution somewhere? I must have missed that part. Because of the way my business is structured I fall into your "wealthy" category and I can tell you without a doubt an extra $420/mo. would hurt us immensely. In fact it would directly come out of money we give to local charities and quite likely we wouldn't take a vacation and I most certainly would cut a few Tri races off my schedule. I'm on every bit as much of a budget as I was when I was making $35k/year and taking $420/mo. today would hurt every bit as much as taking $60/mo. would have hurt back then. Could I afford it in the sense of would I be out on the street if my taxes went up? Yes I could afford it, but it would be extremely painful. I would venture to guess that 85%+ of the people who live in my fairly affluent neighborhood are paycheck to paycheck. If you cut their pay by hundreds of dollars a month it will be ugly. I've also done the math on the actual Cliff. If it takes effect I personally will have to pay close to $10,000 more in additional taxes which is over $800/mo. Granted the fiscal cliff isn't anyone's proposal per se' but it would not be pretty. I just can't wrap my head around the liberal mindset when it comes to hammering the supposed rich. I paid close to $30,000 in just federal taxes last year (personally), but it's not enough. I am sick and tired of people telling me I need to pay my "fair share" when half the population paid $0.
this to me is key, most of the people complaining don't pay anything!
you weren't listening. In this entire string of quoted posts you said one thing, and that's:
this to me is key, most of the people complaining don't pay anything! |
| 2012-12-05 9:31 AM in reply to: #4522709 |
Elite 3515 Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of tax deductions. That's what they are there for. IMO they are confusing and a big run around. It would be easier to get rid of them. I agree it would be a hard sell for some. But, it could actually bring down the rate for top earners close to where they are with deductions now. You'd just raise more money from the 47% paying nothing to cover the overall revenue shortfall from lowering top earner rates. There's no B.S. this way, it's simple, and you can cut the IRS expense of figuring it all out! Edited by Meulen 2012-12-05 9:38 AM |
| 2012-12-05 9:53 AM in reply to: #4520896 |
Expert 1203 | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... Our problems are much larger than falling off the cliff on Jan 1. Spending is completely out of control but even cutting all of the discretionary spending and leaving only Mandatory (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Food Stamps, etc) spending in place we still cannot balance the budget with our current level of taxation. This video explains it in much more detail. ***Warning*** it's narrated by an Accountant and a little dry but short and factual. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EW5IdwltaAc |
| 2012-12-05 9:58 AM in reply to: #4521493 |
| Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... tuwood - 2012-12-04 11:22 AM chirunner134 - 2012-12-04 1:08 PM trinnas - 2012-12-04 1:04 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-04 2:02 PM EVERYBODY SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES! Except the rich, because they create jobs. Except the middle class, because then spending will drop. Except the poor, because they don't have it. ALL SPENDING SHOULD BE CUT! Except social programs because then people suffer. Except defense because we need to defend ourselves. NIMBY at its finest. We are short-sighted and stupid and because of that, nothing will ever get solved until we're in a Greek-style pickle. Yes, sadly, I am afraid you are correct.
When people who are opposites agree you know it must be true. I third that statement. It takes people willing go lose there jobs in congress to fix it. No one will do that. There are no easy solutions to this mess. It scares me when I hear all the stupid things congressmen says at times that they are the ones who have to fix this. I fourth it. I hate to throw a monkey wrench in this and it may cause all ya'all to re-think your position but I think Tony hit the nail on the head. I have two thoughts on our current tax situation. Have an AMT Alternative Minimum Tax for each bracket. Lowest bracket 1% and each bracket above that either a 1 point or .5 point increase. Create another bracket at the top starting at $700k with a top rate of 39% and an AMT of 20% based on 2012 tax table. For the dependant deductions it should be capped at 2. As far as cutting spending it really shouldn't be that tough. With the exception of SS (which needs to be addressed, I would encourage everyone to look at what % of income it took in the 30s and the life expectancy back then) get rid of the 3% auto increase on the Federal Budget and institute a 3% auto decrease on everything. An exception could be made for specific programs that were able to get 2/3's majority vote for funding from the house and senate. |
| 2012-12-06 1:09 PM in reply to: #4520896 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... Howard Dean speaking blasphemy. I'm sure he'll have to apologize soon. Howard Dean: "The Truth Is Everybody Needs To Pay More Taxes, Not Just The Rich"
|
| 2012-12-06 1:58 PM in reply to: #4524901 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... tuwood - 2012-12-06 12:09 PM Howard Dean speaking blasphemy. I'm sure he'll have to apologize soon. Howard Dean: "The Truth Is Everybody Needs To Pay More Taxes, Not Just The Rich"
Where's Grover Norquist at? Oh wait.. |
| 2012-12-07 8:49 AM in reply to: #4520896 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... |
| 2012-12-11 9:44 AM in reply to: #4520896 |
Champion 8766 Evergreen, Colorado | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... Okay, I don't get it...why can't these people just compromise? Seriously...billions of people around the world strike bargains EVERY SINGLE DAY. It's a 30 second conversation...$25? No, $40. $30? No, $37. $33? Okay. See, done. Why is this so hard for Washington? F'ing seriously...meet in the middle already. |
| 2012-12-11 9:49 AM in reply to: #4530550 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... jldicarlo - 2012-12-11 10:44 AM Okay, I don't get it...why can't these people just compromise? Seriously...billions of people around the world strike bargains EVERY SINGLE DAY. It's a 30 second conversation...$25? No, $40. $30? No, $37. $33? Okay. See, done. Why is this so hard for Washington? F'ing seriously...meet in the middle already. well that is not about to happen with the current state of our political parties and the "screw each other at all costs" attitudes both sides have. |
| 2012-12-11 10:26 AM in reply to: #4530550 |
Pro 4277 Parker, CO | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... jldicarlo - 2012-12-11 8:44 AM Okay, I don't get it...why can't these people just compromise? Seriously...billions of people around the world strike bargains EVERY SINGLE DAY. It's a 30 second conversation...$25? No, $40. $30? No, $37. $33? Okay. See, done. Why is this so hard for Washington? F'ing seriously...meet in the middle already. well, when you have a POTUS telling the media that he WILL NOT compromise on raising taxes on the 2% it is not going to help things any. If he has that position, he needs to keep it out of the news headlines and go in to negotiations at least appearing to be objective and willing to look at everything. Seems to be a basic negotiation strategy that his advisors negelected to coach him on...or he choses to ignor. Congress is a bunchof knuckleheads and are not thinking about who they are representing. But really, most of us can't get too upset when we re-elect these clowns. If it didn't work before...what would make it better a second time around? |
| 2012-12-11 11:57 AM in reply to: #4530613 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... rayd - 2012-12-11 11:26 AM jldicarlo - 2012-12-11 8:44 AM Okay, I don't get it...why can't these people just compromise? Seriously...billions of people around the world strike bargains EVERY SINGLE DAY. It's a 30 second conversation...$25? No, $40. $30? No, $37. $33? Okay. See, done. Why is this so hard for Washington? F'ing seriously...meet in the middle already. well, when you have a POTUS telling the media that he WILL NOT compromise on raising taxes on the 2% it is not going to help things any. If he has that position, he needs to keep it out of the news headlines and go in to negotiations at least appearing to be objective and willing to look at everything. Seems to be a basic negotiation strategy that his advisors negelected to coach him on...or he choses to ignor. Congress is a bunchof knuckleheads and are not thinking about who they are representing. But really, most of us can't get too upset when we re-elect these clowns. If it didn't work before...what would make it better a second time around? Absolutely. When the GOP did this they were the "Party of No". Yet when Obama does it he's sticking to his principles. I'm really looking forward to the poopstorm that is going to be created when we go off the cliff and millions of middle and lower class citizens suddenly have their taxes go up all because Obama refuses to cut out this class warfare BS. Raising taxes on the rich will NOT fix the problem. Everyone knows this. The math is undeniable. |
| 2012-12-11 1:04 PM in reply to: #4521519 |
Extreme Veteran 787 The Woodlands/Magnolia, TX. | Subject: RE: Cliffmas........... Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-04 1:32 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-04 1:43 PM I do not know why it should be the "2%"s responsibility to pay for it. That is my major objection to this idea. You want the bennies, pay for them, do not vote yourself largess out of someone elses pocket! x2 ...but but FAIR share! Let's talk a little about fair. Now if you set aside, "I earned it, it's mine." and "redistribution of wealth." and just accept the fact that one role of "government" is to redistribute monies from those who earn a lot to those have less and need some form of help. That a wealthy person's "fair share" is percentage higher than a poorer person's "fair share"... Taxes are never simple and numbers can be made to sway arguments in many decisions. But in very simplistic terms, if you compare these four people: 'Poor", "Middle", "Upper", "Wealthy", and "Rich". These number are of course very general and rough estimates: Poor earns $35K a year, about $1,800 a month net on a 15% tax bracket. If we talk about "my 2K" or about $2,000 a year in tax increases, roughly 2% tax rate increase. Poor pays $60 more per month off of $1,800 and takes a HUGE hit. The increase may be the same across the board. But since the cost of living and inflation have raised prices while wages have remain stagnant, the poorer you are, the more every dollar counts. A 2% hike to someone earning $35,000 per year means food. A 2% hike to Mr./Mrs. Wealthy and Rich doesn't mean as much. When you earn more to where taxes are a financial number and don't equate to lifestyle, but "extras" - that's what we're talking about. What is so wrong with? Poor pays no more per month off of $1,800. Oh and... Mr./Mrs. Ultra-Rich who earns dividends and interest on $200 million, pulls in $4 million a year from that and only pays 15% taxes... Now that's just robbery! I WISH I were in the top 2% and could afford to pay an extra $250-$1,000 more per month in taxes! And yes, if that were me, I would want and demand my government to be efficient with my money and demand that they reduce spending as well. If my government wants me to pay more to pay down the deficit to benefit my children's future, than yes, I would demand that it actually pay down the deficit and not be used to prop up current spending levels. That side of the argument was and remains valid IMHO.
i wish the bottom x% could afford to pay $60 more per month. if $60 means that i go from a ham sammich to a balogna sammich as a "poor" person in your example, or if it means i go from a 7-course meal to a 5-course meal as a "rich" person in your example....the second that the goverment dictates what my dollars mean to me is the instant that his country falls off a cliff. i truely don't understand how anyone can follow the kind of class mentality this goverment is trying to create. regarding a more recent post in this thread saying how someone making $250k and living paycheck to paycheck is rediculous...i agree. but i'd also argue that a person making $35k and living paycheck to paycheck is rediculous (having been there before). it's pretty simple in my mind...live within your means regardless of how much money you make. if you can't, find a way to make more/spend less/both. and if you still can't, you're not trying hard enough. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK