Jump to content

Who do you want to be elected U.S. president?


  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

Poll: 2012 (62 member(s) have cast votes)

Who do you want to be elected U.S. president?

  1. Newt Gingrich (1 votes [1.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.61%

  2. Barack Obama (31 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  3. Ron Paul (19 votes [30.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.65%

  4. Mitt Romney (1 votes [1.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.61%

  5. Rick Santorum (2 votes [3.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.23%

  6. Other (8 votes [12.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.90%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#151
jamison

jamison

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Supports:New York

Not really. I'm on 25k a year, in ny, supporting a kid. I'm poor. I don't buy shit. My dad is on 250k a year and he seems to buy a lot. Therefore, he pays more than I do. The more disposable income you have, the more you buy.

I think the problem with a lot of the socialists on here is they want this super high quality rich life on 20k a year, all on the backs of those that more. You can have social programs, without killing off the middle class and upper middle class.


Do you really want to base the tax system of the entire country on "he seems to buy a lot"? Two high earning $ 250k people: One guy buys a lot & pays a lot, it works. One guy doesn't buy all that much & pays very little, it doesn't. You'd be encouraging people who make a lot of money not to spend it, hardly good for the economy.

If you want to do a "flat" tax for the supposed reason of making it "fair", doing it on income would tax you at 20% with you paying $ 5k in taxes & your father at 20% paying $ 50k. That way it's about higher tax revenues on higher incomes, not higher rates. Each pays 20%, but he pays more because he has more, you pay less because you have less. With you being on a limited income, you mentioned not buying shit- when compared to your father- but with a kid on $ 25k in the city....you likely spend every dollar that you do make. If you tax spending only, you're taxed on all of those dollars. Unless your dad also spends every last dollar he makes, he's only taxed on some of his money.

You mentioned it is hard enough to make ends meet as it is. Is it really fair to tax you on all of your money, and to tax a rich guy on only some of his? That's what you're advocating. I'm not a huge flat tax person, but if you do it, it has to be on incomes, not on spending.

BTW, I'm not a socialist, I don't expect a super high quality rich life, I make more than $ 20k a year, and I know that if I want a super high quality rich life, I have to earn it myself, not by sitting around waiting for a gov't program to give it to me. So, I'm not sure who you were directing that at, but, it's not me.

And, for the record, I consider it a very nice trick of the Republican party to convince someone earning $ 25k a year that keeping his taxes lower while raising taxes on people earning $ 250k is "unfair", to the rich guy.

 


#152
C'Mon U.S.!

C'Mon U.S.!

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Supports:West Ham, USMNT

Do you really want to base the tax system of the entire country on "he seems to buy a lot"? Two high earning $ 250k people: One guy buys a lot & pays a lot, it works. One guy doesn't buy all that much & pays very little, it doesn't. You'd be encouraging people who make a lot of money not to spend it, hardly good for the economy.

If you want to do a "flat" tax for the supposed reason of making it "fair", doing it on income would tax you at 20% with you paying $ 5k in taxes & your father at 20% paying $ 50k. That way it's about higher tax revenues on higher incomes, not higher rates. Each pays 20%, but he pays more because he has more, you pay less because you have less. With you being on a limited income, you mentioned not buying shit- when compared to your father- but with a kid on $ 25k in the city....you likely spend every dollar that you do make. If you tax spending only, you're taxed on all of those dollars. Unless your dad also spends every last dollar he makes, he's only taxed on some of his money.

You mentioned it is hard enough to make ends meet as it is. Is it really fair to tax you on all of your money, and to tax a rich guy on only some of his? That's what you're advocating. I'm not a huge flat tax person, but if you do it, it has to be on incomes, not on spending.

BTW, I'm not a socialist, I don't expect a super high quality rich life, I make more than $ 20k a year, and I know that if I want a super high quality rich life, I have to earn it myself, not by sitting around waiting for a gov't program to give it to me. So, I'm not sure who you were directing that at, but, it's not me.

And, for the record, I consider it a very nice trick of the Republican party to convince someone earning $ 25k a year that keeping his taxes lower while raising taxes on people earning $ 250k is "unfair", to the rich guy.


That's nice and all, but here's the problem with taxing the income.

49% of the current population doesn't doesn't pay income tax so why should me, working, get taxes taken out to pay for those that are working and not paying taxes?

How do you plan to tax the 49% that use the system but don't pay into it?

And another problem, even if you raise taxes, the same tax loop holes still exist.


I would like to know one thing, what constitutes "rich"? This should be good since its a good ploy by the dems.
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo!
we are those bastards in claret and blue!

#153
GMoney

GMoney

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls

That's nice and all, but here's the problem with taxing the income.

49% of the current population doesn't doesn't pay income tax so why should me, working, get taxes taken out to pay for those that are working and not paying taxes?

How do you plan to tax the 49% that use the system but don't pay into it?


C'mon US!, thanks for laying out a plan. I don't agree with it but it was entertaining read. It's a lot easier to judge other people's idea's rather than coming up with your own.

Few comments:

1. Your Dad makes $250K a year. Please have a talk with him to see if he can help you. I hope that works out for you.
2. 61% of non tax paying American's live below the poverty line, that's why they don't pay taxes.
3. I believe you said you earn $25K a year (not like Jamison who makes $150K a year, :cool: ). You also have a child. I don't want to pry into your specific information around living situation, etc. but you're pretty close to the poverty line. Last I recall it was around $22K a year with a child. You might want to talk to a tax attorney to see if there's any relief available for you and your family. More than any policies on this board, most important is you and your family.
4. I believe taxing spend will disincent people who has discretionary income from spending it which will hurt the economy.

Again, thanks for putting some ideas on the table. Good luck to you and your family. 1st beer at Pastor is on me. :pint:

The New York Red Bulls previously kicked around Major League Soccer as the MetroStars with limited success. But after transforming under a new banner in 2005, the Red Bulls have become a force to be reckoned with in the Eastern Conference. The club has made leaps of progress since its previous incarnation and now has its focus on bringing the league title to New York. Grab your New York Red Bulls soccer jersey and other gear here at MLSGear.com.


#154
jamison

jamison

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Supports:New York

That's nice and all, but here's the problem with taxing the income.

49% of the current population doesn't doesn't pay income tax so why should me, working, get taxes taken out to pay for those that are working and not paying taxes?

How do you plan to tax the 49% that use the system but don't pay into it?

And another problem, even if you raise taxes, the same tax loop holes still exist.

I would like to know one thing, what constitutes "rich"? This should be good since its a good ploy by the dems.


I read somewhere that if you make 34k/yr you're in the top 1% of global income earners, because there are tons of poor people out there, but, just to answer your question, I'd refer to anyone making over $ 1m/year as "rich", i'd refer to anyone making > $500k as "wealthy" in some respect, anyone making > $ 100k as "doing well", anyone from $ 40k to $ 100k as middle income, and anyone below that as lower income.

I know right wing radio is a big fan of the whole "50% of the country doesn't pay income taxes" gag, but, among other things, it's hilariously untrue. And, by the way, if you truly make $ 25k, you are one of the people you are complaining about. There is an individual income tax that kicks in at $ 40k a year. Anyone under that doesn't pay it, anyone over that does. THAT'S the 50% of people not paying taxes that people are referring to. You, as you rightly note, pay a payroll tax. At $ 25k, you do not pay a individual income tax on top of that.

Just to put some data to the notion of 50% of the country not paying Federal Income Taxes, note that it refers to only 1 of the 4 taxes that an individual can generally pay. You should ask whoever told you that 50% of the country doesn't pay income taxes why they left that out, and what their motives are.

Posted Image

As illustrated below, even those making < $ 10,000, with a negative individual income tax (those getting an income tax refund) have an average effective tax rate of 9.3% in payroll taxes on the money they make. It is a tax on income, just that the Federal Government breaks income taxes into two buckets; one of which is called individual income tax and generally gets funded around $ 40k/year and one called payroll taxes which gets funded on every dollar that each person makes.

Even those making under $ 10k/year have an effective federal tax rate of 5.3% when you combine all of their taxes. That federal tax rate comes out of the income they make and is a tax on their income, just that they don’t pay the additional federal individual income tax until they make north of around $ 40k. With half of the country falling at or below that level (roughly $ 40k), they still pay 1 of the 2 taxes on income, just not both. A guy making $ 10,000 is still paying $ 530 in federal taxes on that $ 10,000 in income.

There are perfectly valid arguments for tax reform that many of us would agree with (me included), but know that as long as someone earns a dollar, that dollar gets taxed and we do all have some skin in the game; admittedly, some more than others.

Posted Image

http://www.taxpolicy...istribution.cfm

Current-Law Distribution of Taxes

• Fiscal year 2009 federal revenues will come from four major sources: individual income tax (44 percent), corporate income tax (7 percent), payroll taxes (42 percent), and excise taxes (3 percent). Estate and gift taxes, customs duties, Federal Reserve earnings/losses, and miscellaneous receipts will account for 4 percent.
Source: Budget of the United States, Historical Tables

• Overall federal taxes are progressive; that is, the effective tax rate rises as income grows. In 2009, the average combined rate of federal income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes will be -0.9 percent for the lowest quintile (or fifth) of the income distribution, 13.4 percent for the middle quintile, and 22.9 percent for the highest quintile.
Source: Tax Policy Center Table T09-0357.

• The individual income tax is highly progressive: in 2009, the lowest quintile will face an average rate of -10.2 percent while the top quintile pays 13.4 percent. In contrast, the payroll tax is regressive (the effective rate falls as income rises): the lowest quintile will pay an average of 8.8 percent but the top quintile pays 6.6 percent and the top 1 percent pays just under 2 percent.
Source: Tax Policy Center Table T09-0357.

 


#155
C'Mon U.S.!

C'Mon U.S.!

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Supports:West Ham, USMNT

C'mon US!, thanks for laying out a plan. I don't agree with it but it was entertaining read. It's a lot easier to judge other people's idea's rather than coming up with your own.

Few comments:

1. Your Dad makes $250K a year. Please have a talk with him to see if he can help you. I hope that works out for you.
2. 61% of non tax paying American's live below the poverty line, that's why they don't pay taxes.
3. I believe you said you earn $25K a year (not like Jamison who makes $150K a year, :cool: ). You also have a child. I don't want to pry into your specific information around living situation, etc. but you're pretty close to the poverty line. Last I recall it was around $22K a year with a child. You might want to talk to a tax attorney to see if there's any relief available for you and your family. More than any policies on this board, most important is you and your family.
4. I believe taxing spend will disincent people who has discretionary income from spending it which will hurt the economy.

Again, thanks for putting some ideas on the table. Good luck to you and your family. 1st beer at Pastor is on me. :pint:



Thanks! :cheers: I'd take you up on the offer but chances are I'm too broke to trek out to jersey from long island! Lol
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo!
we are those bastards in claret and blue!

#156
C'Mon U.S.!

C'Mon U.S.!

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Supports:West Ham, USMNT

I read somewhere that if you make 34k/yr you're in the top 1% of global income earners, because there are tons of poor people out there, but, just to answer your question, I'd refer to anyone making over $ 1m/year as "rich", i'd refer to anyone making > $500k as "wealthy" in some respect, anyone making > $ 100k as "doing well", anyone from $ 40k to $ 100k as middle income, and anyone below that as lower income.

I know right wing radio is a big fan of the whole "50% of the country doesn't pay income taxes" gag, but, among other things, it's hilariously untrue. And, by the way, if you truly make $ 25k, you are one of the people you are complaining about. There is an individual income tax that kicks in at $ 40k a year. Anyone under that doesn't pay it, anyone over that does. THAT'S the 50% of people not paying taxes that people are referring to. You, as you rightly note, pay a payroll tax. At $ 25k, you do not pay a individual income tax on top of that.

Just to put some data to the notion of 50% of the country not paying Federal Income Taxes, note that it refers to only 1 of the 4 taxes that an individual can generally pay. You should ask whoever told you that 50% of the country doesn't pay income taxes why they left that out, and what their motives are.

Posted Image

As illustrated below, even those making < $ 10,000, with a negative individual income tax (those getting an income tax refund) have an average effective tax rate of 9.3% in payroll taxes on the money they make. It is a tax on income, just that the Federal Government breaks income taxes into two buckets; one of which is called individual income tax and generally gets funded around $ 40k/year and one called payroll taxes which gets funded on every dollar that each person makes.

Even those making under $ 10k/year have an effective federal tax rate of 5.3% when you combine all of their taxes. That federal tax rate comes out of the income they make and is a tax on their income, just that they don’t pay the additional federal individual income tax until they make north of around $ 40k. With half of the country falling at or below that level (roughly $ 40k), they still pay 1 of the 2 taxes on income, just not both. A guy making $ 10,000 is still paying $ 530 in federal taxes on that $ 10,000 in income.

There are perfectly valid arguments for tax reform that many of us would agree with (me included), but know that as long as someone earns a dollar, that dollar gets taxed and we do all have some skin in the game; admittedly, some more than others.

Posted Image

http://www.taxpolicy...istribution.cfm

Current-Law Distribution of Taxes

• Fiscal year 2009 federal revenues will come from four major sources: individual income tax (44 percent), corporate income tax (7 percent), payroll taxes (42 percent), and excise taxes (3 percent). Estate and gift taxes, customs duties, Federal Reserve earnings/losses, and miscellaneous receipts will account for 4 percent.
Source: Budget of the United States, Historical Tables

• Overall federal taxes are progressive; that is, the effective tax rate rises as income grows. In 2009, the average combined rate of federal income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes will be -0.9 percent for the lowest quintile (or fifth) of the income distribution, 13.4 percent for the middle quintile, and 22.9 percent for the highest quintile.
Source: Tax Policy Center Table T09-0357.

• The individual income tax is highly progressive: in 2009, the lowest quintile will face an average rate of -10.2 percent while the top quintile pays 13.4 percent. In contrast, the payroll tax is regressive (the effective rate falls as income rises): the lowest quintile will pay an average of 8.8 percent but the top quintile pays 6.6 percent and the top 1 percent pays just under 2 percent.
Source: Tax Policy Center Table T09-0357.


I'll have to get back to you on a Por this when I'm back at my computer as its hard on my cell.


Although, you claim rich to be more than 1million a year so they should be taxed at a different rate than those at 500,000 which you consider wealthy. What your standards are surely aren't what the dems think.

Suppose I made 999,990.00? I guess I shouldn't grow my business anymore because I'll pay higher taxes compared to if I made 1,000,001.00. So according to you, that $11 difference between being "rich" and being "wealthy"?


As to your numbers on what constitutes what class you're in. Under 40k being poor...you're judging by ny/nj standards. 40k in Tennessee isn't that bad at all.
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo!
we are those bastards in claret and blue!

#157
GMoney

GMoney

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls

I read somewhere that if you make 34k/yr you're in the top 1% of global income earners, because there are tons of poor people out there, but, just to answer your question, I'd refer to anyone making over $ 1m/year as "rich", i'd refer to anyone making > $500k as "wealthy" in some respect, anyone making > $ 100k as "doing well", anyone from $ 40k to $ 100k as middle income, and anyone below that as lower income.


I guess "what is rich" is a bit subjective. I never thought much about this until the past few months and have done a ton of research on it. Most folks consider "rich" not just by annual income but weighted more towards assets and net worth. But I'll go along with earnings for a moment.

A few cool facts that I learned is that out of reported tax payers, household income above $350K a year is in the top 1% of household income's in the United States. If you factor in folks who don't pay taxes because they're near or under the poverty line, household income for the top 1% of earners drops. I didn't know that before I started doing research and found it interesting.

Also, a Gallup poll in 2011 suveyed American's on their opinions on how much they had to earn to be rich. American's said they'd need to earn $150K a year to consider themselves rich. I also found this interesting.

I think you make a lot more than other's on this board and objectively, your point of view might be a little skewed. An American making $90K a year is not middle income. They are within the the top 5%-8% of top earners in the country, I don't think anyone believes that's middle income.

Now I don't begrudge your fortune and wealth, I'm quite happy for you. I'm sure you've worked very hard for everything you have. And if you did get help or inherit your fortune I'm happy for you too.

I don't begrudge anyone for what they have, I love to see people doing well. The only thing I would ask for you is.....a job! Just like Napolean Dynamite, I have skills.

:cheers:

The New York Red Bulls previously kicked around Major League Soccer as the MetroStars with limited success. But after transforming under a new banner in 2005, the Red Bulls have become a force to be reckoned with in the Eastern Conference. The club has made leaps of progress since its previous incarnation and now has its focus on bringing the league title to New York. Grab your New York Red Bulls soccer jersey and other gear here at MLSGear.com.


#158
JayDelight729

JayDelight729

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,017 posts
  • Location:The Old El Pastor Parking Lot
  • Supports:Metro
We can talk about %'s all day, but a tax on what you spend is on exactly that... what you spend.

If you prefer to save it, I'm of the belief you should be able to keep all of it.

If you want to spend it, well then you should be taxed on it.

My idea is more about necessity vs luxury.

"Obviously, I want to make a living (in soccer), to say the least," he said. "There's so much you can accomplish in the soccer world, and right now I'm focused on having a good season with the Red Bulls. Ultimately, our goal is to win the MLS Cup, and I see no reason why we can't." - #4 Tyler Adams


#159
C'Mon U.S.!

C'Mon U.S.!

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Supports:West Ham, USMNT

We can talk about %'s all day, but a tax on what you spend is on exactly that... what you spend.

If you prefer to save it, I'm of the belief you should be able to keep all of it.

If you want to spend it, well then you should be taxed on it.

My idea is more about necessity vs luxury.



Exactly.
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo!
we are those bastards in claret and blue!

#160
irishapple21

irishapple21

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,911 posts

Suppose I made 999,990.00? I guess I shouldn't grow my business anymore because I'll pay higher taxes compared to if I made 1,000,001.00. So according to you, that $11 difference between being "rich" and being "wealthy"?


That's not really how the tax brackets work. If you made a $1,000,001.00 as opposed to $999,990.00, you'd only be taxed at the higher bracket for the amount that is above $1 million. All your income up to that point is taxed at the lower bracket amounts. That's why it isn't a penalty to be given a raise that increases your income into a new tax bracket. Otherwise, people would be turning raises down left and right.

#161
jamison

jamison

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Supports:New York

Although, you claim rich to be more than 1million a year so they should be taxed at a different rate than those at 500,000 which you consider wealthy. What your standards are surely aren't what the dems think.


First of all, you wondered what the opinion of "rich" was. So, my response is just a personal opinion. When I'm thinking "rich", I'm thinking like using NetJets instead of the airport, etc, and yes, I'd ideally be including assets & net worth on this, but we were only talking income. When I go to a Yankee game & sit in $ 50 a game seats (once a year), I see Jeter making $ 20m+ a year (from the Yankees alone, probably $ 30m+ with endorsements. He, is rich. I, am just a dude paying way too much for a seat in the Mezz.

Second, the statement about what my standards are vs. what dems think...I really am not sure what you are talking about or what "dems" think has to do with anything. You mentioned that half the country paid no income tax, which I proved to you was false & you replied by bringing up what democrats think rich is. Not sure what the two have in common.

If I tend to be somewhat liberal, so be it, but the idea that whatever you think it is that "they" think doesn't mean it is what I have to think because you believe I share that label. It's not a black & white world, if we are going to have an honest discussion, let's deal with our own personal opinions & discuss them rationally, not by telling me what I'm supposed to think because of whatever bucket you think I'm supposed to be in. You asking me one question, me giving you an answer and you saying "That's not what other people think" is...well, not going to move the ball forward on this discussion, anyway.

Suppose I made 999,990.00? I guess I shouldn't grow my business anymore because I'll pay higher taxes compared to if I made 1,000,001.00. So according to you, that $11 difference between being "rich" and being "wealthy"?


Again, you were asking for a general question, and I gave a somewhat general answer. You trying to then throw $ 11 around to "prove" some argument about a border is just being silly. Nowhere did I make an argument about these as being hard & fast cutoffs, was just stating general numbers. Additionally, nowhere did I imply that those labels meant anything, other than just general labels for how well off people are.

As to your numbers on what constitutes what class you're in. Under 40k being poor...you're judging by ny/nj standards. 40k in Tennessee isn't that bad at all.


And, again, first you are talking about $ 25k in NY, and then saying $ 40k in TN isn't bad. No, surely not, but, that's 100% not the argument anyone was making. I realize you are on a cell and all but, let's either keep this apples vs. apples, or just stop talking. No point having a friendly discussion if you are going to keep moving goal posts on points I'm not making just to supply an answer.

 


#162
jamison

jamison

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,506 posts
  • Supports:New York

I guess "what is rich" is a bit subjective.


Of course.

One of my favorite stories on income & context was in the 1980s, Russia wanted to show that the East was better than the West. They did a PBS-style documentary about poor people in the US, and showed a poor family in Appalachia watching TV, as an example of how in a capitalist country poor people get left behind. They showed the documentary in Russia, and then Russian people were asked what they thought. Their reply: In America, even poor people own a TV. Most in Russia did not.

Not a shining moment for the communist movement.

As for me: I grew up bouncing between middle class & upper middle class as a kid. There were days when I lived in a 28 room house (Stepfathers money, not ours). There were days where my mom & I shared a 1 bedroom apartment. I remember my mom being (albeit temporarily) on food stamps. I also remember her owning a $ 5k fur coat. Shit was up & down, but mostly in the middle. I remember being 10 and getting $ 2 for lunch, and one day my mom gave me $ 3 by accident and (knowing money was tight), I was like 'Yo, I got extra money! I was conflicted about whether to give it back, or be a 10 year old kid & spend it. It was one dollar. So, if calling me wealthy makes anyone feel better, okay, but, I'm sure there are a number of people on here who grew up in much more comfortable surroundings than I did. Not to mention the last 8 years I spent living in the Bronx, which, if I had a fortune & was wealthy, I would have given up for midtown.

Additionally, I'm not sure why you are trying to channel my 1040s, don't think I've ever posted my income, nor do I talk about, but anyway, my thoughts on people with more money paying more in taxes comes from knowing a co-worker who has a net worth of $ 300 million dollars, and another co-worker making due on $ 45k with 3 kids. I don't factor my personal income into "fairness", if it is fair for all Americans, I'll pay whatever is fair for me to pay. Romney is (among others) rich & trying to lower his taxes; I'm neither.

Also, a Gallup poll in 2011 suveyed American's on their opinions on how much they had to earn to be rich. American's said they'd need to earn $150K a year to consider themselves rich.


That's just dumb...do you know how much good Caviar costs nowadays?

(totally kidding).

I think you make a lot more than other's on this board and objectively, your point of view might be a little skewed. An American making $90K a year is not middle income. They are within the the top 5%-8% of top earners in the country, I don't think anyone believes that's middle income.


Trying working in Fairfield County, surrounded by co-workers in $ 750k houses. (I am not in one). That- if anything- is the skew, not my paycheck.

In 1st grade, I knew a kid whose family straight up lived in the Plaza hotel. In 5th grade, I knew another kid from Harlem who was borderline homeless. In NYC public schools, these are your classmates. I generally grew up in NYC. NYC's average salary nowadays is $ 80k. I think the national average is like $ 42k (see http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/AWI.html), so, clearly there's some regional variation there, but, again, I was speaking in pretty broad strokes there; the gap I left between $ 45k & $ 98k was more about not having 17 different levels than about me creating a new tax system based on those cut-offs.

Now I don't begrudge your fortune and wealth, I'm quite happy for you. I'm sure you've worked very hard for everything you have. And if you did get help or inherit your fortune I'm happy for you too.


I have neither fortune nor wealth, but thanks anyway. I'm not starving over here, clearly, but, I'm not Scrooge McDuck. I did not inherit anything, and since about 17 have given my mother quite a bit more than she's given me.

The only thing I would ask for you is.....a job! Just like Napolean Dynamite, I have skills.


If I could in anyway help you get a job, I would. I know companies that are hiring, feel free to pull me aside @ El Pastor (I'll buy YOU a beer). And, if you can code in Java or write mobile Apps in objective C, I'll buy you way more than 1 beer.

We can talk about %'s all day, but a tax on what you spend is on exactly that... what you spend.

If you prefer to save it, I'm of the belief you should be able to keep all of it.

If you want to spend it, well then you should be taxed on it.

My idea is more about necessity vs luxury.


I respect your opinion, but I disagree. You say 'prefer to save'...some people don't have a choice, bro. I know a guy who cashed out $ 60m or so in stock & retired at 45. He is someone with a choice whether to save or not, whether to spend or not. I know another person working past 65, who spent every penny she made and has $ 0 saved for retirement. She wasn't earning enough to choose to save, and removing the relative tax break she gets (under a progressive income tax) for making $ 50k a year only to tax her spending at the same rate you tax someone making $ 500k a year, would add to her taxes and therefore would lower her buying power.

If that is fair to you, you have a right to that opinion, but it does not seem fair to me. Just my opinion.

 


#163
GMoney

GMoney

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,118 posts
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls

I have neither fortune nor wealth, but thanks anyway. I'm not starving over here, clearly, but, I'm not Scrooge McDuck. I did not inherit anything, and since about 17 have given my mother quite a bit more than she's given me.

If I could in anyway help you get a job, I would. I know companies that are hiring, feel free to pull me aside @ El Pastor (I'll buy YOU a beer). And, if you can code in Java or write mobile Apps in objective C, I'll buy you way more than 1 beer.


I am not inquiring into your tax return. Just trying to have fun on an otherwise tense subject at times. I hope things are really good for your Mom.

I am generally a happy person and I love to see people doing well. Sounds like you're doing well and that's fantastic. I was born and grew up in NY too and it's easy to focus on what you don't have. I'm grateful for everything I do have.

It's really hard out there but the part about my country that I love the best is, anyone can do it. Everyone has the opportunity to live as they want. Try and make a million a year or not focus on work as much and maybe enjoy a better quality of life. Not every country allows that opportunity. But don't want to get toooooo off topic.

When I said I wanted to work for you, I was fantasizing that you were like Joe Francis from Girls Gone Wild and I could fly around on your private Jet and be a "talent coordinator." Oh well, dream shattered. I can't write code in Java and if I could, I'd probably be unhappy. Fortunately, I consider myself one of the lucky one's and things are good. I'll still split a pitcher with you at Pastor though.

The New York Red Bulls previously kicked around Major League Soccer as the MetroStars with limited success. But after transforming under a new banner in 2005, the Red Bulls have become a force to be reckoned with in the Eastern Conference. The club has made leaps of progress since its previous incarnation and now has its focus on bringing the league title to New York. Grab your New York Red Bulls soccer jersey and other gear here at MLSGear.com.


#164
C'Mon U.S.!

C'Mon U.S.!

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Supports:West Ham, USMNT

First of all, you wondered what the opinion of "rich" was. So, my response is just a personal opinion. When I'm thinking "rich", I'm thinking like using NetJets instead of the airport, etc, and yes, I'd ideally be including assets & net worth on this, but we were only talking income. When I go to a Yankee game & sit in $ 50 a game seats (once a year), I see Jeter making $ 20m+ a year (from the Yankees alone, probably $ 30m+ with endorsements. He, is rich. I, am just a dude paying way too much for a seat in the Mezz.



Second, the statement about what my standards are vs. what dems think...I really am not sure what you are talking about or what "dems" think has to do with anything. You mentioned that half the country paid no income tax, which I proved to you was false & you replied by bringing up what democrats think rich is. Not sure what the two have in common.


Yea, but my point is, the definition of rich changes from person to person, and you're leaving the descion to judge who's rich, up to "rich" people.

If I tend to be somewhat liberal, so be it, but the idea that whatever you think it is that "they" think doesn't mean it is what I have to think because you believe I share that label. It's not a black & white world, if we are going to have an honest discussion, let's deal with our own personal opinions & discuss them rationally, not by telling me what I'm supposed to think because of whatever bucket you think I'm supposed to be in. You asking me one question, me giving you an answer and you saying "That's not what other people think" is...well, not going to move the ball forward on this discussion, anyway.


assuming that you vote democrat, you're voting for people that obviously don't share the same ideologies on who's "rich". Their evaluation seems to be much lower (250K according to obama).



Again, you were asking for a general question, and I gave a somewhat general answer. You trying to then throw $ 11 around to "prove" some argument about a border is just being silly. Nowhere did I make an argument about these as being hard & fast cutoffs, was just stating general numbers. Additionally, nowhere did I imply that those labels meant anything, other than just general labels for how well off people are.


my point is this; you can't use any specific amount of income to tax people. for the exact reason i stated. What do they do then? Say well if you make within 11,000 of the next tax bracket you have to pay that higher tax brackets income tax. So then I'll just make 11,001 under that bracket. Now the higher tax bracket is getting lower, and lower and lower and lower as people use ways to avoid making that amount in order to avoid the higher tax. Next thing you know, the middle class is paying the same as the "rich".

Follow what im saying with that?



And, again, first you are talking about $ 25k in NY, and then saying $ 40k in TN isn't bad. No, surely not, but, that's 100% not the argument anyone was making. I realize you are on a cell and all but, let's either keep this apples vs. apples, or just stop talking. No point having a friendly discussion if you are going to keep moving goal posts on points I'm not making just to supply an answer.


that's why raising the taxes on the "rich" across the board doesn't work. the cost of living varies greatly across the country.
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo!
we are those bastards in claret and blue!

#165
C'Mon U.S.!

C'Mon U.S.!

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Location:NY
  • Supports:West Ham, USMNT

That's not really how the tax brackets work. If you made a $1,000,001.00 as opposed to $999,990.00, you'd only be taxed at the higher bracket for the amount that is above $1 million. All your income up to that point is taxed at the lower bracket amounts. That's why it isn't a penalty to be given a raise that increases your income into a new tax bracket. Otherwise, people would be turning raises down left and right.



ok, so i lay people off and make the rest work harder so i can recoup lost money in taxes...adding to the unemployment.
COME ON YOU IRONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo!
we are those bastards in claret and blue!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users